PDA

View Full Version : TWF and flurry of blows?....



DownwardSpiral
2008-04-14, 10:03 PM
Hey guys.

As a monk, could you use your two hands, or arms, or whatever, in your flurry of blows routine? Or is it one of the other? I read somewhere around here that you can TWF unarmed strikes, but maybe I misread. Anyways, could you use two unarmed strikes with flurry of blows?

Bauglir
2008-04-14, 10:10 PM
You have only one unarmed strike, so no. Alternatively, the Monk's Flurry of Blows states that there is no such thing as an offhand attack for a Monk using an unarmed strike, and so they cannot possibly TWF (since that necessitates using an offhand). So, again, no, you could not. Although the second version kinda shafts the Monk, since it implies that everyone ELSE can TWF with their unarmed strikes, while the first precludes anybody from doing it.

Mind you, it probably wouldn't break the monk to allow it.

tyckspoon
2008-04-14, 10:23 PM
According to the FAQ, yes, you can combine Flurry and TWF. You just stack all the penalties for doing so, so a first level Monk making a Flurrying, TWF attack (assuming TWF feat) would strike at -4/-4/-4, with the third attack only doing half Strength bonus as normal for an off-hand attack. The statements regarding a Monk's off-hand (or lack of) and his whole body being a weapon just mean it doesn't matter whether or not his hands are full- he can still make unarmed strikes. If it helps, think of it as similar to people using armor spikes as a secondary weapon; they're not worn on the hands, but they're still treated as an off-hand weapon for TWF purposes.

fireinthedust
2008-04-14, 10:32 PM
It's off-hand and not allowed? That's not true. Ambidexterity, the feat, means there's no penalties for off-hand attacks.

If a Monk is ambidexterous, that means they don't *have* an off-hand. Which means twf is fair game. Either that or TWF specialists are screwed if they get rid of penalties to off-hand attacks.

Check out the SRD under twf (combat section): Unarmed strikes are always considered light weapons. Ergo twf. Also, the quarterstaff is considered a two-handed weapon for flurry.

the question is whether the DM differs on whether TWF and Flurry are both special maneuvers; like can you TWF while Grappling.

I'd say TWF is *not* a special move, like Flurry or Grappling (you can't flurry-grapple). It's just regular attacks with penalties for two weapons. That said, you'd just add on that one (or two) attack(s). Flurry is only one-handed, and I don't think you can Power Attack with a Flurry (though maybe).

Which means that an average DR/- opponent at higher levels will be able to ignore most of the Monk's damage (to a certain extent). So more attacks won't be as effective as power attack ones could be. So it wouldn't necessarily be unbalanced.

Starbuck_II
2008-04-14, 10:44 PM
Hey guys.

As a monk, could you use your two hands, or arms, or whatever, in your flurry of blows routine? Or is it one of the other? I read somewhere around here that you can TWF unarmed strikes, but maybe I misread. Anyways, could you use two unarmed strikes with flurry of blows?

In the FAQ they said you can combine TWFING and Flurry. Some people don't like this idea but they can.

Bauglir
2008-04-14, 11:21 PM
Ambidexterity, the feat, means there's no penalties for off-hand attacks.

Such a feat has not existed since 3.0.


Unarmed strikes are always considered light weapons. Ergo twf.

All that being a light weapon means is that, if used in the off-hand (say you're wielding a Kama in the main), you incur the normal TWF penalties as though you were using a light weapon in the off hand. Simply having a light weapon does not entitle you to use it in a TWF style. Note that natural attacks, also considered light weapons, cannot be used in that manner.


like can you TWF while Grappling.

Actually, you can't. Your number of grapple attempts is based on your BAB, not your number of attacks. Note that monsters don't get additional grapple attempts based on natural attacks. The PHB also calls out that you cannot use two weapons while grappled.


I'd say TWF is *not* a special move, like Flurry or Grappling (you can't flurry-grapple). It's just regular attacks with penalties for two weapons. That said, you'd just add on that one (or two) attack(s). Flurry is only one-handed, and I don't think you can Power Attack with a Flurry (though maybe).

Correct, it isn't a special move because it does not appear under the special combat section. However, as I mentioned above, neither is Flurry. You can actually Flurry while grappling, but you take a -4 penalty in addition to all the ordinary Flurry penalties. Flurry isn't specified to use a certain number of hands because you can use any body part, or any simultaneous number, such as both fists. Your unarmed strike, however, is a light weapon, not a one-handed weapon, and it is the thing that Flurry is applied to in this situation.

Pirate_King
2008-04-14, 11:31 PM
All that being a light weapon means is that, if used in the off-hand (say you're wielding a Kama in the main), you incur the normal TWF penalties as though you were using a light weapon in the off hand. Simply having a light weapon does not entitle you to use it in a TWF style. Note that natural attacks, also considered light weapons, cannot be used in that manner.


um, why not? If I've got 2 knives, I can attack with both taking a full-round action, why wouldn't it be the same with two fists? Especially if I've got improved unarmed strike to make it an actual weapon.

Bauglir
2008-04-14, 11:45 PM
Apparently the designers are of the impression that each person only has a single unarmed strike. I suppose I see the reason, since if the argument, "I have two fists" works, then you would logically need to add two feet, a head, a body slam, etc. Anything a player could say could be used to strike would add another attack to their routine. Besides, saying, "I have two fists" is bringing common sense into the rules, which can eventually lead to nonsensical situations such as "Now I make my Ponytail attack..." if carried out to their inevitable conclusions, and also make for nonstandard rules. Which aren't, themselves, bad, but make it difficult to compare things between games.

At any rate, the quoted section is simply me saying that a light weapon does not necessitate the ability to TWF with it, as shown by the fact that natural weapons have their own specific attack routine; you cannot use a natural weapon with any Two Weapon Fighting feats, you can only add it to an attack routine as a secondary natural attack (rapid strike lets you add more attacks, but it does not negate the fact that they still follow natural attack rules).

Finally, I'm too lazy to find the rule saying that you only have on unarmed strike. In fact, I'm not even sure it exists as such and may only be implicit. But in this particular situation, with the monk, the rules explicitly say that a monk has no Off-hand when using Flurry of Blows. No Off-hand means no TWF, since all TWF feats and mechanics reference your Off-hand and your Main hand. Even the Tempest PrC doesn't remove the distinction; it merely removes the penalties.

Dr Bwaa
2008-04-14, 11:58 PM
Honestly, when it comes down to it, the answer is "use common sense and ask your DM what power level you're looking at." For instance,


If it helps, think of it as similar to people using armor spikes as a secondary weapon; they're not worn on the hands, but they're still treated as an off-hand weapon for TWF purposes.

In a game where this is happening, people are optimizing. I have never had this happen in any game I have played in; it is a high-powered option that (correct me if I'm wrong) is normally used to cheese out an extra +5 to AC from using a Defending [Everything]. If this is the case --which is fine-- you shouldn't be playing a monk anyway =P and if you are, then TWF + FoB seems fine.

However, in a more low-powered, unoptimized game, stacking them doesn't make any sense to me. Why? Because FoB and Greater Flurry are TWF and GTWF, respectively, although FoB is slightly better (remains at highest BAB and eventually loses the -2/-2 penalty) because it's restricted to unarmed strikes and monk weapons. It seems obvious to me that the developers of the monk said "He needs a lot of attacks per round, but with unarmed strikes," and took TWF, gave it to the Monk under a different name, made it a little better, and called it a day. In this sense, adding TWF again is certainly not in the spirit of the thing. After all, it's not just an acronym. It's called "Two-Weapon Fighting." As in, your right and left fists (to keep it basic). If that's not what Flurry of Blows is meant to be, I don't know what is.

SUMMARY: TWF + FoB might be okay by RAW, but I certainly think not by RAI.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-04-15, 01:10 AM
Does no one use the forum search function?

We seriously need a FAQ. We get this thread more than once a week. This is even answered in the D&D FAQ (and they say yes).

So yes, yes, yes. You can TWF and flurry with unarmed strike. Both are just mechanics that give you extra attacks in exchange for a lower chance to hit. They're compatible and not particularly abusable.

Some people disagree, but the FAQ agrees. There's no reason you couldn't TWF with unarmed strike.

new1965
2008-04-15, 06:25 AM
I don't understand why theres a disagreement. Its in the description of Flurry of Blows

"She may attack with unarmed strikes and special monk weapons interchangeably as desired"

At level 8
"... or she could attack with one end of the quarterstaff and one unarmed strike at a +5 bonus for each and with the other end of the quarterstaff at a +0 attach bonus"
Both of those are examples of fighting with two weapons using flurry of blows: unarmed strikes, 2 ends of a staff, or a combinations of the above.

However it is NOT quite the same as the Two Weapon Fighting Feat

TWF lessens the penalties of using an offhand weapon and provides and extra attack action.
The TWF rules do not apply to flurry of blows as the the MONK doesn't HAVE an off hand to be concerned with the penalties while using unarmed strikes and monk weapons and flurry of blows provides the extra attacks.

Isnt that RAW and RAI?

Person_Man
2008-04-15, 09:18 AM
Yes, you can. Read the FAQ (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a):



Can a monk fight with two weapons? Can she combine a two-weapon attack with a flurry of blows? What are her penalties on attack rolls?

A monk can fight with two weapons just like any other character, but she must accept the normal penalties on her attack rolls to do so. She can use an unarmed strike as an offhand weapon. She can even combine two-weapon fighting with a flurry of blows to gain an extra attack with her off hand (but remember that she can use only unarmed strikes or special monk weapons as part of the flurry). The penalties for two weapon fighting stack with the penalties for flurry of blows.

For example, at 6th level, the monk Ember can normally make one attack per round at a +4 bonus. When using flurry of blows, she can make two attacks (using unarmed strikes or any special monk weapons she holds), each at a +3 bonus. If she wants to make an extra attack with her off hand, she has to accept a –4 penalty on her primary hand attacks and a –8 penalty on her off-hand attacks (assuming she wields a light weapon in her off hand).

If Ember has Two-Weapon Fighting, she has to accept only a –2 penalty on all attacks to make an extra attack with her off hand. Thus, when wielding a light weapon in her off hand during a flurry of blows, she can make a total of three attacks, each at a total bonus of +1. At least one of these attacks has to be with her off-hand weapon. A 20th-level monk with Greater Two-Weapon Fighting can make eight attacks per round during a flurry of blows.

Assuming she wields a light weapon in her off hand, her three off-hand weapon attacks are at +13/+8/+3, and she has five attacks (at 13/+13/+13/+8/+3) with unarmed strikes or any weapons she carries in her primary hand. If the same monk also has Rapid Shot and throws at least one shuriken as part of her flurry of blows (since Rapid Shot can be used only with ranged attacks), she can throw one additional shuriken with her primary hand, but all of her attacks (even melee attacks) suffer a –2 penalty. Thus, her full attack array looks like this: +11/+11/+11/+11/+6/+1 primary hand (two must be with shuriken) and +11/+6/+1 off hand.

It's a very bad tactic if you're just going to make normal melee attacks, because your To-Hit will be so low. It's an excellent tactic if you're going to be making touch attacks (Master Thrower, Fire Lash, Flame Blade, Wraithstrike, etc) and/or if your enemy has no Dex bonus (Flat Footed, Stunned, Greater Invisibility, etc).

hamishspence
2008-04-15, 09:32 AM
ponytail attack....

There is an exotic weapon for that: braid blaidblade, can be used as a regular weapon, leaving both hands free, or as an extra attack in a full attack, with -5 to attack roll, unless you have 5 ranks Tumble (-2 to attack). Penalty is only with the blade, not rest of your weapons. It also grants +2 circumstance bonus to all bluff checks made to feint oppenent in combat.

Braid Blade(Light exotic weapon) cost 10gp, d3 damage (d2 for small characters) 18/20/*2 critical, 1/2 lb, slashing.

Was in an adventure in Dungeon 120.

Bauglir
2008-04-15, 10:31 AM
Yeah, I seem to recall the braid blade coming up on the CharOp forums because there's no cap on how many you can have, so you get an arbitrary number of attacks, even if they start sucking really fast (you'll still hit on a 20!). At any rate, my point is that, if I'm wrong, the Monk could do it WITHOUT the blade.

With all due respect, I think the FAQ is wrong on this point. A Monk has no offhand to attack WITH while TWFing. And if you're going to let a Monk TWF with their other fist, why not let them MWF with their feet and head?

Pirate_King
2008-04-15, 11:15 AM
I understand what you mean when you bring up legs, too. Even the unarmed strike in the equipment chapter isn't explicitly stated as fist, it could be a knee or elbow or foot. My reasoning for unarmed TWF is stated above with the two fists vs two knives in my mind is synonymous with a fist and a leg, a leg and a knee, any reasonable two-hit combo one could reasonably do when unarmed.


"I have two fists" works, then you would logically need to add two feet, a head, a body slam, etc. Anything a player could say could be used to strike would add another attack to their routine.

The bolded scenario is what I imagine happening with flurry of blows, monks' special training allows them to take advantage of openings with whatever body part is ready to strike. Also why they don't get an individual attack with each limb, it's just whatever they can use in the circumstance.

Just a couple slightly irrelevant things:

As a DM I probably wouldn't allow TWF with unarmed strikes without the improved unarmed strike feat.

Sometimes, when reading through this, I get the feeling that people think fighting with two weapons in itself is a feat, when TWF just lowers the penalties of the option.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-04-15, 12:58 PM
I suppose I see the reason, since if the argument, "I have two fists" works, then you would logically need to add two feet, a head, a body slam, etc. Anything a player could say could be used to strike would add another attack to their routine.

I don't see where you're getting this.

TWF gives you one extra attack. Not two or more extra attacks, even if you're holding seven weapons. That's why there's Multiweapon Fighting.

If you're TWFing and holding a weapon, you can TWF with the weapon and an unarmed strike. There's absolutely no reason the weapon couldn't be exchanged for another unarmed strike.

The amount of limbs and the like capable of making attacks is irrelevant, since they're not natural attacks.

jameswilliamogle
2008-04-15, 01:40 PM
Yeah, I seem to recall the braid blade coming up on the CharOp forums because there's no cap on how many you can have, so you get an arbitrary number of attacks, even if they start sucking really fast (you'll still hit on a 20!). At any rate, my point is that, if I'm wrong, the Monk could do it WITHOUT the blade.

With all due respect, I think the FAQ is wrong on this point. A Monk has no offhand to attack WITH while TWFing. And if you're going to let a Monk TWF with their other fist, why not let them MWF with their feet and head?I agree. The problem is the feat says you can attack with a weapon in your off hand, and unarmed strike isn't in your off hand.

I don't think the FAQ should establish new rules.

Also, only in the FAQ will you see that the off-hand side of a double weapon only gets 1/2 Str modifier to damage. Its not in the SRD or PHB.

So, there's some stuff from the FAQ that hurts players, some that helps.

NEO|Phyte
2008-04-15, 01:53 PM
Also, only in the FAQ will you see that the off-hand side of a double weapon only gets 1/2 Str modifier to damage. Its not in the SRD or PHB.

Really?


Double Weapons (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#doubleWeapons)

You can use a double weapon to make an extra attack with the off-hand end of the weapon as if you were fighting with two weapons. The penalties apply as if the off-hand end of the weapon were a light weapon.

Off-Hand Weapon (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatStatistics.htm#offHandWeapon)

When you deal damage with a weapon in your off hand, you add only ½ your Strength bonus.
Of course, this may just be rational thinking getting in the way of the rules, but wouldn't the off-hand end of the weapon use the off-hand damage modifiers?

Starbuck_II
2008-04-15, 02:04 PM
Really?



Of course, this may just be rational thinking getting in the way of the rules, but wouldn't the off-hand end of the weapon use the off-hand damage modifiers?

Shield Bash is an off-hand attack even thought it can be done with primary hand. This in my opinion is crock: it doesn't logically follow.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-04-15, 02:14 PM
Shield Bash is an off-hand attack even thought it can be done with primary hand. This in my opinion is crock: it doesn't logically follow.

The description assumes that you use the shield as an off-hand weapon rather than as your your primary hand when attacking. As clarified by the FAQ, you may attack with the shield using it as your primary weapon and not suffering any off-hand penalties to attack or damage.

It is just poorly written that is all, not "crock". :smallwink:


Can a character make a shield bash attack using the
shield as a primary weapon or can it be used only as an offhand
weapon?

While the rules describe a shield bash as an off-hand
weapon, that’s simply an assumption (that your primary hand is
holding a weapon). There’s nothing stopping you from
declaring your shield bash as your primary weapon. Of course,
that means that any attack you make with your other hand
becomes a secondary weapon.

jameswilliamogle
2008-04-15, 02:21 PM
Really?I'm not sure where your quote comes from, this is the SRD:
A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons, but he or she incurs all the normal attack penalties associated with two-weapon combat, just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. They take the attack penalties, not the damage penalties. Of course the FAQ overrides that, sort of. It also says "attack penalties" in the PHB. "Attack penalties" doesn't mean "combat penalties"; if they used the latter it would be more clear (that it uses off-hand damage).

Its funny to me that as written, even w/ the FAQ, one can still get two-handed Power Attack damage from the off-side of a double weapon, though (since PA checks the weapon type, not how its used).

NEO|Phyte
2008-04-15, 02:23 PM
I'm not sure where your quote comes from

So click the handy-dandy links I provided.


Its funny to me that as written, even w/ the FAQ, one can still get two-handed Power Attack damage from the off-side of a double weapon, though.
No, you can't. At least not while TWFing.


The character can also choose to use a double weapon two handed, attacking with only one end of it. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#doubleWeapons)

jameswilliamogle
2008-04-15, 02:26 PM
So click the handy-dandy links I provided.Just did. I counter w/ link (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#doubleWeapons)! Which one is right? Penalties from both?

For the second part: even if you are attacking w/ one end of it, its still a two-handed weapon. It just has penalties as if it were a light weapon. Power Attack doesn't care if it has penalties, just what the weapon size is.

NEO|Phyte
2008-04-15, 02:29 PM
Just did. I counter w/ link (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#doubleWeapons)! Which one is right? Penalties from both?
From your link:

A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons
Fighting with two weapons includes half strength to damage on the offhand weapon.

:edit:

For the second part: even if you are attacking w/ one end of it, its still a two-handed weapon. It just has penalties as if it were a light weapon. Power Attack doesn't care if it has penalties, just what the weapon size is.
No, it is NOT a two-handed weapon, it is a double weapon. It even gets a special note in the weapons table that says its a double weapon. It happens to include the option of two-handing one end of it, much like you can two-hand a one-handed weapon (but not a light weapon). Really, they're more like a one-handed weapons than anything, given that you can wield one in one hand (which you can't with two-handers).

jameswilliamogle
2008-04-15, 02:31 PM
From your link:

Fighting with two weapons includes half strength to damage on the offhand weapon.We're getting hung up on specific words. I think the link you provided and the section you quote now are general info for the specific section where it just says "attack penalties", and you think each sentence is a specific rule. I think the FAQ author of that section agrees with your stance, but I have to respectfully disagree.

NEO|Phyte
2008-04-15, 02:39 PM
We're getting hung up on specific words. I think the link you provided and the section you quote now are general info for the specific section where it just says "attack penalties", and you think each sentence is a specific rule.
I'd argue that the rules for Two-weapon fighting (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#twoWeaponFighting) are the Specific Rules which override the General Rules, rather than the single (admittedly long) sentence in the weapons section. I'm not thinking that each sentence is a specific rule, I'm just emphasizing a different part of the same sentence you are.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-04-15, 02:39 PM
It also says "attack penalties" in the PHB. "Attack penalties" doesn't mean "combat penalties"; if they used the latter it would be more clear (that it uses off-hand damage).

Applying half your STR bonus to damage rather than your full STR bonus is not a penalty, it is just the way damage is calculated when using your off-hand.

Changing the wording to combat penalties would add no additional information, although I can understand why someone might view it as being penalized.

How you wield the weapon is all that really matters, how it is labeled on the table does not matter unless we are talking weapons that are considered light weapons.
(The FAQ also clarified this)


Strength Bonus: When you hit with a melee or thrown weapon, including a sling, add your Strength modifier to the damage result. A Strength penalty, but not a bonus, applies on attacks made with a bow that is not a composite bow.

Off-Hand Weapon: When you deal damage with a weapon in your off hand, you add only 1/2 your Strength bonus.

Wielding a Weapon Two-Handed: When you deal damage with a weapon that you are wielding two-handed, you add 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus. However, you don’t get this higher Strength bonus when using a light weapon with two hands.

Matthew
2008-04-15, 02:40 PM
I think you're getting hung up on specific words, to be honest. The rules and faq are reasonably clear, as are the following articles on the subject by one of the lead designers of the original D20 game (and longtime Sage):

Two Handed Fighting
Rules of the Game - Two Handed Fighting 1 (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060829a)
Rules of the Game - Two Handed Fighting 2 (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060905a)
Rules of the Game - Two Handed Fighting 3 (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060912a)

Of course, you're free to disagree as much as you wish, but that doesn't change the primary (and clarified) reading of the text.

Bauglir
2008-04-15, 03:01 PM
The bolded scenario is what I imagine happening with flurry of blows, monks' special training allows them to take advantage of openings with whatever body part is ready to strike. Also why they don't get an individual attack with each limb, it's just whatever they can use in the circumstance.

Ok, then. So why can you TWF with it? I agree with you that that IS exactly what happens with a Monk, only those strikes are subsumed entirely by the Flurry. Hitting once with your right fist, your left fist, and your head is just 3 attacks that deal unarmed strike damage and all fall into the same flurry. There's no reason to suppose that you have a second unarmed strike to TWF with in the first place. If you did, then the feat would, indeed, only lower penalties and you would be able to anyway.

If the justification for having a second unarmed strike is that you have two fists, then you, logically, have a third and a fourth unarmed strike; one for each foot. And one for your head, as well. Because you can strike with each of them. Multiweapon Fighting, like TWF, only reduces penalties; the capability is still there for additional attacks even without the feat (Which requires 3 hands, a requirement most Monks don't meet unless keeping a hand in your backpack counts). Although Thri-Kreen Monks and similar races net some free attacks out of the deal if the ruling that a creature has multiple unarmed strikes is correct.


The amount of limbs and the like capable of making attacks is irrelevant, since they're not natural attacks.

A Monk's are.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-04-15, 03:12 PM
A Monk's are.

No, they are just treated as such for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve them.


A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-04-15, 04:10 PM
Ok, then. So why can you TWF with it?

Because TWF is a mechanic that allows you to exchange attack bonus for number of attacks. A monk with TWF and flurry is just attacking even faster than other monks do. (Kachu Tenshin Amaguriken! Old school.)

dman11235
2008-04-15, 04:24 PM
TWF is a mechanic that allows you to exchange attack bonus for more attacks....provided you have more than one weapon. If you are unarmed (save for your unarmed strike) you only have one weapon, and therefore cannot utilize TWF.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-04-15, 04:50 PM
The number of weapons you have is irrelevant. The important things is whether you have a weapon in your off-hand. That requirement is always fulfilled when using Unarmed Strikes.

It would be rather absurd to require that the monk hold a special monk weapon in the off-hand before using TWF and FoB together becomes possible.

Tokiko Mima
2008-04-15, 04:50 PM
Mechanically, choosing TWF is taking a weak choice. It requires a Feat, and the user takes a minimum -2 penalty to attack on both rolls which has a large effect on any CR approriate encounter. If a Monk wants to use a Feat to take a penalty with TWF, their already low BAB, and MAD Strength attack bonus then I don't think their should be a restriction: they're already suffering quite enough as it is.

As far as getting to attack with hands, legs, knees, shoulders and head... they get to pick which of those generates an unarmed strike. If they have two or more unarmed strikes, they can pick any two or more locations or even the same one.

Monks have a fixed number of iterative strikes because unarmed strikes are not natural attacks. If they were, you could attack with any and every part of your body as a seperate attack during a full-attack action. Natural attacks use a wholly different system from iterative attacks. Most monsters do not, for example, gain extra attacks for every +5 they have in BAB.


Because TWF is a mechanic that allows you to exchange attack bonus for number of attacks. A monk with TWF and flurry is just attacking even faster than other monks do. (Kachu Tenshin Amaguriken! Old school.)

Go Ranma! I wonder what Feat a monk has to take convert their stunning Fists attempts into a Hiryu Shoten Ha? :smallamused:

Tokiko Mima
2008-04-15, 05:10 PM
TWF is a mechanic that allows you to exchange attack bonus for more attacks....provided you have more than one weapon. If you are unarmed (save for your unarmed strike) you only have one weapon, and therefore cannot utilize TWF.

Unarmed strike IS a weapon and you don't need to make it with your hands. So if you can make two unarmed strikes (say with a shoulder and a foot) then you would be two weapon fighting.

So a first level monk can make three unarmed attacks as a full attack (one base, the second from TWF, and the third from Flurry of Blows.) The only issue is the combined -4 penalty they would take on the attack roll of each.

Bauglir
2008-04-15, 10:58 PM
An unarmed strike can be with any part of the body if you are a Monk. Therefore, the entire body is a single unarmed strike. If you strike with one arm one round, and your foot the next, it's the same unarmed strike. Furthermore, at least in the case of a Monk, there is no Off-hand for you to use. The rules for a Monk's unarmed strike SPECIFICALLY say that the monk has no off-hand when using an unarmed strike. Therefore, you can't have that off-hand with a weapon in it, because you have no off-hand.

I'll repeat, though, it's not unbalancing by any means to allow it. Monks get enough of a shaft as it is, and TWF lowers their chances of hitting enough to make it perfectly fair.

And yeah, I did misremember that bit about natural attacks. My bad.

Matthew
2008-04-15, 11:03 PM
Sorry Bauglir, but you're just basically wrong. By that logic Two Weapon Fighting would be impossible, since it requires the use of two hands in addition to two weapons.

There's nothing stopping any character from making two attacks per round with Unarmed Strikes via Two Weapon Fighting.

Jayabalard
2008-04-15, 11:31 PM
Such a feat has not existed since 3.0.People do play versions of the game other than the newest edition.

Bauglir
2008-04-15, 11:58 PM
Sorry Bauglir, but you're just basically wrong. By that logic Two Weapon Fighting would be impossible, since it requires the use of two hands in addition to two weapons.

There's nothing stopping any character from making two attacks per round with Unarmed Strikes via Two Weapon Fighting.

Two-Weapon Fighting is perfectly possible so long as you have more than one weapon. A Monk has only a single unarmed strike, since that strike can be made with any part of their body (so show me where one weapon begins and the other ends), and because the rules say that Monks have no off-hand when using unarmed strikes.


People do play versions of the game other than the newest edition.

I'm aware of this. In fact, I'll probably continue playing 3.5 for a while when 4.0 comes out. But if I do, I'll be sure to state explicitly that I'm referring to 3.5 rules if I should do so in a thread that has made no indication of being about 3.5. This thread gave no indication of being about 3.0, and in absence of that information, it seemed reasonable to suppose that it was about 3.5. If the OP WAS about 3.0, consider everything I've said rescinded. I don't know anything about how 3.0 monks work.

Matthew
2008-04-16, 12:12 AM
Two-Weapon Fighting is perfectly possible so long as you have more than one weapon. A Monk has only a single unarmed strike, since that strike can be made with any part of their body (so show me where one weapon begins and the other ends), and because the rules say that Monks have no off-hand when using unarmed strikes.

The change over between 3.0 and 3.5 left many redundent passages in the new books.

D20 FAQ, November 2007, p. 19.


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 Player’s Handbook) and the monk adds only half her Strength bonus (if any) to damage if the off-hand unarmed strike hits.


One fist, two fist.

An unarmed Fighter can use Two Weapon Fighting to make two Unarmed Attacks, so can a Monk. To put it another way, they don't sell Guantlets in pairs. :smallwink:

Kesnit
2008-04-16, 06:53 AM
There's nothing stopping any character from making two attacks per round with Unarmed Strikes via Two Weapon Fighting.

Exactly. My kender Rogue did it last night. (I was afraid of killing the draconian and having it turn to stone, trapping my weapons.) Sure, the draconian got an AoO (and missed), but it worked. (1d2 gets overshadowed by 2d6 SA on each hand...:smallbiggrin:)

As others have said, TWF is a technique that allows an extra attack in exchange for a loss of AB.

Back to the OP, one other thing that a lot of people seem to be missing is that flurry does not require an unarmed strike. A Monk can dual-wield kamas (for example) and use them in a FoB. How are the mechanics of getting 3 attacks from kamas different from 3 attacks from fists?

dman11235
2008-04-16, 07:32 AM
Because getting 3 attacks from fists is cheesy. Also, you are striking with the kama and US at nearly the same time, hence the penalty (ever tried it? It's a little awkward). And if you are thinking of those kung fu movies where they strike lightning fast and get in one or two hits every so often....when you make a full attack (melee), you aren't only swinging once with BAB<6. You are swinging a bunch of times, but only one has even a remote chance of hitting, which you roll for. As you level, you don't gain the ability to swing more times, you have a higher chance of hitting with each flailing strike.

Now, I want you to tell me, if the monk can TWF (meaning, with TWO WEAPONS, hence two weapon fighting), what are those two weapon? Now, you will say fist 1 and fist two. Okay, what about feet? Head? Pelvis? Now you say that you choose which one is each attack. Which one gets the penalty to damage? How does it make sense that in the same round the left foot once did full damage and once did 1/2 str? Now, ignoring that problem for a moment, what if you have GMW cast on your unarmed strike? Which part of the body gets it? But wait, you can change the parts, so one time your fist gets it and another it doesn't. Same thing with Kensai and Necklace of Natural Attacks. You see what the problem is? This is making an already confusing mechanic even more confusing and very abusable. And all that is ignoring the fact that you need two weapons to TWF and your body is its own weapon.

Kesnit
2008-04-16, 08:54 AM
Because getting 3 attacks from fists is cheesy.

So's Vow of Poverty, but I don't see people saying you can't use it.


Also, you are striking with the kama and US at nearly the same time, hence the penalty (ever tried it? It's a little awkward).

I was refering to dual-wielding kamas, which would be considerably less awkward than fist and kama.


Now, I want you to tell me, if the monk can TWF (meaning, with TWO WEAPONS, hence two weapon fighting), what are those two weapon?

The Monk's teeth and fingernails. :)


Now, you will say fist 1 and fist two. Okay, what about feet? Head? Pelvis?

Maybe all the above. As you said, it isn't that you only get one attack per round. It's that only 1 has a chance of hitting.


Now you say that you choose which one is each attack. Which one gets the penalty to damage?

Whichever the player declares it to be.


How does it make sense that in the same round the left foot once did full damage and once did 1/2 str?

Ever tried doing two quick kicks with the left foot? The first is going to be more powerful because you are better able to prepare for it. The second, you are going to be off-balance, or won't be able to pull your leg back as far, etc, that will keep you from putting your full power (STR) behind it.


Now, ignoring that problem for a moment, what if you have GMW cast on your unarmed strike? Which part of the body gets it?

That's like asking "if you cast GMW on a greatsword, which edge gets it?" You don't attack with both edges at once, but over the course of swinging it back and forth, either could connect. The Monk's body is the weapon.


This is making an already confusing mechanic even more confusing and very abusable.

The mechanic is not confusing. You have two weapons (be they fists, feet, or kamas). You can "dual-wield" weapons. Monk weapons can be flurried. Penalties stack (so -4/-4/-2 for both).

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-04-16, 10:17 AM
Now, I want you to tell me, if the monk can TWF (meaning, with TWO WEAPONS, hence two weapon fighting), what are those two weapon? Now, you will say fist 1 and fist two. Okay, what about feet? Head? Pelvis? Now you say that you choose which one is each attack. Which one gets the penalty to damage? How does it make sense that in the same round the left foot once did full damage and once did 1/2 str?

You cannot use the same part of your body for both a main attack and an off-hand attack, just like you cannot TWF wielding a long sword and declaring that you use it both as your main and off-hand weapon.
This is often irrelevant when it comes to unarmed strikes, but might be relevant if you are using an enhanced gauntlet, but it hopefully makes better sense to you now.


Now, ignoring that problem for a moment, what if you have GMW cast on your unarmed strike? Which part of the body gets it? But wait, you can change the parts, so one time your fist gets it and another it doesn't. Same thing with Kensai and Necklace of Natural Attacks. You see what the problem is?

Well either it applies to all or just to one part, there is hardly much confusing about that and it has nothing to do with TWF.
The Kensai even goes into a detailed description.


This is making an already confusing mechanic even more confusing and very abusable.

I think the poor monk is the abused party. :smallamused:


And all that is ignoring the fact that you need two weapons to TWF and your body is its own weapon.

So Unarmed Strikes are a group of appendages, which makes things a little akward.
However, that is hardly as contrived as if the monk had to hold something in his off-hand to be able to use it for attacks.

Monk: I would like to make an attack with my off-hand also during my next full attack.
DM: You cannot do that, because it is free.
Monk: Ok, what if I use quick draw to get my Kama then?
DM: That is ok. Go ahead and use flurry along with two-weapon fighting.

dman11235
2008-04-16, 03:43 PM
VoPov is weak compared to normal WBL. Do the math. Well, I guess technically it's well over WBL, but that's only because of the +8 ability modifier. But I'd much rather be able to choose my items that actually make me good than have to be a spellcaster.

Dual-wielding kamas at the same time: same answer. It's two separate weapons, you can TWF with them. One will be an off-hand, and suffer 1/2 str penalty on damage.

Now, you say you cannot use the same part of your body for main and off-hand, yet others say you can. Also, how do you determine which part of your body is the on and which is the off? Does it change round to round? Why can't I go r foot/l fist/r fist/r foot, with the r fist and foot being on, and then the l fist and r foot (second one) being off?

It is not at all like asking which edge of the greatsword gets it. The greatsword can't be used as two weapons. So the entire greatsword gets the benefit since it is only one weapon. Or are you trying to argue that each side of a greatsword is its own weapon and thus you can TWF with only a greatsword? The problem with unarmed strikes and this (if you believe that you can TWF with them like you do) is that one time the right fist might get the bonus and then next strike it doesn't. How do you determine which one gets the bonus?

Same thing goes for Kensai. And how is it balanced if you only pay once to have"two" weapons enchanted?

Now, I'm not sure what that little scenario is supposed to prove there LS.

As for two quick l foot kicks, I've seen martial artists do it and they seem to be able to get the relative same power on each one. Maybe when I start training I'll be able to do that too. After I have, you know, trained.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-04-16, 05:27 PM
My first post was eaten by the hungry boards, so here is the abbreviated version.


Now, you say you cannot use the same part of your body for main and off-hand, yet others say you can. Also, how do you determine which part of your body is the on and which is the off? Does it change round to round? Why can't I go r foot/l fist/r fist/r foot, with the r fist and foot being on, and then the l fist and r foot (second one) being off?

You could designate it on a round to round basis, yes.
You cannot change it in the middle of your full attack for the same reason that you cannot use a claw to make unarmed strikes and claw attacks or if you are holding a longsword in your claw, manufactured weapon attacks and claw attacks.
A limb occupied with one activity cannot typically be used for another at the same time.
This is not often a practical issue when it comes to unarmed strikes since they are most often equally capable of hitting or missing, but if there is a difference it becomes important to keep track of what you are using as off-hand attacks.



Same thing goes for Kensai. And how is it balanced if you only pay once to have"two" weapons enchanted?

Balance is not the issue here, but since it is a concern of yours maybe limiting the options available to the monk is not the best course of action.
Also note the rules for Kensais found on page 51 of Complete Warrior and how you are paying a premium for having your unarmed strikes enhanced because you have to pay for both fists for example. There is no two for one discount available.


Now, I'm not sure what that little scenario is supposed to prove there LS.

It was meant to illustrate a situation one might end up in if one choses to ignore the RAW and the FAQ.

dman11235
2008-04-16, 05:55 PM
Please please please do not say you are claiming RAW and the FAQ on your side. For the love of all things holy, please let that not be what you just said.There is now RAW on this. The FAQ does not address this. The FAQ has been wrong before though, keep that in mind. Not often, but it has happened. Anyways, now that that disclaimer is aside, I want to point out the following: there is no place in RAW that remotely indicates more than one unarmed strike per character.

Matthew
2008-04-16, 06:08 PM
Well, despite your pleading, I'm pretty sure that's exactly what Lord Silvanos is saying, and frankly he's right. To put it another way "you've been doing it wrong."

dman11235
2008-04-16, 06:21 PM
Show me where it says that characters have more than one unarmed strike. Show me.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-04-16, 06:26 PM
Please please please do not say you are claiming RAW and the FAQ on your side. For the love of all things holy, please let that not be what you just said.There is now RAW on this. The FAQ does not address this.

Allow me to direct you to posts 12 and 40 of this very thread where the FAQ is quoted.


The FAQ has been wrong before though, keep that in mind. Not often, but it has happened.

I have been wrong before, keep that in mind. Not very often, but it has happened and it will happen again with a probability close to one. (I might choke on some popcorn before it happens though)
Now I guess everyone can quote me on that, so they do not have to deal with any argument I might make.


Anyways, now that that disclaimer is aside, I want to point out the following: there is no place in RAW that remotely indicates more than one unarmed strike per character.

I seem to recall that it was mentioned that either fist could be used to punch with, perhaps even kicks were mentioned from appendages used for walking, finally the inferior anatomy of many humanoids place the head on the neck to be used for head butts, which is probably the best use for that particular part for most humanoids anyway.
That gives your standard run of the mill humanoid 2+2+1 = 5 possible candidates for off-hand attacks.

The magic fang spell, the gauntlet and the Kensai are also good examples of these parts as being treated as separate.

Matthew
2008-04-16, 06:30 PM
Sure:



Light: A light weapon is easier to use in one’s off hand than a one handed 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.

D20 1.5 Player's Handbook, p. 113.



An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon.

D20 1.5 Player's Handbook, p. 121.



Unarmed strikes count as light weapons (for purposes of two weapon attack penalties and so on).

D20 1.5 Player's Handbook, p. 139.

Now show me where it says they can't.

dman11235
2008-04-16, 08:16 PM
First to address Matthew: I'm failing to see where those say that you have more than one unarmed strike. All I'm seeing is that unarmed strikes count as light weapons for various purposes, none of which I'm contending.

Now, LS, I'll have to wait to address the first part as the reply function does not allow me to see every post and their number, so I will get back to you on that. However, if you quoted the parts I think you quoted, note that never in there does it ever even hint at being able to use your US as both weapons in TWF. It only says that you can TWF using your US as the off-hand.

That second part is just uncalled for. I was merely pointing out that the FAQ is NOT RAW. It is a compendium of frequently asked questions and their answer from the point of view of the Sage. The only thing RAW other than the books themselves is the Errata.

Third part: How is that more than one unarmed strike? It's the same unarmed strike which is part of the entire body, from hands and feat to (RAW) each strand of hair (which brings some fun times with a Necklace of Natural Attacks and throwing applied, and unarmed damage optimization: a millimeter of hair can deal 32d8 damage per hit). And if they are separate, why do they not have an arbitrarily high number of unarmed strikes? What's the limit?

EDIT: Two things, first Matthew, unless you meant to point out the part of light weapons being held in one hand, which has two problems with the logic: 1) you hold your unarmed strikes? And 2) that ignores the part of you can strike with any part of your body.

And second, the part of the FAQ was just to point out that it is stupid to bring the FAQ into arguments of what is RAW, because it has no bearing on what is or is not RAW. It is merely an attempt at clarifying the rules as written. That's what RAW stands for, if you were getting confused.

EDIT 2: I don't need t change the part addressing the second part of your post LS, I was right in my assumption. I see that passage pulled every single time I see this old debate. There is nothing in there that suggests that you have more than one unarmed strike.

Hawriel
2008-04-16, 08:24 PM
I was given the impresion that flury was given to monks because, they have to hands. It was wizards why of giving a TWF ability to monks just for that reason. Letting the monk use their monk weapons with the monk combat skills also lets the monk TWF in their own monk way....:smallconfused: monk, monk monk, monk :smallbiggrin: . Wizards just gave monks TWF by another name. Its also better because the penalties eventualy go away. I dont see it any different than giving rangers free TWF feats. Its just colored in monk juice.

Matthew
2008-04-16, 08:45 PM
First to address Matthew: I'm failing to see where those say that you have more than one unarmed strike. All I'm seeing is that unarmed strikes count as light weapons for various purposes, none of which I'm contending.

Well, I think the bolding should have alerted you to the meaning, which I see below it did. Unarmed Strikes are Light Weapons. A Light Weapon is wielded with one hand.



EDIT: Two things, first Matthew, unless you meant to point out the part of light weapons being held in one hand, which has two problems with the logic: 1) you hold your unarmed strikes? And 2) that ignores the part of you can strike with any part of your body.

It doesn't ignore it at all. All it means is that if you want to make two Unarmed Strikes by the RAW, which you always treat as Light Weapons, then they must be wielded in the primary and off hand of the character in question. If a character is wearing two Gauntlets, which are treated as Unarmed Strikes, one which is X and another which is Y, then he has two weapons. The same is true of hands. If you have two hands, then you have two weapons, two Unarmed Strikes, in fact.

Now, if you would oblige me by providing any evidence from the Core Rulebooks for your own claim, I would appreciate it.



I was given the impresion that flury was given to monks because, they have to hands. It was wizards why of giving a TWF ability to monks just for that reason. Letting the monk use their monk weapons with the monk combat skills also lets the monk TWF in their own monk way....:smallconfused: monk, monk monk, monk :smallbiggrin: . Wizards just gave monks TWF by another name. Its also better because the penalties eventualy go away. I dont see it any different than giving rangers free TWF feats. Its just colored in monk juice.

That is how it works in D20 1.0. Things were changed for D20 1.5.

dman11235
2008-04-16, 08:54 PM
Wha....? No, seriously, wha...? How does the fact that it is a light weapon lead you to believe that you have two of them? Also, like I said, you hold your unarmed strikes? That part is meant to be for light weapons like daggers or sais. You hold those in one hand, and can hold them in two but will gain no benefit. According to your logic: "I have a single dagger, which is a light weapon. Can I use it in TWF by itself?"

Also, medium and heavy armors (with a couple exceptions like breastplate) come with gauntlets. You don't buy one of each hand, it comes with the armor. Does that mean that because I bought armor I bout two weapons? And now that my fists are each their own weapon since they are gauntlets, does that mean I can have three unarmed strikes? Or even more because this logic allows each part of the body to be its own weapon? You keep opening the opportunity for so much abuse with ruling USs like this.

Matthew
2008-04-16, 09:09 PM
Wha....? No, seriously, wha...? How does the fact that it is a light weapon lead you to believe that you have two of them? Also, like I said, you hold your unarmed strikes? That part is meant to be for light weapons like daggers or sais. You hold those in one hand, and can hold them in two but will gain no benefit. According to your logic: "I have a single dagger, which is a light weapon. Can I use it in TWF by itself?"

You clearly don't understand 'my logic' then. You are cherry picking how you apply the rules to conform to your own interpretation. Yes, characters wield their Unarmed Strikes. PHB, p. 102:



Benefit: When wielding a double weapon or two weapons (not including natural weapons or unarmed strikes), you gain a +1 shield bonus to your AC.

Unarmed Strikes and Natural Weapons are evidently 'wielded'.

If a character has a single Dagger, he must use it in a chosen hand. He can make an Off Hand Attack with his other hand if he wants, but since his other hand does not contain the same Dagger he cannot use Two Weapon Fighting with the same Dagger.

That's why it explicitly says in the Monk description:



Monks are highly trained in fighting unarmed, giving them considerable advantages when doing so. 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.

Notice the specific emphasis given to 'either fist interchangably'. Clearly, these are considered separate weapons from one another or there would be no need to distinguish between them. The further inference is that a character who is not a Monk cannot make Unarmed Strikes if his hands are full (though this is not the faq's interpretation).



Also, medium and heavy armors (with a couple exceptions like breastplate) come with gauntlets. You don't buy one of each hand, it comes with the armor. Does that mean that because I bought armor I bout two weapons? And now that my fists are each their own weapon since they are gauntlets, does that mean I can have three unarmed strikes? Or even more because this logic allows each part of the body to be its own weapon? You keep opening the opportunity for so much abuse with ruling USs like this.

A Gauntlet is listed as costing 2 gp for a reason; the reason is that a character can enchant them. A character also has to wield them if he uses them to attack. There's no difference between holding a Dagger in each hand and wearing a Gauntlet on each hand for the purposes of Two Weapon Fighting. Two Weapon Fighting only allows a character to make one additional attack.

Now please, some actual contrary evidence.

dman11235
2008-04-16, 09:26 PM
??? It's still not clicking. How by saying that the US is a light weapon does that mean that you have two? I doesn't say that each fist is its own weapon, that you have two that can be used interchangeably, etc. It says that it is a light weapon. Earlier it says that light weapons are used in one hand. Now, what does that mean exactly? It means that you don't need two hands to wield it. It does not mean that each hand is a light weapon. No connection there. Otherwise it would say so.

Now, back to the dagger example, what if I hold it in two hands? What about then? Each hand is individually holding the dagger...So then greatsword?

Either fist interchangeably. Meaning that you do not need to make each attack with the same fist. Note also how it goes on the state that elbows, knees, feet are included. Meaning that you can strike with any part of the body. Note lending any weight to your argument. You reach a conclusion in that statement that has no grounds. Besides, the FAQ (your holy grail) clarifies that passage to mean that all this is saying is that a monk can strike with any part of the body with no penalty. Absolutely no bearing on TWF in the least.

Now, that's for when your character wants to look silly with giant metal gloves on their hands and no armor. I wasn't referring to that I was referring to the fact that armors can come with them.

Throughout this whole thing, you haven't directly answered any of my questions, save for that time you claimed that since unarmed strikes were light weapons that you have two of them. Still have no idea how you can reach that conclusion.

Matthew
2008-04-16, 09:35 PM
??? It's still not clicking. How by saying that the US is a light weapon does that mean that you have two? I doesn't say that each fist is its own weapon, that you have two that can be used interchangeably, etc. It says that it is a light weapon. Earlier it says that light weapons are used in one hand. Now, what does that mean exactly? It means that you don't need two hands to wield it. It does not mean that each hand is a light weapon. No connection there. Otherwise it would say so.

You must wield an Unarmed Strike in one hand or the other, according to the RAW. You are beginning with the idea that an Unarmed Strike refers to the entire body instead of beginning with no assumptions.



Now, back to the dagger example, what if I hold it in two hands? What about then? Each hand is individually holding the dagger...So then greatsword?

No, the Great Sword is not available for Two Weapon Fighting in that manner, it is a Two Handed Weapon (unlike a Staff, for instance, which can be). However, according to the faq a character can attack with a Great Sword and use Two Weapon Fighting to make an Unarmed Strike as well (crazy, but true).



Either fist interchangeably. Meaning that you do not need to make each attack with the same fist. Note also how it goes on the state that elbows, knees, feet are included. Meaning that you can strike with any part of the body. Note lending any weight to your argument. You reach a conclusion in that statement that has no grounds. Besides, the FAQ (your holy grail) clarifies that passage to mean that all this is saying is that a monk can strike with any part of the body with no penalty. Absolutely no bearing on TWF in the least.

No, either fist interchangably, meaning that other characters cannot do so, which follows to mean that they must be independent of one another. This is actually a holdover from 3.0 where characters had a 'right and left' hand and consequences for using their left.



Now, that's for when your character wants to look silly with giant metal gloves on their hands and no armor. I wasn't referring to that I was referring to the fact that armors can come with them.

That would hardly be the first (or even most) silly thing in D20.



Throughout this whole thing, you haven't directly answered any of my questions, save for that time you claimed that since unarmed strikes were light weapons that you have two of them. Still have no idea how you can reach that conclusion.

They must be wielded, and I must point out that you still have not provided even one quote from the rules that supports your point of view.

dman11235
2008-04-16, 10:04 PM
So now you can no longer make an unarmed strike with your feet. I mean, you aren't wielding it with your hands are you?

I'm aware that you can TWF with a greatsword and an US. Heck, a common tactic for fighters is to TWF with greatsword/armor spikes. However, using your logic I can say that since I am holding the dagger (dagger, not GS) in both hands, I can TWF with it and only it. Hey, each hand is wielding a light weapon, therefore there must be two.

Would you believe that I never played 3.0? Now isn't that something, I have a fresh mind, looking at it in an un-tainted fashion. What that passage is saying is that it does not matter whether the monk strikes with their right fist, left fist, or pelvis, the stats of the attack are the same. It is an unarmed strike. Your only one. That last part isn't actually said anywhere in the rule (at least not explicitly).

I'll give you that. I mean, the Syrruk? And the Braid Blade.

You wield you unarmed strikes, but do you hold them in your hands? Wielding means nothing more in D&D than you threaten an area or are otherwise capable of striking with the weapon.

Matthew
2008-04-16, 10:23 PM
So now you can no longer make an unarmed strike with your feet. I mean, you aren't wielding it with your hands are you?

The RAW gives no indication of how an Unarmed Attack may be wielded with a character's feet or head. It's simply not addressed. We are told that it is possible, but that's all.



I'm aware that you can TWF with a greatsword and an US. Heck, a common tactic for fighters is to TWF with greatsword/armor spikes. However, using your logic I can say that since I am holding the dagger (dagger, not GS) in both hands, I can TWF with it and only it. Hey, each hand is wielding a light weapon, therefore there must be two.

No, that is to misunderstand 'my logic'. That would only be a possible interpretation if I were saying that an Unarmed Strike is one weapon, which I am not. I'm saying that a character has as many Unarmed Strikes as he has body parts to strike with. That he cannot use them all at once and must by the RAW 'wield them' is the limitation on their use.



Would you believe that I never played 3.0? Now isn't that something, I have a fresh mind, looking at it in an un-tainted fashion.

Doesn't surprise me in the least. :smallwink: There are plenty of nonesense hold overs from 3.0. What do you make, for instance, of this from the Glossary of the 3.5 PHB (p. 311)



off hand: 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 the damage dealt with a weapon held in the off hand.

It's worse in the 3.5 DMG, an entire section is missing about how to run encounters (nobody seems to care, though, which suggests few people run things by the RAW).



What that passage is saying is that it does not matter whether the monk strikes with their right fist, left fist, or pelvis, the stats of the attack are the same. It is an unarmed strike. Your only one. That last part isn't actually said anywhere in the rule (at least not explicitly).

I'll give you that. I mean, the Syrruk? And the Braid Blade.

That's your interpretation of the passage for sure. However, I know it is a direct import from the 3.0 PHB and has lost it's meaning because the relevant rule to which it refers was removed for 3.5. At best it is open to interpretation, at worst it is unclear (like many 3.5 rules).



You wield you unarmed strikes, but do you hold them in your hands? Wielding means nothing more in D&D than you threaten an area or are otherwise capable of striking with the weapon.

No, wielding in D20 is directly related to hands for the purposes of Two Weapon Fighting:



Two Weapon Fighting

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.

TWO-WEAPON FIGHTING [GENERAL]
You can fight with a weapon in each hand. You can make one extra attack each round with the second weapon.
Prerequisite: Dex 15.
Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6.
Normal: See Two-Weapon Fighting, page 160, and Table 8–10: Two-Weapon Fighting Penalties, page 160.


For the purposes of Two Weapon Fighting, the second weapon must be wielded in the Off Hand. However, that is contradicted by the entry for Armour Spikes (unless we assume that Armour Spikes are indeed wielded in the Off Hand somehow...). Armour Spikes are likely best read as a 'special case', much like Head Butts, Elbow Strikes, Kicks, etc...

Even more crazily, a character can presumably use a Great Sword and Armour Spikes to activate [I]Two Weapon Defence.

dman11235
2008-04-16, 10:45 PM
We aren't getting anywhere on this one.

Okay, you are saying that since a light weapon is used in one hand as per the PHB (which you quoted and bolded) and since an unarmed strike is a light weapon, you have two of them because you have two hands. I take that a step further and ask the question of a light weapon held in both hands. Both hands are occupied by a light weapon, therefore you have "two" weapons to TWF with. In order for it to be true it has to work both ways. This does not.

What I think of that passage is that it is an unnecessary statement that has no bearing on play that should have been errata'd if they cared enough to remove it. The PHB, DMG, and even CChampion are full of these small mistakes.

That's my interpretation of the passage. It's also the interpretation that most people I know play with, and the interpretation that the Sage has, and the FAQ.

Now that's just not true! You can TWF with armor spike you know. And an unarmed strike, which can be made with any part of the body.

Now I see the problem. A common one at that. It says off-hand. THIS DOES NOT MEAN IT NEEDS TO BE A HAND! It is merely a device to communicate that one set of attacks from one weapon is made at a -6 penalty and the other attack is made with a different weapon at a -10 penalty and only deals 1/2 str. It was a poor choice of words. I'm thinking maybe if they called it your secondary attack we wouldn't be having this argument. But alas this is already taken by natural attacks.

Matthew
2008-04-16, 10:57 PM
Okay, you are saying that since a light weapon is used in one hand as per the PHB (which you quoted and bolded) and since an unarmed strike is a light weapon, you have two of them because you have two hands. I take that a step further and ask the question of a light weapon held in both hands. Both hands are occupied by a light weapon, therefore you have "two" weapons to TWF with. In order for it to be true it has to work both ways. This does not.

No, I think you have at least two unarmed strikes available. However, you can only use them one at a time, unless you use Flurry or Two Weapon Fighting. Just like a character in spiked armour wielding two short swords is limited in how he employs his available attacks.



What I think of that passage is that it is an unnecessary statement that has no bearing on play that should have been errata'd if they cared enough to remove it. The PHB, DMG, and even CChampion are full of these small mistakes.

Of course, but you cannot pick and choose which rules you will apply and which you will not when applying the RAW.



That's my interpretation of the passage. It's also the interpretation that most people I know play with, and the interpretation that the Sage has, and the FAQ.

So now you are quoting the faq in support of your view. :smallamused:



Now that's just not true! You can TWF with armor spike you know. And an unarmed strike, which can be made with any part of the body.

I know, you're misreading me. The point is that the rules make two contrary statements. You must choose which supercedes which and, as I have indicated, I believe that making Unarmed Strikes with other than the hands supercedes the general rule, as does using Armour Spikes.



Now I see the problem. A common one at that. It says off-hand. THIS DOES NOT MEAN IT NEEDS TO BE A HAND! It is merely a device to communicate that one set of attacks from one weapon is made at a -6 penalty and the other attack is made with a different weapon at a -10 penalty and only deals 1/2 str. It was a poor choice of words. I'm thinking maybe if they called it your secondary attack we wouldn't be having this argument. But alas this is already taken by natural attacks.

*Sigh* I'm not saying it has to be, but I am saying that the rules continue to say that, because they used to. They are in need of errata, but until then you have to apply the rules as written. Absolutely no need to capitalise your writing by the way.

However, none of this supports your view that a character only has one Unarmed Strike available as a weapon [i.e. his body]. It doesn't say so in the rules and they in fact strongly imply quite the opposite.

dman11235
2008-04-16, 11:16 PM
So you think that a monk has an arbitrarily high number of unarmed strikes? Do you really think that a Thri-Kreen monk (or a human with some dead guy's arm in hs backpack) who has Multi-Weapon Fighting can make enough attacks per round to kill Pun-Pun?

I'm not picking and choosing. This is not a rule, it is a small statement that says that usually the off-hand is the left hand weapon. This does not say "your off-hand is your left hand" or anything of the sort. And as you said, it's a carry over from 3.0 that should have been errata'd, but as I said they didn't because it's so obviously off that they don't even need to. Besides, it a small statement that has no rules implications. You're making it into a much larger issue than it needs to be.

Yeah, I am. So...? If this is an attempt to make me eat my earlier words that the FAQ has no place in a RAW argument, good luck. I'm not claiming it as RAW, I'm claiming it as the common interpretation.

wait for it....

Now! First off, let me say that you do not need to play RAW. There is a passage in the DMG which says that the DM can change whatever he/she wants to make the game more enjoyable. Also, the capitalization was point making without bolding. When I type in all caps, assume I meant to bold instead. It task a full half second to go and click the bold button, and I can't waste that kind of time! Now...your entire argument was based on the fact that the off-hand was your other actual hand. You cannot come back and say that this was not your argument. Don't believe me? Here's some quotes by you:
A Gauntlet is listed as costing 2 gp for a reason; the reason is that a character can enchant them. A character also has to wield them if he uses them to attack. There's no difference between holding a Dagger in each hand and wearing a Gauntlet on each hand...

...always treat as Light Weapons, then they must be wielded in the primary and off hand of the character in question. If a character is wearing two Gauntlets, which are treated as Unarmed Strikes, one which is X and another which is Y, then he has two weapons. The same is true of hands.
...must be wielded in the Off Hand.And the one that ties it all together:
Notice the specific emphasis given to 'either fist interchangably'. Clearly, these are considered separate weapons from one another or there would be no need to distinguish between them. The further inference is that a character who is not a Monk cannot make Unarmed Strikes if his hands are full (though this is not the faq's interpretation).

I'm sorry I didn't pounce on that last one earlier. Note the monk description where it says that a monk can make unarmed strikes with his hands full? It's not the FAQ interpretation, it's RAW. Though you might have edited it after I got on the first part of that quote.

Matthew
2008-04-16, 11:26 PM
So you think that a monk has an arbitrarily high number of unarmed strikes? Do you really think that a Thri-Kreen monk (or a human with some dead guy's arm in hs backpack) who has Multi-Weapon Fighting can make enough attacks per round to kill Pun-Pun?

Negative. It's exactly the same as a Character in spiked Armour with Two Short Swords. he can only make the number of attacks allowed him, not the number of weapons available.



I'm not picking and choosing. This is not a rule, it is a small statement that says that usually the off-hand is the left hand weapon. This does not say "your off-hand is your left hand" or anything of the sort. And as you said, it's a carry over from 3.0 that should have been errata'd, but as I said they didn't because it's so obviously off that they don't even need to. Besides, it a small statement that has no rules implications. You're making it into a much larger issue than it needs to be.

I'm not even saying it's a rule. I'm pointing out to you that the books are full of inconsistancies. I know that entry is wrong and there are plenty of others entries that also are, most of them are a result of the transition between 3.0 and 3.5. The point was that your 'untainted view' is actually just 'uninformed'.



Yeah, I am. So...? If this is an attempt to make me eat my earlier words that the FAQ has no place in a RAW argument, good luck. I'm not claiming it as RAW, I'm claiming it as the common interpretation.

wait for it....

Now! First off, let me say that you do not need to play RAW. There is a passage in the DMG which says that the DM can change whatever he/she wants to make the game more enjoyable. Also, the capitalization was point making without bolding. When I type in all caps, assume I meant to bold instead. It task a full half second to go and click the bold button, and I can't waste that kind of time!

Oh dear, so now we're no longer discussing tha actual rules of the game, but how you want to apply them? Apply them however you like, it makes no odds to me.

If you have time to argue about this, you must have a full half a second spare.



Now...your entire argument was based on the fact that the off-hand was your other actual hand. You cannot come back and say that this was not your argument. Don't believe me? Here's some quotes by you:
And the one that ties it all together:

No, that's not my entire argument, that's part of the argument, and it's still part that you've failed to counter.



I'm sorry I didn't pounce on that last one earlier. Note the monk description where it says that a monk can make unarmed strikes with his hands full? It's not the FAQ interpretation, it's RAW. Though you might have edited it after I got on the first part of that quote.

I know the Monk can, I never said he couldn't. I said that there is no indication as to how he might wield his unarmed strikes with his feet or head. It just happens. However, if we apply the Two Weapon Fighting Rules, he must ordinarily be wielding a weapon in either hand, ergo he can use a Gauntlet in each hand, ergo he can use an Unarmed Strike in each hand. The exceptions to that appear to be 'Armour Spikes' and 'Non hand based Unarmed Strikes', both of which simply overrule the TWF rules.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-04-17, 02:48 AM
Now, LS, I'll have to wait to address the first part as the reply function does not allow me to see every post and their number, so I will get back to you on that. However, if you quoted the parts I think you quoted, note that never in there does it ever even hint at being able to use your US as both weapons in TWF. It only says that you can TWF using your US as the off-hand.

It does not reiterate that you can use your unarmed strikes in you main attack, because it assumes that people are aware that monks may attack with their unarmed strikes.

However, they do indicate such a use in the first general example. If the off-hand weapon is an unarmed strike it can be used in the flurry, if it is a manufactured weapon it cannot.


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.


That second part is just uncalled for. I was merely pointing out that the FAQ is NOT RAW. It is a compendium of frequently asked questions and their answer from the point of view of the Sage. The only thing RAW other than the books themselves is the Errata.


I think most people here are aware of that fact. Instead of spending time stating well-known basic facts one could spend time dealing with some of the unanswered arguments made in the debate.


Third part: How is that more than one unarmed strike? It's the same unarmed strike which is part of the entire body, from hands and feat to (RAW) each strand of hair (which brings some fun times with a Necklace of Natural Attacks and throwing applied, and unarmed damage optimization: a millimeter of hair can deal 32d8 damage per hit). And if they are separate, why do they not have an arbitrarily high number of unarmed strikes? What's the limit?


There is nothing in the RAW that suggests that you can use hairs to make unarmed strikes even if we assume that the list of appendages is only suggestive.

The limit is determined by your number of hands as per the RAW and clarified by the FAQ.

Matthew has provided a number of other references and arguments.

dman11235
2008-04-17, 08:59 AM
First Matthew:

But a TK with MWF (or a human with an arm in their backpack and MWF) can make an additional attack with each weapon. So with armor spikes and two shortswords, he can make three attacks, or more depending. And you did just say in this paragraph that a monk has an arbitrarily high number of unarmed strike, so no backing out of that argument.

Then why did you argue it.

When did I say that? You said that that passage means something that neither I nor the FAQ support. You want to read into things that aren't there be my guest. Also, you guys have claimed the FAQ many times in your favor (even if it was questionable whether or not it actually supports your view), why can't I do the same? And I don't think that there is any doubt that the FAQ is saying that.

I didn't say that it was your argument, I said your argument was based on that fact. And I have countered it. Many times.

Yes you did! You said that the monk cannot make unarmed strikes with his hands full, indicating that he cannot use the rest of his body. And I will say again: you hold your unarmed strike? And there you go again saying that off-hand means hand. It does not. All an off-hand is is the TWF (or MWF) attacks that incure a 1/2 str penalty on damage and receive a -10 penalty on attack, less with TWF/MWF. Here's the quote:
However, if we apply the Two Weapon Fighting Rules, he must ordinarily be wielding a weapon in either hand...

Now for LS:

Somebody failed debate. You cannot use an assumption to prove your assumption. That's circular reasoning there. Something you can do to prove me wrong is provide a counter example using my ruling, something I have done to you guys many times. Also, you agree with me then? These FAQ passages do not say that you have more than one unarmed strike?

For this FAQ passage, note the fact that it does not say which weapons are used for each attack. Also, an unarmed strike is a weapon, therefore from this FAQ passage (which you claim to help your argument), it cannot be used in flurry if it is used as the off-hand.

Then stop acting like you don't know the fact.

Yeah there is actually. Any part of a monk's body can be used for an unarmed strike. Hair is part of the body. Therefore, unarmed strike.

I don't see any place in the FAQ that asks the question "Is the number of my unarmed strikes limited by my hands?" so I don't think the FAQ clarifies this at all. Nor do I see anywhere in RAW that remotely suggests more than one unarmed strike. I've challenged you to show me, and you have yet to do so.

And I've successfully counter each one showing how it's wrong.

Now, a while ago Matthew has asked me for my proof in RAW that there is only one unarmed strike. I think a quote from myself will answer this for you:
There is now RAW on this.

That said I think there are some places that one can infer that there is only one unarmed strike per character.


A monk’s unarmed strike...Note the singular. And before you point out the places that it says strikes, I'd like to point out that every other place in the unarmed strike (hey, that's also singular) could easily be just a referrence at having more than one attack available, like form BAB 6+ or FoB.

Now, in the weapon description:
Unarmed Strike

A Medium character deals 1d3 points of nonlethal damage with an unarmed strike. A Small character deals 1d2 points of nonlethal damage. A monk or any character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat can deal lethal or nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes, at her option. The damage from an unarmed strike is considered weapon damage for the purposes of effects that give you a bonus on weapon damage rolls.

An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon. Therefore, you can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with an unarmed strike. Note the lack of it saying anywhere that a creature may make one attack per fist, or that every creature has two of them, etc.

Tokiko Mima
2008-04-17, 09:51 AM
I think the easiest way to look at this is to simple treat Unarmed Strikes as the manufactured weapons that they are. Unarmed Strike is listed in the PHB under the manufactured weapons weapons table, after all. Monks are specifically allowed to perform their Unarmed Strikes from any part of their body, but anyone can make an unarmed strike from either of their fists.

Now, an Unarmed Strike is literally part of a given individual's body. It's not a natural attack however (i.e. it's not a claw, tooth, tusk, horn or even a slam), and benefits from effects that normally only manufactured weapons recieve, like magic weapon. So when you ask if you can use an Unarmed Strike in your empty hand, the answer is yes. An empty hand is open to making an unarmed strike pretty much always. If you're a monk, you can even have both hands full and attack with a kick, knee, or headbutt that delivers an unarmed strike.

When you use Two Weapon Fighting, you can involve an Unarmed Strike with any part of your body that potentially can make an Unarmed Strike. It can be your primary or off-hand attack, and that's plainly stated in the RAW. That being true, it make no sense to say that it can't be both: If you're punching with an unarmed strike (primary) and a gauntlet (secondary) one round and the gauntlet is sundered on the next round, why could you not attack with both fists as unarmed strikes? It's the same two attacks you just did, only the second round one fist has no metal armor on it.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-04-17, 10:23 AM
First Matthew:

But a TK with MWF (or a human with an arm in their backpack and MWF) can make an additional attack with each weapon. So with armor spikes and two shortswords, he can make three attacks, or more depending. And you did just say in this paragraph that a monk has an arbitrarily high number of unarmed strike, so no backing out of that argument.

You seem to be interpreting things in the most unreasonable way possible.
I wonder why anyone would do that?


Somebody failed debate.

I am sorry I was not aware that we were being graded by you.
First you plead and now you grade, what will be next?


You cannot use an assumption to prove your assumption. That's circular reasoning there.

That is not what I did. I pointed out that it is a well established fact that monks may attack with unarmed strikes as their main weapon.


Something you can do to prove me wrong is provide a counter example using my ruling, something I have done to you guys many times. Also, you agree with me then? These FAQ passages do not say that you have more than one unarmed strike?


Unarmed strikes are versatile and can be made with different parts of your body, which means that you will almost always have one available to be used as an off-hand attack even if you have used your unarmed strikes in your main hand attack routine.


For this FAQ passage, note the fact that it does not say which weapons are used for each attack. Also, an unarmed strike is a weapon, therefore from this FAQ passage (which you claim to help your argument), it cannot be used in flurry if it is used as the off-hand.

Weapon here clearly refers to manufactured weapon, otherwise the sentence is completely irrelevant.
The whole example assumes unarmed strikes are used as the base case, hence the reference to holding a weapon in your off-hand rather than being without manufactured weapons.


Then stop acting like you don't know the fact.

Have you moved from pleading to giving orders now?


Yeah there is actually. Any part of a monk's body can be used for an unarmed strike. Hair is part of the body. Therefore, unarmed strike.

That might seem like an unreasonable interpretation in light of the description of unarmed strikes.


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.


Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts...


I don't see any place in the FAQ that asks the question "Is the number of my unarmed strikes limited by my hands?" so I don't think the FAQ clarifies this at all. Nor do I see anywhere in RAW that remotely suggests more than one unarmed strike. I've challenged you to show me, and you have yet to do so.

The basic anatomy of most humanoids make it clear that unarmed strikes can be made by several different appendages in accordance with the description.
The FAQ has clarified that they can be used for off-hand attacks also if the understanding of the RAW left one in uncertainty about the correct interpretation.
You have also been referred to other RAW sources that treat them as independent weapons, which you have chosen to completely ignore.


And I've successfully counter each one showing how it's wrong.

I think I most have missed those parts of your posts. :smallamused:


Now, a while ago Matthew has asked me for my proof in RAW that there is only one unarmed strike. I think a quote from myself will answer this for you:

There is now RAW on this.


Stating that now RAW is available is not as helpful as providing an actual reference to where this RAW can be found now. :smalltongue:



That said I think there are some places that one can infer that there is only one unarmed strike per character.

Note the singular. And before you point out the places that it says strikes, I'd like to point out that every other place in the unarmed strike (hey, that's also singular) could easily be just a referrence at having more than one attack available, like form BAB 6+ or FoB.

Now, in the weapon description: Note the lack of it saying anywhere that a creature may make one attack per fist, or that every creature has two of them, etc.

Your focus on number of unarmed attacks is probably what detracts you from interpreting the RAW in a reasonable fashion. Although it seems clear that you are armed with a weapon on every appendage capable of making an unarmed attack, hence the reason they can be enhanced separately with spells or as magic weapons if you are a Kensai and that gauntlets come in packages of of one rather than as a set.

The important thing is to note that you are not limited to making attacks with one fist or one kick. Two weapon fighting only requires that you have a weapon available in your off hand and as long as you have not used your left fist in your normal attack routine it is also available for off-hand attacks.

Such a simple and straightforward interpretation removes any chance of ending up in a situation as absurd as the one I described earlier where you have to use time to quick draw a weapon before you can TWF.

Matthew
2008-04-17, 10:56 AM
But a TK with MWF (or a human with an arm in their backpack and MWF) can make an additional attack with each weapon. So with armor spikes and two shortswords, he can make three attacks, or more depending. And you did just say in this paragraph that a monk has an arbitrarily high number of unarmed strike, so no backing out of that argument.

I don't think that you understand how Multi Weapon Fighting works. It is limited by the number of hands that a user has, not by the number of potential weapons he has available.



MULTI WEAPON FIGHTING
Prerequisites: Dex 13, three or more hands.
Benefit: Penalties for fighting with multiple weapons are reduced by 2 with the primary hand and reduced by 6 with off hands.
Normal: A creature without this feat takes a -6 penalty on attacks made with its primary hand and a -10 penalty on attacks made with its off hands. (It has one primary hand, and all the others are off hands.) See Two-Weapon Fighting.
Special: This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms.

If you wish to read 'Off Hand' as number of weapons available, that's up to you, but that would mean a three handed character with three Short Swords and Armour Spikes could make five attacks [3 Short Swords, 1 Armour Spike, 1 Unarmed Attack]. Hell, with a three Spiked Gauntlets he could even make eight, by your flawed reading.



Then why did you argue it.

Please start using the quote button. I don't know what you are referring to.



When did I say that? You said that that passage means something that neither I nor the FAQ support. You want to read into things that aren't there be my guest. Also, you guys have claimed the FAQ many times in your favor (even if it was questionable whether or not it actually supports your view), why can't I do the same? And I don't think that there is any doubt that the FAQ is saying that.

Don't you think it's hypocritical to reject the faq when used by others and then use it yourself in support of your own argument?



I didn't say that it was your argument, I said your argument was based on that fact. And I have countered it. Many times.

If I thought you had, I wouldn't say that you hadn't. In any case, yes you did say that, just go back and read your own post. "Now...your entire argument was based on the fact that the off-hand was your other actual hand. You cannot come back and say that this was not your argument."

Now, perhaps you are misconstruing the meaning of 'that is part of my argument', but it means 'that is not the entirety of my argument nor the lynchpin by which it hangs'.



Yes you did! You said that the monk cannot make unarmed strikes with his hands full, indicating that he cannot use the rest of his body. And I will say again: you hold your unarmed strike? And there you go again saying that off-hand means hand. It does not. All an off-hand is is the TWF (or MWF) attacks that incure a 1/2 str penalty on damage and receive a -10 penalty on attack, less with TWF/MWF.

You are ignoring parts of what I say in order to suit your own reading. A Monk cannot use his feet, head or other body part when two Weapon Fighting by a strict reading of the Two Weapon Fighting rules. However, the text that accompanies the Monk entry (much like the Armour Spikes entry) creates an exception to the rule. Therefore, a Monk can use his other body parts to strike.



Now, a while ago Matthew has asked me for my proof in RAW that there is only one unarmed strike. I think a quote from myself will answer this for you:

That said I think there are some places that one can infer that there is only one unarmed strike per character.

Note the singular. And before you point out the places that it says strikes, I'd like to point out that every other place in the unarmed strike (hey, that's also singular) could easily be just a referrence at having more than one attack available, like form BAB 6+ or FoB.

Now, in the weapon description: Note the lack of it saying anywhere that a creature may make one attack per fist, or that every creature has two of them, etc.

If that is truly the sum of your argument then it hardly seems worth continuing. I suppose it to be barely worth mentioning that the Game rules do not assume Two Weapon fighting as the default or that a character is only proficient with the Long Sword, but he can still use two Long Swords? In any case:



TWO-WEAPON DEFENSE [GENERAL]
Your two-weapon fighting style bolsters your defense as well as your offense.
Prerequisites: Dex 15, Two-Weapon Fighting.
Benefit: When wielding a double weapon or two weapons (not including natural weapons or unarmed strikes), you gain a +1 shield
bonus to your AC.

I have already pointed this feat out to you before, but I might as well do so again, since you failed to recognise its significance. The prohibition here against using Unarmed Strikes for the purposes of Two Weapon Defence only makes sense if a character can wield two Unarmed Strikes, otherwise it would say 'not including his unarmed strike'. Just like a Skeleton can make two Natural Attacks with its two Claws, this text assumes that a Human can make two Unarmed Strikes with his two fists. Note that it does not, for instance, say Double Weapons, recognising the fact that a Medium Sized Character cannot wield two Double Weapons.

The fact is, the reading I have supplied for you makes sense of the most available rules. Your reading only makes sense if we arbitrarily ignore certain rules. That's why I said earlier that you are cherry picking to suit your own interpretation.

Now I know that Forum discussions can sometimes bring out the worst in people, but I strongly advise you to take a deep breath and look at the available data with an open mind. Forget the unsupported idea that the entire body of a character is one Unarmed Strike and examine the RAW to see if in fact there is an interpretation that fits without having to ignore a given rule.

dman11235
2008-04-17, 11:20 AM
@LS: I was referring to the part about you saying that the FAQ assumes that you know that each character has more than one unarmed strike. You can't use the passage to prove your point if you say it is assumed it does. It just doesn't work.

Also, I meant to type "no", not "now", and you know that.

@ matthew: You know what that was referring to, I go in order (I have this entire time) separating replies by two lines.

I'm not being hypocritical at all. I never claimed the FAQ to be RAW. I have also never said that the FAQ is not a good source of information. Though in a debate of what is or is not RAW, the FAQ has no ground. However, the RAW part of this debate is over and it has moved on to RAI (Rules As Interpreted), where RAW no longer has much ground and the FAQ has a lot of ground. Oh, and RAI (Rules As Intended) doesn't exist, don't let it fool you. Well, it does, but it doesn't ever even matter because you play RAI, not RAIntended.

Okay, I will say one final thing and then leave, you guys are just that irritating and I'm not immune to stupid today (I was yesterday), no offense, just a general I couldn't get phased at all yesterday statement.

This statement is not going to pick apart your arguments at all like I have been doing (you still haven't addressed some of the more grievous flaws in your logic, like the multiple limbs problem).

Play as you want, I find it very unbalancing to give each character more than one unarmed strike. I also find it extremely abusable (like I have shown) with the very questionable wording of some things like Multi-Weapon Fighting and Unarmed Strikes. I will never play that a character has more than one unarmed strike, and if a DM is naive enough to say they do, I will pull out one of my unarmed damage monks and go to town, making him cry. And the monk is a weak class, think about that.

Matthew
2008-04-17, 11:25 AM
@ matthew: You know what that was referring to, I go in order (I have this entire time) separating replies by two lines.

If I knew, I wouldn't ask you to use the quote buttons. You left me in the unenviable position of having to guess.



I'm not being hypocritical at all. I never claimed the FAQ to be RAW. I have also never said that the FAQ is not a good source of information. Though in a debate of what is or is not RAW, the FAQ has no ground. However, the RAW part of this debate is over and it has moved on to RAI (Rules As Interpreted), where RAW no longer has much ground and the FAQ has a lot of ground. Oh, and RAI (Rules As Intended) doesn't exist, don't let it fool you. Well, it does, but it doesn't ever even matter because you play RAI, not RAIntended.

Well, if you don't think so, you don't think so. I stopped referring you to the faq when you indicated that you did not accept it as authoritative for the interpretation of the Game Rules.



Okay, I will say one final thing and then leave, you guys are just that irritating and I'm not immune to stupid today (I was yesterday), no offense, just a general I couldn't get phased at all yesterday statement.

The feeling is mutual, no offence. :smallwink:



This statement is not going to pick apart your arguments at all like I have been doing (you still haven't addressed some of the more grievous flaws in your logic, like the multiple limbs problem).

If only you had managed to do that!



Play as you want, I find it very unbalancing to give each character more than one unarmed strike. I also find it extremely abusable (like I have shown) with the very questionable wording of some things like Multi-Weapon Fighting and Unarmed Strikes. I will never play that a character has more than one unarmed strike, and if a DM is naive enough to say they do, I will pull out one of my unarmed damage monks and go to town, making him cry. And the monk is a weak class, think about that.

Completely irrelevant. The Wizard is a super strong class, but I don't read the RAW a different way to compensate. The only person who thinks Multi Weapon Fighting is worded questionably is you. Seriously, though, if you think it is 'okay' to make naive DMs cry, then you might want to rethink your attitude to the game (and also reasonable discussion).

I don't care whether I am right or wrong, I don't mind either way. If you were to present a rational interpretation of the RAW that showed my interpretation to be incorrect, I would be pleased, as you would have corrected an error!

GammaPaladin
2008-04-17, 11:38 AM
Play as you want, I find it very unbalancing to give each character more than one unarmed strike.
Unbalancing? The only character who is going to make use of this is the monk, and they're the weakest core class... Which makes them one of the weakest classes period, aside from such sterling examples as the CW Samurai.

It's not abusable as long as you use a very simple concept: You can only make unarmed attacks as per armed attacks made by a creature with your number of hands. Yes, this allows a Thri Kreen monk20 with GMWF to make 14 attacks in a full attack action. So what? They still suck compared to a Thri Kreen Barb20 or even Fighter20, and aren't a patch on a Wizard20 or a Warblade20, let alone a CoDzilla. So who cares (Not to mention this is an epic level character... getting extra limbs capable of holding weapons is difficult without a significant LA)

Yes, an unarmed attack can come from a foot, knee, forehead, etc. That's irrelevant. All we care about for counting the actual number of attacks is how many hands the character has. They can substitute kicks and knee strikes and headbutts for any of those attacks, but their total number stays the same.

It's not complicated.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-04-17, 12:28 PM
Unbalancing? The only character who is going to make use of this is the monk, and they're the weakest core class... Which makes them one of the weakest classes period, aside from such sterling examples as the CW Samurai.

I'd say the relative weakness of the monk is completely irrelevant. The important bit is that they have to burn 1 feat per extra attack, the increase in average damage is negligible, and all it actually does is let them do exactly what any other character who expends those feats similarly can do with them.

How unbalancing, indeed!

It sounds like an argument predicated on the idea that a monk's unarmed strike is somehow powerful as an attack, but 2d10 base damage doesn't even begin to measure up to two-handed weapon Power Attack, or sneak attack.

You're almost certainly better off using those feats for Elusive Target, or even Fists of Iron or Pain Touch. Nothing cheesy or unbalanced about it.

Tokiko Mima
2008-04-17, 12:47 PM
Play as you want, I find it very unbalancing to give each character more than one unarmed strike. I also find it extremely abusable (like I have shown) with the very questionable wording of some things like Multi-Weapon Fighting and Unarmed Strikes. I will never play that a character has more than one unarmed strike, and if a DM is naive enough to say they do, I will pull out one of my unarmed damage monks and go to town, making him cry. And the monk is a weak class, think about that.

But it's not at all unbalanced. Consider a level 1 barbarian with a greatsword and a level 1 monk with unarmed strikes, flurry and TWF.

The barbarian has one attack and a BAB of +1. He'll do 2d6 damage plus twice his Strength bonus (2HW) which is should be +2 or more. Total damage: 11 or more on average.

The monk can attack three times with his unarmed strike. The monk faces a large penalty for doing so, however: A BAB of +0 along with a combined penalty of -4 for a rough 25% less chance to hit versus the barbarian (not counting Strength.) The two attacks from flurry deal 1d6 + Strength damage if they hit, while the TWF offhand attack deals 1d6 + 1/2 Strength. Since the monk needs Wisdom and Dexterity whereas the barbarian does not, the monks' Strength bonus will almost certainly be lower, likely +1. Assuming it was the same however (+2) the total damage if all three attacks connect would be ~15.5. If only two connect, then the damage is ~10 or 11 average. if only a single attack connects it will do ~4.5 to 5.5.

Note that the odds of a monk connecting one all three and seeing a damage increase over the barbarian is pretty slim with the combined penalties the monk is facing. The monk still has a relatively good chance of hitting with two attacks, but not as good as the barbarians odds of hitting once and in this case they do roughly the same damage. What will happen in the majority of cases is that the monk will hit once and do a small amount of damage, simply because with three d20 rolls, at least one is likely to roll high.

This cost the monk a feat, and resulted in a marginal chance of damage not all that much greater than the barbarian. Also, the more AC an encounter has, the worse this deal is for the monk and of course vice versa for the barbarian. I see TWF as being more unfair to the monk overall.

Of course, if you treat unarmed strikes from strands of hair as natural attacks dealing Unarmed Strike damage, then the monk can do nearly infinite damage; just like if a DM said the SRD doesn't say you can't cast three or more spells in the same standard action, and let a wizard unload their entire spellbook at once. It's a nonsensical interpretation of the rules.

Matthew
2008-04-17, 12:53 PM
But it's not at all unbalanced. Consider a level 1 barbarian with a greatsword and a level 1 monk with unarmed strikes, flurry and TWF.

The barbarian has one attack and a BAB of +1. He'll do 2d6 damage plus twice his Strength bonus (2HW) which is should be +2 or more. Total damage: 11 or more on average.

1.5 times his Strength Bonus, average of 10. Of course, if he's wearing Spiked Armour...

Human Barbarian 1
Attributes: Strength 16
Feats: Two Weapon Fighting, Weapon Focus (Great Sword),
Equipment: Great Sword, Armour Spikes,

Attack: Great Sword +4 (2d6+2, 19-20/x2) or Armour Spikes +3 (1d6+2/x2)
Full Attack: Great Sword +2 (2d6+2, 19-20/x2) and Armour Spikes +1 (1d6+1/x2)

Human Monk 1
Attributes: Strength 16
Feats: Improved Unarmed Strike, Weapon Focus (Unarmed Strike), Two Weapon Fighting,
Equipment: None

Attack: Unarmed Strike +3 (1d6+2 x2)
Full attack: Unarmed Strike -1 (1d6+2 x2), Flurried Unarmed Strike -1 (1d6+2 x2), Off Hand Unarmed Strike -1 (1d6+1)
Equipment: Great Sword, Armour Spikes,

dman11235
2008-04-17, 01:04 PM
*points to Diopsid and Insectile template*.

And if you don't think it's unbalancing for 13 attacks per round each dealing 32d8 damage base, I'm curious to know what is balanced in your opinion. I'm not even sure how many DMs will accept a character dealing 32d8 on 5 attacks per round. Oh, and that 13 is just the unarmed strikes, ignoring the scorpion kamas that the TK can wield in each hand and in their mouth, provided they grow a size category. Also, the whole each hand provides an attack sequence thing? What about Beholders? Do they get no attacks even with their mouthpick weapons? And Diopsids, which have four hands, do they get four unarmed strikes? Insectile Creatures, do they have 6? Girralon's Blessing? The MoI soulmeld?

I can (using your interpretation) get upwards of 30 attacks if I get full BAB, not a problem with full BAB PrCs like Fist of the Forest, and the feat selection is a non-issue (though why Fist of Iron? That's one of the worst feats for a monk to take ever) with other classes like Shou Disciple. And I have level 20 damage: SUS, Monk's Belt, Monk Tattoo. Increased by two dice sizes, and then increased to colossal.

There are others like this too.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-04-17, 01:19 PM
@LS: I was referring to the part about you saying that the FAQ assumes that you know that each character has more than one unarmed strike. You can't use the passage to prove your point if you say it is assumed it does. It just doesn't work.

I did not say that. The FAQ assumes that you know that the monk can use unarmed strikes as attacks though...


Also, I meant to type "no", not "now", and you know that.

I know, hence the tongue spilling smiley that followed. It was an attempt to lighten the mood so you would not find us irritating and stupid.
I apologize if it offended you in any way.



@ matthew: You know what that was referring to, I go in order (I have this entire time) separating replies by two lines.

It must be the stupidity thing, because I also had a little trouble following what you were replying to some times...



I'm not being hypocritical at all. I never claimed the FAQ to be RAW. I have also never said that the FAQ is not a good source of information. Though in a debate of what is or is not RAW, the FAQ has no ground. However, the RAW part of this debate is over and it has moved on to RAI (Rules As Interpreted), where RAW no longer has much ground and the FAQ has a lot of ground. Oh, and RAI (Rules As Intended) doesn't exist, don't let it fool you. Well, it does, but it doesn't ever even matter because you play RAI, not RAIntended.

Rules As Interpreted is a term without much meaning. You always have to interpret the information you receive, even the RAW and it is not always as easy to reach a reasonable interpretation based on RAW that also happens to be RAI (intended) as in this case.


Okay, I will say one final thing and then leave, you guys are just that irritating and I'm not immune to stupid today (I was yesterday), no offense, just a general I couldn't get phased at all yesterday statement.


It was nice meeting you too.


This statement is not going to pick apart your arguments at all like I have been doing (you still haven't addressed some of the more grievous flaws in your logic, like the multiple limbs problem).


Again, I must have missed parts of your posts, because I do not recall that happening.
But please, if you should return feel free to do so at any time. Perhaps you could even respond to some of the arguments you have not yet had the opportunity to address?


Play as you want, I find it very unbalancing to give each character more than one unarmed strike. I also find it extremely abusable (like I have shown) with the very questionable wording of some things like Multi-Weapon Fighting and Unarmed Strikes. I will never play that a character has more than one unarmed strike, and if a DM is naive enough to say they do, I will pull out one of my unarmed damage monks and go to town, making him cry. And the monk is a weak class, think about that.


I will reiterate, balance is not the issue when discussing RAW. Of course, if two equally valid interpretations are available I certainly prefer to use the more balanced, but that is not the case here.

And again, restricting the monk is probably not the best course of action if you wish to balance the game with house rules.

EDIT:
I think you have misunderstood some of the rules about MWF, unarmed strikes and natural weapons based on your latest post.

Matthew
2008-04-17, 01:37 PM
Oh, you're back. What a surprise!



*points to Diopsid and Insectile template*.

And if you don't think it's unbalancing for 13 attacks per round each dealing 32d8 damage base, I'm curious to know what is balanced in your opinion. I'm not even sure how many DMs will accept a character dealing 32d8 on 5 attacks per round. Oh, and that 13 is just the unarmed strikes, ignoring the scorpion kamas that the TK can wield in each hand and in their mouth, provided they grow a size category.

I think you might have to do more than spout nonesense to get anyone to go along with this.



Also, the whole each hand provides an attack sequence thing? What about Beholders? Do they get no attacks even with their mouthpick weapons? And Diopsids, which have four hands, do they get four unarmed strikes? Insectile Creatures, do they have 6? Girralon's Blessing? The MoI soulmeld?

Unarmed Attacks are not the same thing as Natural Attacks. That's why they use different Feats.



I can (using your interpretation) get upwards of 30 attacks if I get full BAB, not a problem with full BAB PrCs like Fist of the Forest, and the feat selection is a non-issue (though why Fist of Iron? That's one of the worst feats for a monk to take ever) with other classes like Shou Disciple. And I have level 20 damage: SUS, Monk's Belt, Monk Tattoo. Increased by two dice sizes, and then increased to colossal.

Maybe you can, maybe you can't. Who cares? The RAW is the RAW, it doesn't care about balance of this sort. D&D is breakable.

GammaPaladin
2008-04-17, 01:50 PM
I'm not sure where on earth you're getting this 32d8 damage... And the character can't use a weapon for x attacks out his iteration, and then reuse those attacks as unarmed. If he's wielding four weapons, he still only has 13 total attacks. He can choose to make them unarmed, or armed, but that's all.

He can't make his 13 attacks unarmed, and then repeat them with the weapons. He could make 7 armed and 6 unarmed, or some other combination like that though. Nothing wrong with that.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-04-17, 04:20 PM
And if you don't think it's unbalancing for 13 attacks per round each dealing 32d8 damage base, I'm curious to know what is balanced in your opinion.

What are you on about? How does that relate to TWF and unarmed strikes?

In any case, multiple arms are unbalanced entirely unconnected to unarmed strikes. A thri-kreen with Greater/Perfect Multi-Weapon Fighting is almost certainly much better off using weapons and something like sneak attack to deal horrible damage, than trying to use unarmed strikes.

(Well, there's the possibility to actually Power Attack with both unarmed strikes, but you're still better off building a fighter or barbarian and Power Attacking with a two-handed weapon. A TWFing monk using Power Attack is going to hit even less things. And a fighter has feats to spare for Oversized TWF if they want to PA with both weapons.)


And seriously, quoting things you're replying to helps. I respectfully ask that you do it, to make this discourse more readable. I don't even know what post, much less which point, most of your replies are to.

RagnaroksChosen
2008-04-18, 10:38 AM
Dman:
Actualy the FAQ is considered RAW. The RPGA uses RAW, I was at a santioned event at wizards, on national D&d game day last year and had a monk there that did this. (Yes I played a monk at a game day... I lost a bet). The FAQ's were used in rulings by the Judges/Master GMs there. Also i belive (although i have not looked it up) in some of the material we get as RPGA GMs they specificaly mention to read up on FAQ's and the Errata as they explain how the system is supposed to work, again as sanctioned by WOTC.

GammaPaladin
2008-04-18, 11:27 AM
Yup, the FAQ supercedes the books, and is trumped only by official errata.

It's CustServ rulings that have no real RAW status.


(Well, there's the possibility to actually Power Attack with both unarmed strikes, but you're still better off building a fighter or barbarian and Power Attacking with a two-handed weapon.
And even with four arms, two handed weapon barbies or fighters are going to trump any potential four armed unarmed strike cheese by dual wielding two handers and power attacking with both of them...