Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Tal'eth 05-04-05, 07:44 PM	If so, could someone point me to the text that supports this ruling? I am thinking of playing a monk in an upcoming campaign and the DM isn't sure he will allow the enchantment of a monk's unarmed strike. Thanks for your help!! Take care :)
Zanik 05-04-05, 08:52 PM	see page 246 of the dungeon masters guide for amulet of mighty fists
tiluvias99 05-04-05, 09:10 PM	nope. unless you have a masterwork unarmed strike. however, you could try greater magic fang + permanency, amulet of mighty fists, or (probably your best choice) an amulet of natural weapons.
Leobardis 05-04-05, 09:34 PM	It's on page 41 of the 3.5 PHB in the first column, second paragraph from the bottom. 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 (such as the magic fang and magic weapon spells).
EvilVegan 05-04-05, 09:42 PM	But they aren't masterwork, so they can't be enchanted. Though you could just enchant some masterwork gauntlets.
djinni 05-04-05, 09:59 PM	But they aren't masterwork, so they can't be enchanted. Though you could just enchant some masterwork gauntlets. you could take a warforged mithral or adamantine body and then you'd count as masterworked for those purposes...although that opens up a whole new can of something....
Seeker95 05-04-05, 10:34 PM	I allowed it in my campaign. Big Mistake. Never do that again.
Tsuul 05-05-05, 02:21 AM	Get a tattoo job done on your arms. Think Picaso or maybe a hula-girl that you can make dance when you crack you knuckles. You know, something that just says, "Class". Wallah, Masterwork arms. :cool: Get the amulet of mighty fists from 3.5 DMG or the amulet of natural attacks in savage species.
Red_Decker 05-05-05, 02:26 AM	I'd suggest Amulet of natural weapons or if you're really that concerned about it try looking at the Kensai PrC. They can enchant their fists and gain a few other advantages. http://www.geocities.com/customsmiliesbyswordmaster/inthered.txt
Tenzhi 05-05-05, 02:36 AM	I allowed it in my campaign. Big Mistake. Never do that again. So you've outlawed magical greatswords as well, I take it?
Red_Decker 05-05-05, 02:57 AM	I allowed it in my campaign. Big Mistake. Never do that again. I agree with Tenzhi, I really don't know why that would be game breaking. If you get a hand enhanced via magic, you now have a hand that gives +1[whatever] to attack and damage. After 4th level it goes through DR/Magic anyway. Their are feats that can give them certain alignment DR breakers as well. After 16th level they'll have DR/Admantine which is mostly effective on Constructs and to reduce hardness. [Also, a golems DR can be easily bypassed by a Scarab of Golems bane for anybody.] 10th for lawful which I can't think of any monster that really works against... maybe Slaads. So, could you highlight how it's game breaking. http://www.geocities.com/customsmiliesbyswordmaster/inthered.txt
q'afuu 05-05-05, 05:08 AM	But they aren't masterwork, so they can't be enchanted. Though you could just enchant some masterwork gauntlets. Gauntlets aren't special monk weapons. That means no flurry. They're also weapons that have their own damage, so no increased unarmed damage either.
Red_Decker 05-05-05, 05:20 AM	Gauntlets aren't special monk weapons. That means no flurry. They're also weapons that have their own damage, so no increased unarmed damage either. That depends on what type of gauntlet you're thinking. The armor gauntlet I'd agree with you. But Gauntlets of Ogre Power type I'll go ahead and disagree with. http://www.geocities.com/customsmiliesbyswordmaster/inthered.txt
q'afuu 05-05-05, 08:19 AM	That depends on what type of gauntlet you're thinking. The armor gauntlet I'd agree with you. But Gauntlets of Ogre Power type I'll go ahead and disagree with. :confused: Do you mean bracers? If they're weapons, they can be enchanted like weapons, but then they run in the aforementioned problems with flurry and unarmed damage not applying. If they're not weapons (nor shields), there are no problems with flurry or unarmed damage not applying, but then they can't be enchanted like weapons - basically, you're restricted to 'Mighty Fists'-type enhancements.
Egres 05-05-05, 08:30 AM	So, could you highlight how it's game breaking. Maybe because they would become magical weapons that can't be : Stolen Disarmed Sundered and so on?
Thelon Fairblade 05-05-05, 08:48 AM	Plus magical weapons can't usually be made adamantine later on, after they're already created. Nor do they generally upgrade in damage capacity - no one starts with a shortsword and ends up with a an adamantine lawful Huge Greatsword (at least, not and still use all their other feats and original skills). The monk's inability to "upgrade his weapon" is balanced by the fact that he atacks way more times and for a lot more potential damage. If he really needs a specific weapon type (and remember, he already can put the beat-down on liches at 4th level), he can carry monk-specific weapons like a silver kama, or a cold-iron-tipped quarterstaff, or whatever.
Seeker95 05-05-05, 10:38 AM	So you've outlawed magical greatswords as well, I take it?Then you take it wrong.I agree with Tenzhi, I really don't know why that would be game breaking.Egres gave just a few of the examples of why it was game breaking. Take a monk. Throw in flurry of blows. Now add magical enhancement capabilities. Throw in +1 as the base. Then make every additional enhancement an energy bonus damage type. Add in the next 12 levels. Throw in two-weapon fighting and improved two-weapon fighting. Now the monk gets five attacks every round, with fantastic chances to hit. The total damage with each hit is 2d6 + 1d6 fire + 1d6 cold +1d6 electrical = 5d6 damage up to 5 times a round. That's 5-30 points of damage on each hit. If all five attacks hit, that is as much as 150 points of damage in a round. At an average of 17.5 points of damage per hit, and an average of 3 out of 5 hits landing, that's an average of 52.5 points of damage each round. And that's just at 12th level. With a "weapon" that can't be sundered, stolen, or disarmed. At best, it can be suppressed with dispel magic. But with the monk saving throws, even that isn't likely. The monk does not have masterwork arms. They can't be enhanced. And allowing it was a big mistake. I speak from experience.
Nuntius128 05-05-05, 10:46 AM	Maybe because they would become magical weapons that can't be : Stolen Disarmed Sundered and so on? Pfft, I could Disarm them. Just a little thing we like to call "Called Shot." :D
Seeker95 05-05-05, 10:52 AM	Just a little thing we like to call "Called Shot." :DAs long as folks see the smiley at the end. Using house rules to balance house rules is a very slippery slope.
John Q. Mayhem 05-05-05, 11:11 AM	Gauntlet: This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack. The cost and weight given are for a single gauntlet. Medium and heavy armors (except breastplate) come with gauntlets. Emphasis mine. Gauntlets deal lethal damage, and are considered unarmed attacks in every other way. A monk with Simple Weapon Proficiency can use gauntlets, dealing lethal damage (redundant), but with FoB and such. They come with armor, but aren't armor themselves, so it's kosher.
q'afuu 05-05-05, 12:36 PM	A monk with Simple Weapon Proficiency can use gauntlets, dealing lethal damage (redundant), but with FoB and such.From the 3.0 FAQ: Are gauntlets and spiked gauntlets considered weapons? Could a monk wearing a pair of gauntlets attack and still apply her unarmed attack bonus and unarmed damage? Could the monk use her class abilities that require successful unarmed strikes, such as her stun ability, while wearing gauntlets? How much damage would a monk wearing a pair of gauntlets deal? If the gauntlets had an enhancement bonus (such as a +2 enhancement bonus) or a special ability (such as flaming burst), would a monk wearing these gauntlets gain any benefit? Can gauntlets even have weapon enhancement bonuses or weapon special abilities? Both gauntlets and spiked gauntlets are weapons (that ’s why they are both listed on Table 7–4 in the Player’s Handbook). A pair of gauntlets or spiked gauntlets can be magically enhanced, just as any other weapon can. Although a nonmonk wearing a pair of gauntlets is still considered unarmed (see the next two questions), a monk wearing gauntlets is using a weapon. A monk cannot use any of her special unarmed attack abilities (unarmed damage, stunning attack, and so on) when using a weapon. A monk can use her unarmed attack rate with a special monk weapon, but gauntlets are not a special monk weapon. A monk wearing gauntlets does not provoke attacks of opportunity when striking an armed foe with gauntlets. The monk deals the same damage as any other character of her size (1d3 points of damage for a Medium-size character). The monk would get the benefits of any magical properties the gauntlets might have.
Leobardis 05-05-05, 01:15 PM	Seeker, you made a mistake. You can't do both flurry and take two weapon shots in the same round. Since they're both full round actions they don't overlap, you have to choose one or the other. It's in the FAQ's. On another topic, gauntlets aren't actually a weapon since they do no damage in and of themselves. They simply allow you to do lethal damage with your unarmed strike. This is somewhat redundant for a monk but there you go. In any case, you could always just make a pair of masterwork gloves or gauntlets as per the weapon or item crafting rules in the DMG.
q'afuu 05-05-05, 01:18 PM	Seeker, you made a mistake. You can't do both flurry and take two weapon shots in the same round. Since their both full round actions they don't overlap, you have to choose one or the other. It's in the FAQ's. What's in the (3.5) FAQ is actually that yes, you can combine TWF and flurry, although you'll be suffering the sum of the penalties to hit.
Leobardis 05-05-05, 01:24 PM	My bad, I thought they ruled that out with 3.5
Seeker95 05-05-05, 01:49 PM	Nevermind. q'afuu answered for me.
q'afuu 05-05-05, 03:01 PM	On another topic, gauntlets aren't actually a weapon since they do no damage in and of themselves.I quoted the FAQ answer that contradicts this in the post right above yours. ;)
Frozen Yakman 05-05-05, 03:27 PM	As long as folks see the smiley at the end. Using house rules to balance house rules is a very slippery slope. This is a patently false statement. House rules on top of house rules is practically required to make the game fun. It also has the side effect of putting the dunce cap on rules lawyers which has a sympathetic effect on the fun quotient.
Seeker95 05-05-05, 03:44 PM	This is a patently false statement. House rules on top of house rules is practically required to make the game fun.Not disputing your intent, but rather your wording. Your second statement (debatable at best) does not make the what I said patently false. Making a hosue rule to fix the mechanic you screwed up by making another houserule is a slippery slope. Eventually, you've made so many houserules to fix the houserules you made because you thought it would make your game more fun that you aren't playing Dungeons & Dragons anymore. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing doesn't matter. It is still a slippery slope.It also has the side effect of putting the dunce cap on rules lawyers.The DM making houserules to fix the balance problems caused by his houserules is probably the one wearing the dunce cap to begin with. :D
Phoenixflame 05-05-05, 04:45 PM	If you want to add some enchantments to your unarmed strikes, take a look at Bracers of Striking ( think thats the name) in Magic of Faerun. They Allow you to enchant the bracers as if they are a weapon and the weapon ability transfers to your fists ( ONLY your fists, not all possibile unarmed strike such as knees feet etc) The have a base price of 1k plus what ever abilities you put on them...but they count as a double weapon (for both fists) to which u are enchanting both ends--so double the cost.
thinkhard 05-05-05, 06:13 PM	I think you're all missing an important point here. I dont believe you can really enchant "monk fists" as one weapon, especially when you read how a monk's unarmed strike works. Page 41 of the PHB 3.5 says "A monks attacks may be made with either fists interchangebly, or eve with elbows, knees, or feet. This means a monk can make attacks even when her hands are full." So my ruling would be using any of those above methods (excluding greater magic fang, which enhances all natural weapons to +1, and excluding Kensai which has a special explanation) that a monk would have to pay individually for each part of the body enhanced (with either a glove, gauntlent, bracer, whatever) and if that specific part of the body were some how incapacitated or restrained, the monk would not gain any of the benefits of the enhancement. Easy solution: bracers with enchanteed greater magic fang (costing around 30,000 GP i believe). Of course, in that situation, you only get +1 to any of your attacks no matter what. So a monk may choose to favor one particular part of her body and use an item to more cheaply and effective enhance that, but still run the same risks of only having a single enhanced weapon that everyone else goes through.
smrtgmp 05-05-05, 06:28 PM	I would allow it. However, I would make the PC pay quite a bit more (3 times as much, based on the fact that an amulet of mighty fists costs 3x as much as a weapon with an equal enhancement bonus). IMO that would remove most of the balance concerns. I would probably also make them take a feat first (which I would have to create) that treats your natural weapons as masterwork weapons for the purose of future enchantment (i.e. no +1 to hit in the mean time).
thinkhard 05-05-05, 06:33 PM	well I can understand that...doesn't mean i'd do it myself though. I think monks are uber-awesome anyway, so I'm wary to help them out too much beyond what the rules provide. Of course, i'm sure many people out there would lividly disagree with me about monk's awesomeness and say they're underpowered.
smrtgmp 05-05-05, 06:36 PM	I dont think they're underpowered, I just think the amulet of natural fists sets a presidence of sorts. If they're willing to take a feat and pay 3x the normal price, I dont think it would break anything, especially if you stay close to the recomended wealth limits.
ManTimeForgot 05-05-05, 06:38 PM	Personally, I view the allowing of enchanting a monk's fists as weapons to be counter to the intent of the monk class. If the designers wanted to allow monk's to get enchanted fists, then they probably would have explicitly stated as such, but more than this why give them ki strike magic if they are supposed to get their fists enchanted? You will note that the 3.0 monk's ki strike was a matter of gradation paralleling the magic weapon line, but never providing the bonuses to hit and damage. A monk's unarmed strike already deals damage like a weapon due to its higher damage die; really the monk is only missing out on the to hit. Honestly if you wanted "magic" fists with all the benefits of a magic weapon, then all you really need to add to the monk is an item which grants a bonus to hit. And if you want a more "monk" feel then just create bracers that do just that (combat prowess is what bracers do if memory serves). If you want flaming hands then use an out of type pair of gloves (it will cost more but so what). Gloves don't count as weapons, and that very easily could add flaming damage to your unarmed strike made with your fists. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
q'afuu 05-05-05, 07:21 PM	Of course, i'm sure many people out there would lividly disagree with me about monk's awesomeness and say they're underpowered. *shrug* I'd say they're reasonably balanced, as long as as we're talking reasonable stats and wealth levels. If you go below that they become somewhat weak, while if you go above that, they become more powerful. Much like any other class, but IMX a bit more pronounced.
Tenzhi 05-06-05, 02:55 AM	What's in the (3.5) FAQ is actually that yes, you can combine TWF and flurry, although you'll be suffering the sum of the penalties to hit. And the FAQ is clearly wrong, or at least misinterpreted. You can't use "unarmed strike" for every attack in a TWF/Flurry combination because "unarmed strike" is just one weapon. You could either use it for the primary/flurry attacks or the offhand attacks, but not both. In any case, even if you unwisely allow TWF and Flurry to mix the damage die of the original weapon becomes unimportant in the face of the enhancement damages - ergo it wouldn't matter if it were a magical kama or magical unarmed strikes. And a Fighter or Ranger at the same level can be getting almost as many attacks with a better chance to hit - and are more likely to have gotten the TWF feats. Stolen, disarmed, or sundered? Anti-magic, dispels, and disjunctions are more common. The former three are less important to balance - because if the object is broken balance-wise and two of those three things occur that just means someone else is now using the broken item.
q'afuu 05-06-05, 03:53 AM	And the FAQ is clearly wrong, or at least misinterpreted. You can't use "unarmed strike" for every attack in a TWF/Flurry combination because "unarmed strike" is just one weapon. You could either use it for the primary/flurry attacks or the offhand attacks, but not both. What on earth are you on about? I agree the FAQ answer isn't entirely correct, but not in that way. The only issue I have with it is that the off-hand attacks shouldn't be considered off-hand if they're unarmed, which they are according to the FAQ. Otherwise, there's nothing wrong with the entry.
Tenzhi 05-06-05, 04:12 AM	What on earth are you on about? I thought it was pretty clear. "Unarmed strike" is only one weapon. You definitively cannot use Two Weapon Fighting with only one weapon. When fighting with two weapons you get attacks with your primary weapon and your off-hand weapon. And according to the FAQ a monk may add flurry attacks into the mix - but they still must have designated primary and offhand weapons the both of which cannot be "unarmed strike" as that is only one weapon. A monk could make their primary weapon attacks and their flurry attacks with unarmed strikes, or they could make their flurry attacks and offhand attacks with unarmed strikes, but they cannot use unarmed strikes for all three.
Red_Decker 05-06-05, 04:14 AM	Lost and broken are not balance issues otherwise an Admantine anything would be broken. Rules time, for an item to be magic it must be masterwork, correct? So at fourth level a monks fists should be considered Masterwork. Jury is still out on this one. If Magic isn't enough we'll try the next step, Admantine. It clearly states in the rules that an adamantine item is always considered masterwork. At 16th level a monks fists should be considered masterwork. Now using your monk example we'll do a little damage comparison. A level 20 Fighter with a +1 Flaming/Shocking/Frost Greatsword of speed. We have 2d6+1d6[flame]+1d6[shock]+1d6[frost]=5d6 damage for 5 attacks per round. Attacks are at +21/+21/+16/+11/+6 Between 5 and 30 points of damage per hit. An Average of 87.5 with all hits. A 20th level monk with a +1 Flaming/Shocking/Frost fist of Speed. Damage is 2d10+1d6[Flame]+1d6[Shock]+1d6[frost]= 2d10+3d6 for 4/6 attacks per round. We have +16/+16/+11/+6. Flurry is much better but still behind with +16/+16/+16/+16/+11/+6. Between 5 and 38 points of damage per hit. 86 Damage for 4 attacks and 129 for 6. Looks ahead for the monk so far. Now the clincher: The fighter is more likely to hit then the monk and the Fighter will have a higher damage output due to GWS, higher strength, and power attack being added in. http://www.geocities.com/customsmiliesbyswordmaster/inthered.txt
q'afuu 05-06-05, 05:14 AM	I thought it was pretty clear. "Unarmed strike" is only one weapon. *A* longsword is also one weapon. That doesn't mean you can't wield two. ;)
q'afuu 05-06-05, 05:20 AM	Rules time, for an item to be magic it must be masterwork, correct? So at fourth level a monks fists should be considered Masterwork. Jury is still out on this one. If Magic isn't enough we'll try the next step, Admantine. It clearly states in the rules that an adamantine item is always considered masterwork. At 16th level a monks fists should be considered masterwork. Being considered magic/adamantine doesn't *make* anything magic/adamantine. A monk's fists (whole body, really) is considered magic/adamantine for purposes of overcoming DR. That doesn't mean they're considered magic/adamantine for purposes of being (considered) masterwork.
Tenzhi 05-06-05, 07:34 AM	*A* longsword is also one weapon. That doesn't mean you can't wield two. ;) To wield a second "unarmed strike" one would have to be in control of a body that was entirely seperate from one's own as "unarmed strike" already comprises the entirety of one's own body. I'm sure such a situation is not entirely impossible, but it is so highly improbable that it doesn't matter. Hence, for all intents and purposes one can only wield a single "unarmed strike."
The_Fan 05-06-05, 08:00 AM	As I answered last time this came up: It's generally assumed that enchanting a weapon involves such arcane processes as folding and refolding the steel while pounding diamonds in with an enchanted hammer, soaking the metal in a bath made from a gorgon's tears until the impurities float to the surface, reforging it in the extreme heat created by burning a balor's egg, etc. In other words, you can try to have your fists enchanted, but there won't be much left of them by the time the process is finished.
q'afuu 05-06-05, 09:25 AM	To wield a second "unarmed strike" one would have to be in control of a body that was entirely seperate from one's own as "unarmed strike" already comprises the entirety of one's own body. I'm sure such a situation is not entirely impossible, but it is so highly improbable that it doesn't matter. Hence, for all intents and purposes one can only wield a single "unarmed strike." An unarmed strike, strictly speaking, isn't even a weapon (the word 'unarmed' kinda gives that away). It's only considered one for mechanical purposes, so the rules don't fall apart when it comes to using them for special maneuvres (like disarming) or in combination with certain feats (like weapon focus). I don't really see where the rules specifically forbid you from being considered to be wielding two unarmed strikes.
Egres 05-06-05, 09:55 AM	I thought it was pretty clear. "Unarmed strike" is only one weapon. Source?
Tenzhi 05-07-05, 01:10 AM	An unarmed strike, strictly speaking, isn't even a weapon (the word 'unarmed' kinda gives that away). It's only considered one for mechanical purposes, so the rules don't fall apart when it comes to using them for special maneuvres (like disarming) or in combination with certain feats (like weapon focus). I don't really see where the rules specifically forbid you from being considered to be wielding two unarmed strikes. Mechanically it counts as a weapon, and we are discussing the mechanics. The reason you cannot wield two unarmed strikes is because every part of your body counts as an unarmed strike. If you can wield two, then you can wield three, or four, or a hundred - sure, without Multi-weapon fighting you'll get a -10 to hit but the odds are in your favour with a few thousand attacks per round. Since you obviously can't get a thousand attacks per round, the unarmed strike mechanically counts as one weapon and thus cannot be both sides of a TWF attack. This is in fact why Flurry of Blows exists in the first place - so a solely unarmed monk can have something akin to TWF. Source? The PHB.
q'afuu 05-07-05, 05:58 AM	Mechanically it counts as a weapon, and we are discussing the mechanics. The reason you cannot wield two unarmed strikes is because every part of your body counts as an unarmed strike. If you can wield two, then you can wield three, or four, or a hundred - sure, without Multi-weapon fighting you'll get a -10 to hit but the odds are in your favour with a few thousand attacks per round. Since you obviously can't get a thousand attacks per round, the unarmed strike mechanically counts as one weapon and thus cannot be both sides of a TWF attack. This is in fact why Flurry of Blows exists in the first place - so a solely unarmed monk can have something akin to TWF. Um, no. Merely having a hundred or more unarmed strikes doesn't allow you to use them all during a full attack action. Unarmed strikes are not natural weapons. The number of off-hand attacks you can make with manufactured (or at least, non-natural) weapons is limited by the number of limbs you have available for off-hand attacks (which is more limited than the number of limbs you have available, because not every limb counts). For instance, armour spikes can be used much like unarmed strikes - even if your hands are occupied, you can still wield them by kicking or shoulder slamming or whatever. However, that doesn't allow you to both make an off-hand attack with the spikes on your arm when your hands are not otherwise tied up and still make another off-hand attack by kicking.
Tenzhi 05-07-05, 06:45 AM	Um, no. Merely having a hundred or more unarmed strikes doesn't allow you to use them all during a full attack action. Technically it does. Unarmed strikes are not natural weapons. I never implied that they were in this thread. The number of off-hand attacks you can make with manufactured (or at least, non-natural) weapons is limited by the number of limbs you have available for off-hand attacks (which is more limited than the number of limbs you have available, because not every limb counts). Not so. It is limited by the number of off-hand attacks available (exactly as with TWF, for which you do not need to have two limbs available). Limbs only come into play in order to qualify for the MWF feat, which is not necessary in order to fight with multiple weapons. For instance, armour spikes can be used much like unarmed strikes Indeed. You can't use armour spikes for every attack in a TWF combo either, though by your reasoning you should be able to.
q'afuu 05-07-05, 07:01 AM	Technically it does. Could you perhaps elaborate a bit more? Because I don't see anything to suggest this is the case. I can hold two swords in one hand as well, but that doesn't allow me to make an attack with both (or even one of them). I never implied that they were in this thread. And I never implied you did. ;) I was merely pointing it out because if unarmed strikes were natural weapons, there'd be a problem. Not so. It is limited by the number of off-hand attacks available (exactly as with TWF, for which you do not need to have two limbs available). Limbs only come into play in order to qualify for the MWF feat, which is not necessary in order to fight with multiple weapons.Maybe in theory... In practice, that number is still limited by the number of applicable limbs. Or should I use a more generic term, like appendage or something? Indeed. You can't use armour spikes for every attack in a TWF combo either, though by your reasoning you should be able to.Actually, as far as I know you can. You can't use armour spikes when you're already using another *off-hand* weapon and vice versa, but the rules don't prohibit using armour spikes as both your primary and your off-hand weapon. Not to my knowledge, anyway. Admittedly, this leads to questions about the cost of MW and/or enhanced spikes, but that's another issue. Other example: I'm holding two swords, and I can also make an unarmed kick attack. By your logic, I should be able to make a primary attack with sword 1, an off-hand attack with sword 2 and another off-hand attack with that kick?
Egres 05-07-05, 10:21 AM	The PHB. Mmh? Quote, please.
Leobardis 05-08-05, 03:44 AM	Actually, as far as I know you can. You can't use armour spikes when you're already using another *off-hand* weapon and vice versa, but the rules don't prohibit using armour spikes as both your primary and your off-hand weapon. Not to my knowledge, anyway. From the text of the TWF feat. You can fight with a weapon in each hand. You can make one extra attack each round with the second weapon. Thus, you must have two seperate weapons, so, until you can wear two suits of spiked armor at once, you can only attack with the spikes as one of the two attacks. As for the rest, I'm inclined to generally agree with Tenzhi.
Leobardis 05-08-05, 03:53 AM	Quote, please. The description of the unarmed strike in the PHB A medium character deals 1d3 points of nonlethal damage with an unarmed strike, which may be a punch, kick, head butt, or other type of attack. At least, I think this is the section he was referring to.
Tenzhi 05-08-05, 03:58 AM	Mmh? Quote, please. Turn to the Chapter entitled "Combat" and read it, then catch up to the context of this conversation and you will see the rules-based reasoning. Or find me a relevant quote that says Unarmed Strike counts as multiple weapons, which will prove that a monk can get hundreds of attacks in one round via multi-weapon fighting. Other example: I'm holding two swords, and I can also make an unarmed kick attack. By your logic, I should be able to make a primary attack with sword 1, an off-hand attack with sword 2 and another off-hand attack with that kick? Which, all penalties considered, is safer reasoning than making primary attacks with an unarmed strike, flurry attacks with unarmed strike, and offhand attacks with unarmed strike - which (aside from opening up the hundred-attacks can of worms) is essentially the same as allowing a fighter to use TWF with one longsword/greatsword/whatever.
q'afuu 05-08-05, 04:18 AM	Thus, you must have two seperate weapons, so, until you can wear two suits of spiked armor at once, you can only attack with the spikes as one of the two attacks. Nothing in the rules says spikes can only count as one weapon. In fact, nothing says I can't put two sets of spikes on a single set of armour (which would solve the separate issue of multiple MW/enhanced spikes). :) Which, all penalties considered, is safer reasoning than making primary attacks with an unarmed strike, flurry attacks with unarmed strike, and offhand attacks with unarmed strike - which (aside from opening up the hundred-attacks can of worms) is essentially the same as allowing a fighter to use TWF with one longsword/greatsword/whatever.'All' penalties? If it was possible to do this (which it isn't), there is no rule stating that the penalties for wielding multiple off-hand weapons are cumulative. A thri-kreen making 3 off-hand attacks with light weapons still only suffers a -2 to hit, not -6. Said fighter would only suffer a -2 to hit on all attacks as well, provided the off-hand sword is light. The monk would suffer -2 from the off-hand attacks and whatever penalty he'd be suffering from flurrying added to that, depending on level. IOW, the monk is never better off, and possibly worse. I really don't see why this is a safer reasoning. A fighter can't use TWF with a single sword, because he can't be wielding it in each hand separately. There is no such physical limitation in the case of unarmed strikes, so it's hardly the same.
Tenzhi 05-08-05, 04:39 AM	The monk would likely be suffering a higher penalty for the extra off-hand attack as he likely cannot qualify for the MWF feat. It is also notable that in such a scenario, only his flurry attacks and one set of offhand attacks could be unarmed strikes.
Egres 05-08-05, 05:24 AM	Turn to the Chapter entitled "Combat" and read it, then catch up to the context of this conversation and you will see the rules-based reasoning. I asked for a quote but I can't see any in your post.... Why?
Tenzhi 05-08-05, 05:39 AM	I asked for a quote but I can't see any in your post.... Why? Because I didn't put a quote in my post. ;) But enough of that silliness. The reason there isn't a quote in my post is because the reasoning isn't based on a single quote from the rules. That a monk's unarmed strike only counts as one weapon is based largely on the impossibilities that arise if that isn't the case. Unless you have a quote from the core rules that proves otherwise, all we have to go on for either side of the interpretation is definition via contextual observation (IOW, looking at how the game works in general and fitting the definition into that paradigm).
rbingham2000 05-08-05, 07:46 AM	I think the reasoning behind Two-Weapon Fighting with the unarmed strike comes from the fact that you have two fists, and people want to use both fists in tandem like someone using two swords without having to split attacks between rounds. The visual that comes to my mind when I picture Two-Weapon Fighting with the unarmed strike is someone using his fists to crack two guys upside the head at the same time, like the Mariachi in Once Upon a Time in Mexico, something action heroes are pretty notorious for.
Egres 05-08-05, 08:06 AM	Because I didn't put a quote in my post. ;) But enough of that silliness. The reason there isn't a quote in my post is because the reasoning isn't based on a single quote from the rules. That a monk's unarmed strike only counts as one weapon is based largely on the impossibilities that arise if that isn't the case. Unless you have a quote from the core rules that proves otherwise, all we have to go on for either side of the interpretation is definition via contextual observation (IOW, looking at how the game works in general and fitting the definition into that paradigm). Can't you see that, by your reasoning, even fighting with two shot swords should follow the same rules, since you are using a single "weapon", your arms, to use them?
q'afuu 05-09-05, 04:23 AM	The monk would likely be suffering a higher penalty for the extra off-hand attack as he likely cannot qualify for the MWF feat. Let's assume he can actually qualify - that's possible, after all. It is also notable that in such a scenario, only his flurry attacks and one set of offhand attacks could be unarmed strikes. No, that's what you're claiming - you can't prove your claim by repeating it. ;)