Post/Author/DateTime	Post
ProjectA 07-10-07, 12:48 AM	Could a monk who has two weapon fighting use unarmed strike for both of the weapons?
Twylyght 07-10-07, 12:56 AM	Yes. And you could Flurry too. Normal penalties apply and stack as appropriate.
Cloudy 07-10-07, 07:36 AM	There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply her full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all her unarmed strikes. From the PH. You can't use 2-weapon fighting with unarmed strikes, you must use normal weapons. The reason is because you don't really need hands to do an unarmed strike and an off-hand kick sounds strange.
Kouk 07-10-07, 08:22 AM	The Main FAQ states that a Monk can use TWF, and spells out how it works. Whether your DM allows it may vary.
Kouk 07-10-07, 08:23 AM	Here is the FAQ entry: 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 twoweapon 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.
foxtail 07-10-07, 08:35 AM	From the PH. You can't use 2-weapon fighting with unarmed strikes, you must use normal weapons. The reason is because you don't really need hands to do an unarmed strike and an off-hand kick sounds strange. Just because your other hand isn't "off-hand" doesn't mean you can't TWF with it. In fact, a monk without the TWF feat even has his normal penalties for the second unarmed strike reduced because of it.
Leilond 07-10-07, 08:40 AM	From the PH. You can't use 2-weapon fighting with unarmed strikes, you must use normal weapons. The reason is because you don't really need hands to do an unarmed strike and an off-hand kick sounds strange. The rotg and faq already clarified that "off hand" isn't an "hand" in the proper way If you wiled two weapon, you can claim as "primary hand" and "off hand" the hand you prefer, and you can claim a different one every round. So, if you have a long sword in one hand and a short sword in another, you can consider the long sword "primary" in the first round and change it, considering the short sword as "primary", because (for instance) you need to give the full strenght bonus to the short sword for some reason... and this without changing hand More of that, you can consider to make all your attack with all body part except one of your hand, and then deliver the "additional two weapon attacks" with that hand
jaelis 07-10-07, 08:43 AM	Actually, the rules are unclear whether you can TWF and use unarmed strikes for both the primary and off-hand attacks, because they aren't clear whether you have multiple "unarmed strike weapons," like your two fists, your two feet, etc, or just one "unarmed strike" that can be delivered with various parts of your body. If you just have one unarmed strike weapon, then you can't TWF with it, any more than you can TWF with a halberd. (Even though a halberd has multiple striking surfaces.) The FAQ discussion about monks doesn't address this particular point. So it's kind of a DM call.
Leilond 07-10-07, 08:50 AM	Actually, the rules are unclear whether you can TWF and use unarmed strikes for both the primary and off-hand attacks, because they aren't clear whether you have multiple "unarmed strike weapons," like your two fists, your two feet, etc, or just one "unarmed strike" that can be delivered with various parts of your body. If you just have one unarmed strike weapon, then you can't TWF with it, any more than you can TWF with a halberd. (Even though a halberd has multiple striking surfaces.) The FAQ discussion about monks doesn't address this particular point. So it's kind of a DM call. The faq indeed is very clear on that. You can use a "off hand" with an "unarmed attack" after you already delivered an unarmed attack... I don't think you need more
foxtail 07-10-07, 08:52 AM	Actually, the rules are unclear whether you can TWF and use unarmed strikes for both the primary and off-hand attacks, because they aren't clear whether you have multiple "unarmed strike weapons," like your two fists, your two feet, etc, or just one "unarmed strike" that can be delivered with various parts of your body. Perhaps, but the Kensai PrC from Complete Warrior allows a monk/kensai to enchant both of his fists for the same cost as enchanting a double weapon, which suggests otherwise.
jaelis 07-10-07, 08:54 AM	The faq indeed is very clear on that. You can use a "off hand" with an "unarmed attack" after you already delivered an unarmed attack... I don't think you need more Perhaps I missed it, could you find me a quote?
jaelis 07-10-07, 08:56 AM	Perhaps, but the Kensai PrC from Complete Warrior allows a monk/kensai to enchant both of his fists for the same cost as enchanting a double weapon, which suggests otherwise. It does indeed, and if that is compelling for you, then you have an answer. It doesn't really satisfy me because it's such a secondary source and you often see PrC abilities that plainly contradict the normal rules. (For instance, the abjurant champion and mage armor.)
Twylyght 07-10-07, 04:04 PM	"off hand" in D&D 3.5 in an abstract term for any secondary attack form added to you primary attacks, and not using natural weapons. The weapon, or how they are wielded, does not matter. In fact, you can make "main-hand" and "off -hand" attacks even if for some reason, you have no hands.. or arms!!! A "main hand" attack, is any attack with the weapon you declare "primary" that round. an "off-hand" attack in D&D is any attacks thats not your primary attacking form. If you have a spiked helmet, and are holding a mace in your "main hand" you can attack with the mace as your primary, then head but with the spiked helmet as an "off-hand" attack. But say you come across something weak to piercing, you can make a "main-hand" attack with the helmet spike, then attack with the mace as an "off-hand" attack. A Monk usinf flurry and two-weapon fighting works, but attacks would be handles as normal. His normal attacks and flurry attacks deal full strength damage, any extra "off-hand" attacks deal 1/2 strength damage as normal for off hand attacks. The penaties from both flurry and two-weapon fighting are added together and applied to all attacks in the round. All attacks must qualify for the slots they fall in. If you really want to get carried away a PHB only monk 16/ Fighter 4 can get in 10 attacks this way without resorting to magic. 4 from BAB, 3 off hand, 2 from flurry, and 1 from rapid shot if he throws a shuriken as part of the flurry. all attacks in the round are at -4 (-2 off hand weapon is light, -2 rapid shot. -0 flurry after 11th level) "main attacks" +12, +12, +12, +12, +7, +2, -3 "off hand" +12, +7, +2. Granted atleast 2 of those are shuriken but a stack of wounding shuriken sounds pretty good about know doesnt it?
Cloudy 07-10-07, 04:37 PM	So if the monk/kensai uses an unarmed strike with his/her legs he'll use the normal stats and not the enchanted ones:confused: From what I understood from the faq, a monk can use twf if he/she uses a weapon in the 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). Assuming she wields a light weapon in her off hand... meaning that as a primary attack you can use an unarmed strike but as an off-hand you have to use a weapon. And this agrees with what the PH states (no off-hand attacking with unarmed strike). Also in PH: A monk’s attacks may be with either fist interchangeably or even from elbows, knees, and feet. As I perceive it, the whole body is used as one weapon.
jaelis 07-10-07, 04:44 PM	meaning that as a primary attack you can use an unarmed strike but as an off-hand you have to use a weapon. And this agrees with what the PH states (no off-hand attacking with unarmed strike). The relevant passage is 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. This says pretty clearly that a monk can make off-hand unarmed strike attacks, despite the wording of the class ability.
Cloudy 07-10-07, 04:49 PM	Well that is nifty, although a little unfair for the other classes (IMO). Yet, I really can't figure out how it is done since a monk striking unarmed always brings me pictures of a combo done by all the body parts, so it is kinda hard to tell the "off-hand" attack. Oh well, if the rules say it I rest my case.
Twylyght 07-10-07, 05:12 PM	So if the monk/kensai uses an unarmed strike with his/her legs he'll use the normal stats and not the enchanted ones:confused: True here, it says a kensai can enchant his hands. I see no reason you couldnt choose feet, but then your hands wouldnt work. Heck im lax enough in my game I would let you claim your "limbs" to cover your arms and legs, but id still charge you 140% of the normal cost. From what I understood from the faq, a monk can use twf if he/she uses a weapon in the off-hand meaning that as a primary attack you can use an unarmed strike but as an off-hand you have to use a weapon. And this agrees with what the PH states (no off-hand attacking with unarmed strike). A monk's unarmed strike is a weapon. And can be "wielded" as such. This is why they (or anyone with improved unarmed strike) is treated as armed. As I perceive it, the whole body is used as one weapon. I like to think of it as a collection of equally deadly weapons in a easy to carry single package. But then a quarterstaff is a single weapon, but you can use it for two wepaon fighting.
Bihlbo 07-10-07, 06:51 PM	An Unarmed Strike Regardless of your classes and feats, all of the information regarding unarmed attacks in general uses the singular when referring to the attack specifically. "The character makes an unarmed strike." Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon... For the purposes of the number of weapons you have, an unarmed strike is one attack. This means that no, a character, even a monk, cannot fight with unarmed strikes alone as though they were two weapons. But, a monk who specializes in using two weapons can benefit greatly from wielding a primary weapon and learning all of the two-weapon fighting feats. (See further explanation below.) EDIT: I should say, this is my interpretation of the way things are worded. I still have yet to find something that specifically says this outright. So, while I think I'm right, I know that I could be wrong. For instance, a level 16 monk with a 20 Strength who has gained a claw and bite attack from being horribly difigured, and who uses a +2 magic club would make these attacks with Multiattack and Greater Two-Weapon Fighting (this is not a flurry): +17/+17/+12/+12/+7/+7/+15/+15 This breaks down as follows: +2 club at full BAB -2 (penalty is for two-weapon fighting, with a light off-hand weapon) / off-hand unarmed strike at full BAB (with no penalty because monks don't suffer that penalty for off-hand unarmed strikes) / 1st iterative club / unarmed strike attack granted by Improved Two-Weapon Fighting / 2nd iterative club / unarmed strike attack granted by Greater Two-Weapon Fighting / bite attack as a secondary weapon at BAB -2 (modified from -5 by Multiattack) / claw attack as secondary weapon at BAB -2 Only the claw and bite attacks would gain 1/2 Strength bonus to damage, all other attacks would gain the full Strength bonus. Had this been a flurry attack, two extra attacks would be added at the outset (+2 club or unarmed strike, either one) and the natural weapons (claw and bite) could not be used at all because they are not special monk weapons. However, both of the extra attacks granted by the flurry would be at a -2 penalty due to fighting with two weapons, since the attack is not off-hand. One important thing to remember in all of this is that a monk doesn't really treat unarmed attacks the same way a non-monk does. Non-Monk: Either the primary attacks or off-hand attacks may be unarmed, adding Strength bonus or half Strength bonus as appropriate. Unarmed attacks are treated like light weapons for the purposes of determining two-weapon fighting penalties. An unarmed strike is not a natrual weapon, and a feat that requires natural weaponry as a prerequisite, such as Multiattack, doesn't work with unarmed strikes. If the character has a natural weapon that requires use of one hand, that hand cannot also make an unarmed strike as a primary attack in the same round as the natural weapon is used because the unarmed strike must be made with the primary limb. Monk: Monks do not suffer off-hand penalties, so whether the unarmed attack is primary or off-hand, the monk always adds his full Strength bonus. Monks do not suffer off-hand penalties. Therefore, a monk never suffers a penalty on the unarmed attack when fighting with two weapons if the unarmed attack is the off-hand attack (regardless of other feats such as Two-Weapon Fighting). Two-weapon penalties still apply to the primary attack, no matter what weapon was used (even an unarmed attack). Example: Primary kama attack and off-hand unarmed with Two-Weapon Fighting would have these penalties: -2/+0. Primary unarmed and off-hand kama would have these penalties: -2/-2. A monk's unarmed strikes are considered natural weapons for the purposes of qualifying for feats and spells. This means the monk can apply the benefits of the Improved Natural Attack feat to his unarmed strikes, and spells like magic fang benefit the monk's unarmed strikes.
Twylyght 07-10-07, 08:32 PM	An Unarmed Strike Regardless of your classes and feats, all of the information regarding unarmed attacks in general uses the singular when referring to the attack specifically. "The character makes an unarmed strike." Originally Posted by SRD Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon... For the purposes of the number of weapons you have, an unarmed strike is one attack. This means that no, a character, even a monk, cannot fight with unarmed strikes alone as though they were two weapons. But, a monk who specializes in using two weapons can benefit greatly from wielding a primary weapon and learning all of the two-weapon fighting feats. (See further explanation below.) While an unarmed strike is a weapon, you can wield 2 unarmed strikes in the same way as you can use 2 daggers. Even if you count the whole monk as a single weapon, there are plenty examples of using 1 single weapon to fight using the two weapon feats, one of which happens to already be a monk weapon. The idea that monks dont suffer off hand penalties when fighting unarmed is flawed as well. Mechanically, RAW, no character, has an "off hand" in the traditional sense. A fighter attacking unarmed with a BAB of +16 on a full attack could make a right handed swing, a left handed swing, a left legged kick, and a head butt using unarmed strikes as his primary weapon without penalty. No where in the rules, ever, is that countered, its even supported by the unarmed strike entry in the equipment section. As I said above "off hand" in D&D really has nothing to do with your hands. It is a refrence to your non primary weapon whatever and wherever it might be. You can wield a Primary and a "off-hand" unarmed strike just like any other single light melee weapon. Any non primary attacks will be "off-hand" deal 1/2 STR damage and grant penalties as normal. If you need a flavorable means to justify this consider those the lighter jabs, kicks, and bumps. You dont always throw the haymaker.
jaelis 07-11-07, 12:03 AM	While an unarmed strike is a weapon, you can wield 2 unarmed strikes in the same way as you can use 2 daggers. Even if you count the whole monk as a single weapon, there are plenty examples of using 1 single weapon to fight using the two weapon feats, one of which happens to already be a monk weapon. So your claim is that an unarmed strike is actually a double weapon???
Nephlite 07-11-07, 12:24 AM	So your claim is that an unarmed strike is actually a double weapon??? Yes, in essence, it is as you can TWF with it as well as flurry. Was this in question, that much?
malignor 07-11-07, 12:54 AM	A monk can mix TWF with flurry by wielding any of the special monk weapons that allow for the employment of the flurry. This means a monk can use TWF and flurry with any of the following combinations: Kama primary, Unarmed off-hand Nunchaku primary, Unarmed off-hand Quarterstaff primary (use as 2-handed weapon!), Unarmed off-hand (kicks) Sai primary, Unarmed off-hand Shuriken primary, Unarmed off-hand Siangham primary, Unarmed off-hand As above, swapping unarmed as primary, monk weapon as off-hand. However, if the off-hand weapon is a light weapon, it gains only 1/2 the strength bonus to damage unless that light weapon is an unarmed strike. Therefore, it's always best for damage output to have the unarmed strike as the off-hand attack. Also, if you have Power Attack, note that light weapons do not gain any benefit from PA, except unarmed strikes. Thus, if you have PA and TWF, you can milk it for all its worth by using a Quarterstaff as a 2-handed weapon (not as a double weapon) for primary attacks, and unarmed strikes as the secondary attacks. Thus for every point of BAB you invest into a Power Attack, you get +2 to damage from your quarterstaff primary attacks and +1 to damage from off-hand unarmed strikes. All with a flurry on top of it. Just keep in mind your to-hit bonuses may suck, big. Save it for stunned or easy to hit foes. Trip em, flank em, whatever works. But having that flexibility makes the Monk class a little less weak.
Cloudy 07-11-07, 04:19 AM	Power Attack works for unarmed strikes? I didn't know that. Could you please quote the rule? My DM said that PA can't be used with unarmed strike and I want to convince him that it can.
Davro 07-11-07, 06:39 AM	Unarmed strikes and natural weapons are exempted from the "no power attack on light weapons". http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#powerAttack.
Leilond 07-11-07, 06:46 AM	Power Attack works for unarmed strikes? I didn't know that. Could you please quote the rule? My DM said that PA can't be used with unarmed strike and I want to convince him that it can. Read the power attack description on the PHB at page 98, where is written You can't add the bonus from Power Attack to the damage delt with a light weapon (except with unarmed strikes and natural weapon attacks)... I think this would be enought to convince him
Steely_Dan 07-11-07, 07:10 AM	18th level thri-kreen monk (2 monstrous humanoid HD) with Greater Multi-Weapon Fighting, Multiattack and a 10 Str: Full Attack: Flurry of blows +13/+13/+13/+8/+3 and unarmed strike +13/+8/+3 and unarmed strike +13/+8/+3 and unarmed strike +13/+8/+3 and bite +13 15 attacks per round.
jaelis 07-11-07, 07:41 AM	Yes, in essence, it is as you can TWF with it as well as flurry. Was this in question, that much? While it seems to be the majority interpretation, I like to point out that it's not actually in the rules anywhere. Just to keep everyone honest.
Leilond 07-11-07, 07:44 AM	While it seems to be the majority interpretation, I like to point out that it's not actually in the rules anywhere. Just to keep everyone honest. Because it doesn't need to be in the rule. You can ALWAYS two weapon fight, unless otherwise stated In the flurry of blows it doesn't say you cannot use "two weapon fight", that's enought
jaelis 07-11-07, 09:07 AM	My point has absolutely nothing to do with flurry of blows or monks. I'm saying that there is nothing in the rules to let you use your unarmed strike as both a primary and secondary weapon at the same time. Just like you can't TWF with just a greatsword.
Steely_Dan 07-11-07, 09:11 AM	I'm saying that there is nothing in the rules to let you use your unarmed strike as both a primary and secondary weapon at the same time. Just like you can't TWF with just a greatsword. Unarmed strike is not a two-handed weapon, it is a light weapon. So if you can TWF with daggers, why not unarmed strikes?
Leilond 07-11-07, 09:18 AM	My point has absolutely nothing to do with flurry of blows or monks. I'm saying that there is nothing in the rules to let you use your unarmed strike as both a primary and secondary weapon at the same time. Just like you can't TWF with just a greatsword. Not quite. It's like TWF with two short swords. One in the primary hand, and one in the secondary hand I can use two sword, why cannot I use two fist? Or one fist and a kick? Or one kick and an head hit?
Steely_Dan 07-11-07, 09:27 AM	why cannot I use two fist? Or one fist and a kick? Or one kick and an head hit? And don't forget about the dreaded flurry of buttocks!
jaelis 07-11-07, 09:42 AM	Not quite. It's like TWF with two short swords. One in the primary hand, and one in the secondary hand I can use two sword, why cannot I use two fist? Or one fist and a kick? Or one kick and an head hit? Yes, that is the common interpretation. (Which is why I was suprised that Twylyght was rather treating it as a double weapon, that's yet another way to think of it.) But nothing in the rules says that you have more than one unarmed strike, any more than you have two weapons when you are using a halberd. You can certainly strike with different parts of the halberd and do different types of damage, but it's just one weapon. Or even more basically, a sword has two edges and a point, but you don't treat them as three different weapons. So to me, the straightforward interpretation is that you have one unarmed strike that you can deliver in various different ways. If someone else feels the multiple-weapon interpretation is preferrable, I have no problem with that, it's just a matter of opinion. But I do like to make the point that nothing in the rules favors the multiple-weapons option.
Leilond 07-11-07, 09:59 AM	Yes, that is the common interpretation. (Which is why I was suprised that Twylyght was rather treating it as a double weapon, that's yet another way to think of it.) But nothing in the rules says that you have more than one unarmed strike, any more than you have two weapons when you are using a halberd. You can certainly strike with different parts of the halberd and do different types of damage, but it's just one weapon. Or even more basically, a sword has two edges and a point, but you don't treat them as three different weapons. So to me, the straightforward interpretation is that you have one unarmed strike that you can deliver in various different ways. If someone else feels the multiple-weapon interpretation is preferrable, I have no problem with that, it's just a matter of opinion. But I do like to make the point that nothing in the rules favors the multiple-weapons option. Think about this - When if you have a weapon in each hand, you can attack with only one, no matter which, without penalty or you can attack with both with -2 penalty - If you have a sword in one hand and nothing in the other hand, you can choose to attack only with unarmed strike or with the sword without penalty or you can attack with both with -2 penalty - You say that if you're with both hands free you can attack only with one of that. It sounds pretty inconsistent with the rest of the rule
Steely_Dan 07-11-07, 10:26 AM	But I do like to make the point that nothing in the rules favors the multiple-weapons option. And nothing in the rules favours unarmed strike being treated as a two-handed weapon, which seems to be what you're implying. Main hand attack: unarmed strike, Off-hand attack: unarmed strike. I don't see the problem here. But saying all that, you may be right that you cannot TWF with unarmed strikes as they are a natural weapon?
jaelis 07-11-07, 10:48 AM	Think about this - When if you have a weapon in each hand, you can attack with only one, no matter which, without penalty or you can attack with both with -2 penalty - If you have a sword in one hand and nothing in the other hand, you can choose to attack only with unarmed strike or with the sword without penalty or you can attack with both with -2 penalty - You say that if you're with both hands free you can attack only with one of that. If you look at what you wrote, you will see that you have already assumed that you make an unarmed strike with a hand. Or perhaps a foot or a head... the point is that you want to deliver an unarmed strike with a particular part of yor body, and you can choose which part. That is the assumption I feel is unsupported. I would say that you deliver unarmed strikes with your whole body, regardless of how many other weapons you are holding. And nothing in the rules favours unarmed strike being treated as a two-handed weapon, which seems to be what you're implying. Main hand attack: unarmed strike, Off-hand attack: unarmed strike. I don't see the problem here. But saying all that, you may be right that you cannot TWF with unarmed strikes as they are a natural weapon? Unarmed strikes are certainly not two-handed weapons. I would say rather they are "no handed" weapons. They are not natural weapons either. They generally follow the manufactured weapon rules.
Bihlbo 07-11-07, 10:59 AM	While it seems to be the majority interpretation, I like to point out that it's not actually in the rules anywhere. Just to keep everyone honest. Yes, you're right. I should have made a qualifier when I stated firmly my stance on the subject (I just edited that post to be more clear). It's not spelled out in the rules anywhere that I have found in any book with as much specificity as we want. I still think I'm right in saying an unarmed strike can't be both a primary and off-hand attack, but I do recognize that I could be wrong. My point has absolutely nothing to do with flurry of blows or monks. I'm saying that there is nothing in the rules to let you use your unarmed strike as both a primary and secondary weapon at the same time. Just like you can't TWF with just a greatsword. You can TWF with a greatsword if your off-hand attack ("secondary" is not the right term) is made with a weapon you don't wield in your hands, such as an unarmed strike, a spiked gauntlet, or armor spikes. I only point this out to remind everyone how confusing this whole issue is. Yeah, you're welcome. Main hand attack: unarmed strike, Off-hand attack: unarmed strike. I don't see the problem here. But saying all that, you may be right that you cannot TWF with unarmed strikes as they are a natural weapon? I think that's an even better point than the one I made. The rules do specifically exempt unarmed attacks from other rules regarding natural weapons; unarmed strikes can make iterative attacks and can be used as off-hand weapons while natural weapons cannot. The rules don't exempt unarmed strikes from being not-allowed-to-be-used in two-weapon fighting. Other natural weapons cannot be used in TWF at all. And hey, I hate that this is the way I think the rules spell it out. I really think it's stupid. Were I making house rules, I would definitely add one that exempts unarmed strikes from the TWF limitation placed on other natural weapons.
Steely_Dan 07-11-07, 11:11 AM	Unarmed strikes are certainly not two-handed weapons. They generally follow the manufactured weapon rules. That illustrates that you should be able to TWF with them.
Steely_Dan 07-11-07, 11:15 AM	You can TWF with a greatsword if your off-hand attack ("secondary" is not the right term) is made with a weapon you don't wield in your hands, such as an unarmed strike, a spiked gauntlet, or armor spikes. Good point; and you can even take Improved Buckler Defence and fight with a greatsword in two hands, make an off-hand attack with armour spikes, while retaining your shield bonus to AC.
Leilond 07-11-07, 11:15 AM	If you look at what you wrote, you will see that you have already assumed that you make an unarmed strike with a hand. Or perhaps a foot or a head... the point is that you want to deliver an unarmed strike with a particular part of yor body, and you can choose which part. That is the assumption I feel is unsupported. I would say that you deliver unarmed strikes with your whole body, regardless of how many other weapons you are holding. Unarmed strikes are certainly not two-handed weapons. I would say rather they are "no handed" weapons. They are not natural weapons either. They generally follow the manufactured weapon rules. I understand you point. I do not agree, but I can see that you're not out of the rules, simply understand them in a different way There's much more than I thought.
jaelis 07-11-07, 11:17 AM	You can TWF with a greatsword if your off-hand attack ("secondary" is not the right term) is made with a weapon you don't wield in your hands... Sorry, I meant that you can't TWF with only a greatsword. You need another weapon too. That illustrates that you should be able to TWF with them. Why? I'm saying that you only have one single unarmed strike "weapon." It requires no hands to use, but since it is just one weapon you can't use it for both primary and off-hand attacks. Many people read unarmed strike and think "fist." I agree that if your fist were a weapon, you would have two of them and could TWF with your right and left fists. But that isn't actually what the rules say. I understand you point. I do not agree, but I can see that you're not out of the rules, simply understand them in a different way There's much more than I thought. Thanks, that's all I'm getting at. There's just more than one way to understand the rules... neither has to be wrong.
Steely_Dan 07-11-07, 11:30 AM	I'm saying that you only have one single unarmed strike "weapon." It requires no hands to use, but since it is just one weapon you can't use it for both primary and off-hand attacks. Many people read unarmed strike and think "fist." I agree that if your fist were a weapon, you would have two of them and could TWF with your right and left fists. But that isn't actually what the rules say. I totally see what you're saying, as the rules say that an unarmed strike can be made with a fist, foot, knee, head-butt etc. It is different than 2 claws etc, where you can make an off-hand attack with one claw. You are the first person to get me to lean more towards not being able to TWF with just unarmed strikes - you've shattered my dreams. You should feel very proud!
Leilond 07-11-07, 11:35 AM	jaelis, your arguments hooked two users :D
Steely_Dan 07-11-07, 12:11 PM	jaelis, your arguments hooked two users :D Jaelis knows his/her stuff. I've been around these boards for years, and I always keep an eye out for his/her posts.
Cloudy 07-11-07, 03:39 PM	Read the power attack description on the PHB at page 98, where is written I think this would be enought to convince him Ok, I totally missed that...:embarrass :embarrass :embarrass Talk about bad spot check...:D Thanks Leilond.
Twylyght 07-11-07, 03:48 PM	Yes, that is kind of why I likened the "body" to a double weapon earlier on, which can be used for both primary and secondary attacks. Double weapons function this way because nearly any part of it can be used to attack, quickly alternating sides. Thats much like someone trained in fighting unarmed any part of them could strike at any oppening, and every attack creates leverage and momentum for the next, a right hook sets up a left back hand, sets up a right round house kick. Being able to attack with "either side" of your body is very much like being able to attack with either side of quarterstaves, double swords, and any other double weapons. And just like any other double weapon, you would only need to use a single weapon to accomplish it.
ravenshrike 07-12-07, 12:54 PM	From the PH. You can't use 2-weapon fighting with unarmed strikes, you must use normal weapons. The reason is because you don't really need hands to do an unarmed strike and an off-hand kick sounds strange. Actually, this makes it seem like you apply your full STR bonus on both attacks. Which is pretty nice and boosts the monk's power by a little bit. It says NOTHING about disallowing TWF. Although, even if it in the end it does, your quote means that if you use a kama as your "main hand" weapon, and your unarmed strike as your "off-hand" weapon, you still get the full STR bonus. Kewl.
Bihlbo 07-12-07, 05:03 PM	I totally see what you're saying, as the rules say that an unarmed strike can be made with a fist, foot, knee, head-butt etc. It is different than 2 claws etc, where you can make an off-hand attack with one claw. Sorry, but you cannot make an off-hand attack with a claw. If you have two claw attacks you can make your normal attacks and then the claws are secondary attacks, but you can't attack with a longsword as your primary weapon and a claw as your off-hand weapon as if you were TWF. This is because the claws are natural weapons. I feel like everyone should read the Rules of the Game articles about unarmed attacks before commenting further. I got a TON out of reading these: One (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070327a) Two (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070403a) Three (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070410a)
WolfHati 07-12-07, 06:34 PM	The exception to this is a razorclaw shifter which explicitly states you can use the claw attack as an offhand weapon as if you had TWF while shifting. Of course its only slightly worth it if you have a main hand weapon other than a claw. Also, if you only hold a weapon in one hand and have claws, the free hand can be used to make a claw attack as a secondary natural weapon, as the troll and troglodyte in the MM.
Where_is_the_Rogue 07-12-07, 10:51 PM	18th level thri-kreen monk (2 monstrous humanoid HD) with Greater Multi-Weapon Fighting, Multiattack and a 10 Str: Full Attack: Flurry of blows +13/+13/+13/+8/+3 and unarmed strike +13/+8/+3 and unarmed strike +13/+8/+3 and unarmed strike +13/+8/+3 and bite +13 15 attacks per round. o.O 15 attacks... well if you toss in Snap Kick from Book of 9 Swords you can get 16, but everything takes an additional -2 since it's an off-hand attack. no need to take Rapid Shot and be forced to use a Shuriken in there... ok, now that i got that out, this might be beating a dead horse at this point but i just want to clarify for my own sanity. so yes, a monk can use TWF with FoB, and the penalties stack. all that i understand, but my only real confusion lies with what weapons, if any, the monk needs to be using. can the monk make ALL of the attacks unarmed, or does the monk NEED to have a weapon (Sai, for example) in any hand to use TWF w/ FoB?
Pandapeep 07-13-07, 12:00 AM	- When if you have a weapon in each hand, you can attack with only one, no matter which, without penalty or you can attack with both with -2 penalty - If you have a sword in one hand and nothing in the other hand, you can choose to attack only with unarmed strike or with the sword without penalty or you can attack with both with -2 penalty - You say that if you're with both hands free you can attack only with one of that. I'm sorry but from a purely logical point this ends the argument here. To say that a character can use his hands to strike with two daggers, but can't then use those same two hands unarmed is asinine. And yes it is your whole body, but I don't think anyone sees this as flinging your whole frame at an enemy.
Leilond 07-13-07, 03:39 AM	I'm sorry but from a purely logical point this ends the argument here. To say that a character can use his hands to strike with two daggers, but can't then use those same two hands unarmed is asinine. And yes it is your whole body, but I don't think anyone sees this as flinging your whole frame at an enemy. I contraddict my previous post Unarmed strike has nothing to do with "hands". In fact you can do unarmed strike with kicks. This means, I think, that "unarmed strike" is a weapon that the character have. It count like a single weapon, that you can use as "primary" or "secondary" weapon, but not both, like you cannot use the same sword as primary and secondary weapon. Logically speacking it can be easly justified by the body balance, movement, and tactical concearning. To be able to do more attack with "unarmed strike" you need an higher BAB or to be a monk
Majick 07-13-07, 04:01 AM	Has anyone sat down and considered how many of these "15 attacks" made by a thri-keen monk will actually hit? Seriously, even with full strength to all attacks and no penalties (for multi-weapon fighting) because monk's are SUPPOSED TO BE ABLE TO FIGHT WITH ALL THEIR BODIES anyway, you will still probably net only about 4 or 5 hits a round, and even then, the damage isn't huge. Also, monk's have average BaB? What's up with that? I am playing a Large Sized monk right now, with high strength, and i still can't hit squat, and we are freakin' level 1, seriously, monk's don't do what they are supposed to do well enough anyway In my game i would not only allow regular monk's to use MULTI-WEAPON FIGHTING, i would allow full strength to hit and damage on ALL ATTACKS with FULL BaB! then maybe, just maybe, they might be USEFUL
Daeva 07-13-07, 07:09 AM	i interpret that the unarmed strike is A SINGLE weapon, and you must have a real weapon to use TWF, and the examples at face value lean towards that interpretation. you have to interpret the rules so that you cna only do things that it says you can, and nothing that is not mentiond. you cant use what it doesnt say as proof, thats a bad bad fallacy, doesnt say a fighter cant suddenly turn into a huge blood monster and explode for 50d8 damage, but we all know he cant. For purposes of weapon enhancements, an unarmed strike is considered a natural weapon (from the first unarmed article above) not considerd natural weapons, a natural weapon, one. unarmed attacks are generally treated as, one wepaon, you cast a single magic weapon spell, that can only target A SINGLE weapon, an unarmed strike is considerd a single weapon for this spell. magic fang, only target one natural weapon, cast in on a thri kreen, only one claw gets +1, or, target his unarmed strike, and all of a sudden no matter what part he strikes with, it gets +1, but if he uses claws as a natural attack, or slam whatever, all of a usdden they arnet magical anymore o.O oh snap, unarmed strike is being treated as a seperate entity than the creatures actual body. the moment you pull from the air that unarmed strike is more than one weapon, you have to consider each body part that can strike as its own weapon, because, it also specifically says that "As far as the rules are concerned, you can use just about any part of your body in an unarmed attack: a head butt, kick, elbow, knee, or forearm." no where also does it say how many to treat it as, which also contradicts the a weapon stuff, considering it a double wepaon is jsut as bad, i mean, why not a a triple, or quadruple or whatever one i have more, but im tired, i might bother coming back later. i can also rip open misreading the article to mean i can kick twice with my heel,twice with my instep twiice with my ball, punch twice, elbow twice, finger strike twice, shoulder slam twice, but bash, hip bash twice, chin slam, drunken wrist punch twice, hit with my second knuckles twice, knife hand strike twice, reverse knife hand twice, and belly slam, since they are now all considerd different natural or manufactured weapons and make 27 attacks a round at level 1. all of the 27 weapons, enchantable by a spell that can only target one weapon. i also can use crappy logic and misinterpretations, and according to some of yalls logic this is perfectly viable, i just took the parts of the debate and all the arguments that i wanted, and took them out of context.
Zippis 07-13-07, 07:14 AM	Well, if you don't trust official FAQ with example of monk with TWF attacking 3 times per round (2x Flurry + 1x TWF), all of them at -4 penalty to Attack ...
Twylyght 07-13-07, 05:22 PM	I also get lost in trying to formulate any solid logic in the arguement that someone wearing a pair of gauntlets can use two-weapon fighting, but someone with bare hands cant. Wraping your hands in a metal glove somehow magically conveys the ability to make more attacks a round just throwing punches, than someone not wearing gauntlets can make even if they are throwing attacks with their entire body? Apart from the logic. If a monk uses his feats to select the two-weapon like anyone else, why shouldnt he be able to use them?
Daeva 07-13-07, 06:35 PM	real world logic shouldnt be used in D&D, just logic within the relam of D&D, where one must consider only what the game specifically says you can do, and how the cants relate to it, while ignoring any aspect of real life concepts not mentiond in the game.
J_Vhad 07-13-07, 08:31 PM	That isn't real world logic, it's logic based on the mechanics of the system. A person can strike twice using two weapon fighting with a guantlet on each hand. Two punches should likewise be allowed. Gauntlets don't treat you as armed and they deal less damage than a monks punch does. Why would a guantlet make you punch slower. Why would a monk be able to fight with a guantlet and unarmed strikes with two weapon fighting by punching with the ungauntleted hand, but can't simply punch twice? Now, I admit that it's ambiguous and can be taken both ways. It is not however set in stone either way.
Twylyght 07-13-07, 08:55 PM	real world logic shouldnt be used in D&D, just logic within the relam of D&D, where one must consider only what the game specifically says you can do, and how the cants relate to it, while ignoring any aspect of real life concepts not mentiond in the game. Ok we could play it that way. Going only by what the books says you can or can not do, we know the following to be true. 1. If you are armed with an off-hand weapon, you can make one extra attack with the full attack action. 2. Unarmed strike, is a simple light weapon. 4. Light weapons can be used one handed. 5. Light weapons are easier to use in two weapon fighting. 6. Light weapons do full strength damage in the main hand, and one half in the off hand. So unarmed strike, being a light weapon, can be used one handed, is easier to dual wield, and does full STR damage in the main hand, and does half damage in the off hand. What it does not say, however is, "You can use an unarmed strike in each hand" however I like to point out, nowhere does the game tell us that "You may wield a hand axe in each hand" or "You may wield a rapier and a dagger at the same time" or "You are allowed to wield two clubs at once" but for some reason I dont see any of those being debated. Because we know, that we are allowed to weild a one handed or light weapon in each hand, and attack with both of them.
J_Vhad 07-13-07, 09:19 PM	There is always the simple solution, buy two unarmed strikes. They're on the table with the same cost as the club and quarterstaff. But seriously the description in the equipment section of strike, unarmed says 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. No where does it suggest that unarmed strikes require you entire body to use. This seems to imply the opposite to me as an unarmed strike may simply be a punch. Why can't I punch and kick at the same time? It says the unarmed strike may be a punch and it says it may be a kick. So I can kick, I can punch, but I can't kick and punch? Show me where you get that from.
Daeva 07-14-07, 12:19 AM	seriously, are the post i post pointing out all this stuff yall have just pointed out too long, and therefore no one reads them? i already gave in rules quotes citing "unarmed" as a single weapon, and already did the sarcastic any part of my body as a seperate weapon thing. two clubs, is two seperate wepaons, its in the rules you can two weapon fighting two different weapons. and the rules do say you can fight with a weapon in each hand anyway, what it doesnt say is that you can count any part of your body as a weapon, it does however say you can treat an unarmed attack as any part of your body. no one has disputed my earlier proof of unarmed is equal to one weapon, and i have looked and cant find anything in rules claiming both hands, each of my feet, each on my knees, palms, fingers, hips, shoulders, elbows etc as seperate weapons, BUT have found things saying an unarmed attack are any of those those, which goes back to where i have found unarmed attacks all being considerd one weapon. as for the guantlet thing, a guantlet is a wepaon, two guantlets are two weapons, unarmed as stated in other mechanics, is one weapon.
J_Vhad 07-14-07, 12:49 AM	So starting off can you take (buy technically but they're free) multiple clubs? Quarterstaffs? Slings? Unarmed Strike is listed as a weapon on there with the same cost, so technically according to the rules you could take an infinite number of them. The rules state that a number of things (head, kicks, punches) can be used as unarmed strikes, which seems to support in my opinion as well as that of a few others, that unarmed strikes are a multi style weapon. You can use as many as you're capable of in a round. That includes two weapon fighting with them. Do the rules come out and say this? No Do the rules come out and say unarmed strike is a single weapon? No It is ambiguous, is isn't concrete one way or the other. Weapons that can be used on both ends are double weapons in D&D. Quarterstaff, two-bladed sword, some flail thing, and numerous other insane combinations. Can both your hands be used to hit someone? Yes. It does not make sense in the mechanics of the game for a person to make an attack with each hand using the quarterstaff but be unable to do so without any weapons at all. Nothing in the game states that weapons double the speed of you character so we must assume it doesn't.
risner 07-14-07, 01:02 AM	Could a monk who has two weapon fighting use unarmed strike for both of the weapons? My vote on the RAW is no. Unarmed Strike is a single weapon, you can't TWF with a single Longsword, so you should not be able to TWF with a single Unarmed Strike weapon (regardless of the fact this weapon has multiple "tips") Also, the posted FAQ text regarding this issue clearly indicates there must be a non Unarmed Strike weapon involved. So there isn't anything in the FAQ that even hints at allowing TWF with a single weapon (Unarmed Strike) as both primary and secondary.
Daeva 07-14-07, 04:34 AM	just read how magic wepaon and magic fang treat unarmed attack, can target a single weapon, can target unarmed attack. thats more proof for unarmed as a single weapon, than anyone has shown for it being multiple and it doenst say that punch kicks etc can be used as unarmed strikes, it says that unarmed attack doesnt specify what part of the body you are striking with, and only said this to make people stop thinking its left hand rihgt hand only. it gives a difference definition that way, its hard to see, but its there
J_Vhad 07-14-07, 12:54 PM	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. Hows does that not say punches, kicks, ect. can be used as unarmed strikes? That is the entry for unarmed strike, it is the primary source for unarmed strike, the spells you've mentioned are not primary sources for unarmed strike and how it works. That said, no where does it say unarmed strike is a natural weapon and it doesn't follow the rules for natural weapons on page 312 of the MM. Likewise no where does it say that unarmed strike is a manufactured weapon, so those spells can't even be used on unarmed strike unless the target is a monk. What it does say is that it may be used on "a slam attack, fist, bite, or other natural weapon." So it applies to a fist (which uses unarmed strike) but not to the unarmed strike itself unless the person is a monk. Magic weapon can target a single weapon that makes multiple attacks (Quarterstaff for instance) so why couldn't it be used on unarmed strike which can be used for multiple attacks (in the case of monks only of course since magic weapon can't apply to others unarmed strikes) or magic fang even for that instance when modifying a monks unarmed strike. The spells seem to reinforce the fact that unarmed strike can be made for multiple attacks as they only work for one (a fist) attack with unarmed strike unless the target is a monk.
Daeva 07-14-07, 04:52 PM	double oops
Daeva 07-14-07, 04:52 PM	i can not discuss rules with people who infer, interpret loosly, and use reverse logic, and for the most part ignore my posts, i therefore am done with this thread. let others, or no one discuss it from now on.
J_Vhad 07-14-07, 05:53 PM	I fail to see where anyone ignored you posts, you simply havn't proven anything. Everything you've said has been brought up before and has a counter point, hence the reason it's a debated topic rather than being brought up and only lasting two posts like the things that are concrete and not ambiguous.
ProjectA 07-14-07, 06:46 PM	Lol, when I posted this I couldn't find the answer within the rules myself and I kinda was hoping for one or two posts and for it not to be ambiguous.
J_Vhad 07-14-07, 07:08 PM	The best thing is to present both sides to your DM and just ask which he wants to use. Unarmed Strike being implied as a single weapon leans toward the no side, while being able to unarmed strike with a kick or a punch (not using your whole body as some interpret it) and magic fang specifically only affecting a fist rather than unarmed strike itself tend to lean toward the yes opinion. Neither way breaks the rules or overpowers anything on it's own so it's can be a rough call.
Ketone 07-14-07, 10:48 PM	I would say no, a monk can't use unarmed strike for two weapon fighting. But flurry of blows and greater flurry is there to balance this a little. Remember, monks aren't all-powerful, and the two-weapon fighting should be there to reward people for using weapons. Monks don't need everything.
Twylyght 07-14-07, 11:08 PM	Still at worst, you make a few weapon attacks. Monks CAN use two-weapon fighting and flurry. the real hazy bit is if they can all be unarmed. Least favorably, you make a few lower damage attacks. You can still take your normal and flurry attacks unarmed and throw in how ever many offhand attacks you can with something else.
RandomAction 07-24-07, 01:49 AM	I believe that the monk can use TWF with FoB. Let me explain why. A 1st level monk is in combat with an orc. Since a monk can use his/her hands, feet, elbows, and head as a weapon. Ok, the monk flurries the orc by using one of her hands and a foot. This is a combination attack, in which one follows the other in the same round. With the TWF feat while flurring, the monk now uses her primary weapon, say left hand, followed by her offhand weapon, right hand, and finishes the flurry with her 2nd primary attack, her foot as the weapon, all in the same round. Yet again, this is a combination attack. Try to think of how it looks in actual combat. The class description of the monk states that there is no off-hand attack while striking unarmed, however this refers to the damage dealt by her STR bonus. The Flurry of Blows ability says that a monk may only use her unarmed strikes or a special monk weapon. The TWF feat is a fighting style feat, meaning you are using two weapons to fight. Not swinging both weapons at the same time, but one after the other.
Steely_Dan 07-24-07, 03:27 AM	You can still take your normal and flurry attacks unarmed and throw in how ever many offhand attacks you can with something else. Exactly: 18th level thri-kreen monk (2 monstrous humanoid HD) with Greater Multi-Weapon Fighting, Multiattack and a 10 Str: Full Attack: Unarmed strike +13/+13/+13/+8/+3 with flurry of blows and kama +13/+8/+3 and kama +13/+8/+3 and kama +13/+8/+3 and bite +13 15 attacks per round.
EjoThims 07-24-07, 08:27 AM	You can TWF with only unarmed strikes. It is not explicity stated in the rules either way, but the FAQ and rotg articles make it pretty clear that even a Monk can use Unarmed Attacks as the 'off-hand' attack if so choosing. IF choosing to make 'off-hand' unarmed strikes, those strikes receive only .5 str bonus.
Steely_Dan 07-24-07, 08:33 AM	It is not explicity stated in the rules either way, but the FAQ and rotg articles make it pretty clear that even a Monk can use Unarmed Attacks as the 'off-hand' attack if so choosing. Yes, but it doesn't say they can use unarmed strike as the main hand weapon at the same time. I wish they would stop putting out those Skip's Vague and Cryptic Interpretations of the Rules articles; they only ever confuse issues more, and offer odd house-rules.
EjoThims 07-24-07, 09:01 AM	I see nothing that limits Unarmed Strikes to use in only one 'hand.' "A weapon" is not text used anywhere to actually describe the ability. If one were to buy (convenient cost, no?) and wield two unarmed strikes at once, they would incur TWF penalties and bonuses just as if fighting with two daggers, clubs, or anything else. Because, by definition as light weapons, unarmed strikes require only one 'hand' to use, meaning the other 'hand' (not hand) is free to use as seen fit, even for more unarmed strikes. If they had the Improved Unarmed Strike feat it would apply to all attacks made while unarmed, both 'main-hand' and 'off-hand.' One set of unarmed strikes would be designated as the 'main-hand' and the other as the 'off-hand.' Yes, it's silly to think of it like that, but it's silly to think unarmed strikes are limited in the first place. In the end, by RaW, there is nothing preventing unarmed strikes from being used with TWF.
Steely_Dan 07-24-07, 09:09 AM	Because, by definition as light weapons, unarmed strikes require only one 'hand' to use, meaning the other 'hand' (not hand) is free to use as seen fit, even for more unarmed strikes. Unarmed strikes don't require any hands to use, as they can be made with kicks, knees, head-butts, buttocks etc.
EjoThims 07-24-07, 09:14 AM	They do not require hands, but they do require one 'hand.' If they required no 'hand' to use, then they would work like armor spikes and allow you to TWF with a THW and unarmed strikes. And you do not want my Barbarian Monk (Chaos Monk ftw) to be able to do that.
Steely_Dan 07-24-07, 09:20 AM	1.) They do not require hands, but they do require one 'hand.' 2.) If they required no 'hand' to use, then they would work like armor spikes and allow you to TWF with a THW and unarmed strikes. 1.) No, they don't. 2.) Which they do.
J_Vhad 07-24-07, 10:49 AM	Read the description of unarmed strike in the equipment section. It should be obvious that it doesn't require any hands to use. Honestly there are two way that it works. The simplest is to just use common sense and assume a person can swing each hand as a weapon since they can effectively do the same thing with guantlets, punch daggers, and other weapons they use the same general motion. The second way is to "buy" multiple unarmed strikes at character creation. I don't like this one, it makes no sense, but it's valid by strict RAW.
Steely_Dan 07-24-07, 10:52 AM	The second way is to "buy" multiple unarmed strikes at character creation. I don't like this one, it makes no sense, but it's valid by strict RAW. I have no idea what you're talking about – how do you "buy" unarmed strikes at character creation?
J_Vhad 07-24-07, 12:05 PM	They're on the equipment chart with the same - price as the quarterstaff and club. That leads to the "buying/taking" of them at character creation. Unless of course, you want to argue that quarterstaffs and clubs can't be taken at character creation.
risner 07-24-07, 02:44 PM	I believe that the monk can use TWF with FoB. Let me explain why. With the TWF feat while flurrying, the monk now uses her primary weapon, say left hand, followed by her offhand weapon, right hand, Not officially. You can only combine TWF and Flurry if you TWF with a different weapon than your Flurry. So you either have to unarmed with your Flurry and TWF with a Short Sword or Flurry with a Kama and TWF with Unarmed.
EjoThims 07-24-07, 03:10 PM	1.) No, they don't. 2.) Which they do. 1.) Yes. They DO. They are light weapons. Read the light weapon description. Hint: "A light weapon is used in one hand..." 2.) So you believe someone could make attacks with a greatsword and then attacks and then make unarmed attacks?
EjoThims 07-24-07, 03:11 PM	Not officially. You can only combine TWF and Flurry if you TWF with a different weapon than your Flurry. So you either have to unarmed with your Flurry and TWF with a Short Sword or Flurry with a Kama and TWF with Unarmed. You also can't breathe officially, but you CAN drown and suffocate. Sometimes "it doesn't say you can" is as bad an argument as "it doesn't say you can't."
J_Vhad 07-24-07, 04:21 PM	Not officially. You can only combine TWF and Flurry if you TWF with a different weapon than your Flurry. So you either have to unarmed with your Flurry and TWF with a Short Sword or Flurry with a Kama and TWF with Unarmed. So just buy two unarmed strike at character gen and you have two weapons. Sounds pretty stupid, but seems to work fine by the rules. Given how stupid it sounds I don't worry about it. If someone wants to two weapon fight with their fists, I'm not going to laugh and say "Mwahahahaha...you didn't buy an extra unarmed strike you fool." There is as much evidence for both sides of the argument, if you're going to argue then at least provide evidence for it.
Sigfried Trent 07-24-07, 04:43 PM	Neat discussion... lets break it down a bit.... #1: We know from the FAQ a monk's unarmed strike can be used as an off-hand attack. #2: We know from the FAQ you can use TWF and Flurry of Blows at the same time. #3: We know an UNARMED STRIKE can be made with whatever part of the body seems reasonable, but it is treated as an UNARMED STRIKE, and not a natural weapon. (AKA you can make an Unarmed Strike wit a barbed tail, but its going to do 1d3 subdual damage and not whatever the natural attack the barbed tail is capeable of.) #4: We know you can not use a given weapon as a primary and an "off-hand" weapon. #5: We know "off-hand" has almost nothing to due with actual hands vis-a-vi the clarifications for armor spikes. Its more just about a "additional weapon" #6: A monk can use any Unarmed Strike (like with a gauntlet) as part of their UNARMED STRIKE, as wierd as that is, because the rules say using it is an UNARMED ATTACK. #7: We know that you can make an UNARMED STRIKE as on off hand attack even if you arn't a monk. #8: "An UNARMED STRIKE is always considered a light weapon" We really have two terms here... UNARMED ATTACK: is a classification of attacks that incude touch attacks wtih spells, kicking, punching, trips without weapons, head buts, gauntlets etc... UNARMED STRIKE: Is an attack that deals a specific ammount of damage based on critter size (and other modifiers in some cases like the monk). #8 suggests to me, that the Unarmed Strike itself is treated as a weapon. Not the fist of the body or the head or whatever, but the attack itself. The moment you take the swing, a weapon is born for that moment, and it has specified properties, not designated by it being a fist or knee or what have you, but by the fact you are using the rules for Unarmed Strikes. Every character possesses an infinite number of Unarmed Strikes and they are always readily "at hand". I think this is quite consistant through all of the rules although not really specified directly. To make an off-hand unarmed strike, all you need to do is have an unarmed strike available. And all of us pretty much always have one available becasue we can use any part of the body to wield one. (within reason of course)
risner 07-24-07, 06:54 PM	2.) So you believe someone could make attacks with a greatsword and then attacks and then make unarmed attacks? So long as you make the unarmed attack with a foot or anything other than the two arms used to make the greatsword attack, yes. So just buy two unarmed strike at character gen You can't because you can't have two bodies. Well maybe a Ghost can buy an unarmed for manifesting and an unarmed for the ethereal plane.
EjoThims 07-25-07, 01:35 AM	So long as you make the unarmed attack with a foot or anything other than the two arms used to make the greatsword attack, yes. Just wow... You do realize that 2H flurry + TWF Unarmed is as strong (if not stronger in your run of the mill character) as flurry + TWF unarmed, right? After all, for 5 just 5 levels that still progress flurry and unarmed strike any monk can get 16 BAB and the ability to flurry with any melee weapon. You can't because you can't have two bodies. Well maybe a Ghost can buy an unarmed for manifesting and an unarmed for the ethereal plane. Where does it say you can only wield one unarmed strike at a time? It doesn't. It in fact strongly implies that you CAN wield two, because it takes only one 'hand' (not hand) to wield an unarmed strike, since it is always a light weapon. This, by the way, per the light weapon rules, is why you can not wield a 2HW and still use OH unarmed strikes. Edit: I missed some key notes on the armor spikes FAQ (mainly that it also actually uses the term light weapon when referencing TWF). This would make THF + Unarmed strike TWF possible under certain interpretations. I've contacted Cust Serv on a number of these issues (including the possibility of TWF with only armor spikes, as sub-optimal as that would be), and am awaiting a response.
risner 07-25-07, 11:25 AM	1) Where does it say you can only wield one unarmed strike at a time? It doesn't. It in fact strongly implies that you CAN wield two 2) why you can not wield a 2HW and still use OH unarmed strikes. 3) THF + Unarmed strike TWF possible under certain interpretations. 4) Just wow... 1) Every place hints you can't use multiple unarmed strike weapons. You can make an unarmed strike with any body part. There isn't a single location that hints you can wield multiple unarmed strike weapons. 2) You absolutely can use a two handed weapon with unarmed strike as long as the unarmed strike is made with a body part other than either of the two arms used to make the two handed weapon attack. 3) THF + foot unarmed strike = legal. 4) Ignored this part, was there anything in there interesting or on topic? No.
EjoThims 07-25-07, 04:17 PM	1) Every place hints you can't use multiple unarmed strike weapons. You can make an unarmed strike with any body part. There isn't a single location that hints you can wield multiple unarmed strike weapons. And there isn't a single location that hints you can't. I can make attacks with a dagger with any dagger and any part of the dagger (albeit some at a penalty), yet I can still wield two daggers, even though the only text saying I can is the light weapon and TWFing descriptions. 2) You absolutely can use a two handed weapon with unarmed strike as long as the unarmed strike is made with a body part other than either of the two arms used to make the two handed weapon attack. The only thing that backs this up is your personal interpretation of Unarmed Strike. If following that interpretation, it works. But you have not shown anywhere that you interpretation has grounds in the rules. You have yet to provide a source showing that Unarmed Strikes do not require one of your two 'hands' (if you haven't caught on yet, the 'hands' as defined in DnD two weapon fighting rules are not the same as the appendages on the ends of your arms). 3) THF + foot unarmed strike = legal. Only by your say so. You have shown no evidence of this per the rules. 4) Ignored this part, was there anything in there interesting or on topic? No. It actually is on topic, as appeals at "common sense" have been made.
Sigfried Trent 07-25-07, 05:34 PM	Only by your say so. You have shown no evidence of this per the rules. Just read the FAQ entry on armor spikes. It makes it clear that you can make "off-hand" attack with the armor spikes (by using a foot, knee or whatever) spike while using a two handed weapon or using a weapon and shield. Why? Because you don't need a "hand" to attack wtih armor spikes, its avialable from other body parts. Same thing goes for an Unarmed Strike. It can come from any body part. Therefore you do not need a free hand in order to make an Unarmed Strike.
J_Vhad 07-25-07, 10:45 PM	2HF and armor spikes is completely legal as is 2HF and unarmed strikes If you really don't believe it, then look it up in the FAQ, but as you've been arguing from a logic standpoint you should be able to realize that Ejo. Risner, no where hints that you can't use multiple unarmed strikes, and the PHB even seems to work out that you can buy/take multiples if your DM is going to stick you with that ruling for some reason. Being able to TWF with unarmed strike is the only logical way to go.
risner 07-26-07, 02:14 AM	And there isn't a single location that hints you can't. You have yet to provide a source showing that Unarmed Strikes do not require one of your two 'hands' PHB p41 "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed." PHB p121 "which may be a punch, kick, head butt, or other type of attack" PHB p314 "unarmed strike: A successful blow, typically dealing nonlethal damage, from a character attacking without weapons." These three quotes tell us: You can make an unarmed strike from any body part, you have one body to make attacks (in order to have two unarmed strike weapons you would need a second creature without weapons.) Also, the FAQ and RotG articles go out of their way to describe scenarios including how you can make an off-hand unarmed strike and in each case they say you must use a different weapon for the primary attack. They don't say the different weapon can also be a second unarmed strike (and if it were possible, they sure went out of their way to accidently imply it isn't possible.)
Steely_Dan 07-26-07, 03:16 AM	PHB p41 "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed." PHB p121 "which may be a punch, kick, head butt, or other type of attack" PHB p314 "unarmed strike: A successful blow, typically dealing nonlethal damage, from a character attacking without weapons." These three quotes tell us: You can make an unarmed strike from any body part, you have one body to make attacks (in order to have two unarmed strike weapons you would need a second creature without weapons.) Also, the FAQ and RotG articles go out of their way to describe scenarios including how you can make an off-hand unarmed strike and in each case they say you must use a different weapon for the primary attack. Risner is correct, so we can let it lie now.
EjoThims 07-26-07, 04:35 AM	PHB p41 "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed." Already discussed in the FAQ and has no revelance to the question at hand. PHB p121 "which may be a punch, kick, head butt, or other type of attack" Implies only thatan unarmed strike may be amde with any body part at any time. Not that the entire body is considered your unarmed strike. PHB p314 "unarmed strike: A successful blow, typically dealing nonlethal damage, from a character attacking without weapons." This only says that any unarmed strikes are typically used by those without weapons and deal nonlethal damage if succesful. These three quotes tell us: You can make an unarmed strike from any body part, you have one body to make attacks (in order to have two unarmed strike weapons you would need a second creature without weapons.) The three quotes tell us, in order: 1) What has already been addressed in the FAQ as a poorly written statement about a monk's ability to use multiple body parts in an unarmed strike for main-hand attacks without incurring a penalty to their strength bonus. 2) That any body part can be used for an unarmed strike. 3) That unarmed strikes are most often used when not wielding another weapon and do nonlethal damage. The fact that a strike can be made from any part of the body does not imply that the entire body is considered the single, sole unarmed strike. Nor does it imply that only one unarmed strike can be utilized at a time. For simplicity and clarity, we can return to the double weapon analogy. My dire flail is one weapon. I can make both main-hand and off-hand attacks with that same dire flail because it is one weapon with multiple points of attack. Also, the FAQ and RotG articles go out of their way to describe scenarios including how you can make an off-hand unarmed strike and in each case they say you must use a different weapon for the primary attack. They don't say the different weapon can also be a second unarmed strike (and if it were possible, they sure went out of their way to accidently imply it isn't possible.) Actually, they use examples in which the main hand is not an unarmed strike. They never state it must not be. There's a big differene between the two. Regardless of how you interpret unarmed strike to work with the body, there is nothing to prevent unarmed strikes from being used as both main-hand and off-hand attacks in the same round. One might say that there is nothing to allow it, but as this would be an exception to all of the TWF rules, the burden of proof lies with showing that such an exception should be made for unarmed strikes.
Steely_Dan 07-26-07, 05:00 AM	Regardless of how you interpret unarmed strike to work with the body, there is nothing to prevent unarmed strikes from being used as both main-hand and off-hand attacks in the same round. Yes, there is. Are you suggesting that a human could take Multi-Weapon Fighting and be able to make off-hand attacks with his left hand, both feet, both knees, both elbows, head-butt etc, etc all in a full round action?
J_Vhad 07-26-07, 09:30 AM	Do humans have three or more arms? That was a really poor argument Dan. Likewise the unarmed strike is not actually considered a natural weapon, so multi-attack is out the window too. Still nothing concrete has shown that TWF is not possible with only unarmed strike.
Steely_Dan 07-26-07, 09:45 AM	Do humans have three or more arms? That was a really poor argument Dan. Likewise the unarmed strike is not actually considered a natural weapon, so multi-attack is out the window too. It was actually a wonderful argument, if you look at the context. But you probably just said that because you don't agree with me and Risner… As unarmed strikes can be made with any "body part", what constitutes an "off-hand" unarmed strike?
Sigfried Trent 07-26-07, 12:34 PM	No where does it say your body is a weapon... nowhere. That would be a natural weapon, and an Unamred Strike is not a natural weapon. That is clear in the rules. It says an Unarmed Strike is treated as a weapon. The attack itslef, not the body part or body making it. Every creature has an unlimited number of Unarmed Strike "weapons" at it's disposal and may use them as primary or off hand attaks as desired. This idea that a fist or knee is a weapon, or that your whole body is a weapon, is a rules fabrication some of you seem to have conjured without any clear rules citation to back it up. Indeed most of the rules in this area pretty much imply that this is not the case, and in some cases come right out and make it clear there is an important distinction.
Sigfried Trent 07-26-07, 12:40 PM	As unarmed strikes can be made with any "body part", what constitutes an "off-hand" unarmed strike? Quite simple: It is the one you say is an "off-hand" attack when using the two weapon fighting rules. Again it is similar to the double weapon rules. You can use either end of a double weapon, but if you decide to use TWF rules you pick one end as primary and the other end as "off-hand". So if I am TWF unarmed and I have a BAB of +6... Player declarations I'm going to use two weapon fighting this round For my first main hand attack I kick his knee For my off hand attack I punch him in the gut For my second main hand attack I try to put my elbow in his face It's as easy as that.
EjoThims 07-26-07, 02:46 PM	As unarmed strikes can be made with any "body part", what constitutes an "off-hand" unarmed strike? Designating them as such. Just like one round all attacks with the dagger in your left hand can be the off-hand attacks and the next round all the attacks with the dagger in your right hand can be off-hand attacks. And honestly... The whole multi-weapon fighting thing was absurd... You could have at least picked a race that qualified for the feat to make your example.
J_Vhad 07-26-07, 07:58 PM	It was actually a wonderful argument, if you look at the context. But you probably just said that because you don't agree with me and Risner… No, it was a horrible argument because you were trying to prove your point by asking if it made sense for them to get a feat that they wouldn't be able to get anyway. Prerequisites exist for a reason. As unarmed strikes can be made with any "body part", what constitutes an "off-hand" unarmed strike? That depends, are we talking "off-hand" as in an attack or as in the characters off-hand. The two are quite different. We know that "off-hand" attacks are possible without actually making use of the character's *off-hand* thanks to the FAQ. So an attack with the characters *off-hand* is an "off-hand" attack. Meanwhile an attack with a foot is and "off-hand" attack that doesn't use the character's *off-hand*. Unarmed Strikes by a monk are never *off-hand* attacks. The problem is apparently WotC didn't have the brainpower to use another word and used off-hand to mean two things. If you replace "off-hand" with secondary it makes for a much easier read. I still have as of yet to see any concrete evidence that unarmed strike can't be used with multiple body parts as both primary and secondary attacks in the same action. I personally believe that it can based on the Magic Fang spell. It can affect a fist (unarmed strike for monks only). Not unarmed strike, but a fist. This leads me to believe that the fist is considered a weapon, as every other weapon it affects is affected as a whole.
Steely_Dan 07-27-07, 03:44 AM	So if I am TWF unarmed and I have a BAB of +6... Player declarations I'm going to use two weapon fighting this round For my first main hand attack I kick his knee For my off hand attack I punch him in the gut For my second main hand attack I try to put my elbow in his face It's as easy as that. That is not the way D&D combat works.
Steely_Dan 07-27-07, 03:51 AM	No, it was a horrible argument because you were trying to prove your point by asking if it made sense for them to get a feat that they wouldn't be able to get anyway. Prerequisites exist for a reason. It was a lovely little argument, I was just using a bit of exaggeration to emphasize how farfetched your interpretations of weapons/natural weapons/natural attacks/unarmed strikes is, IMO. Anyway, this is getting old, so let's just do the old agree to disagree thing. Take her easy,
EjoThims 07-27-07, 08:42 AM	It was a lovely little argument, I was just using a bit of exaggeration to emphasize how farfetched your interpretations of weapons/natural weapons/natural attacks/unarmed strikes is, IMO. It wasn't even that, because every race has a limited number of off-hand attack series that can be made each round. Humans (before other spells or items) can never make more than one string of off-hand attacks. Thri-kreen (before other spells or items) can never make more than three strings of off-hand attacks.
J_Vhad 07-27-07, 01:02 PM	It was a lovely little argument Not even politicians would have used it due to it's obvious flaws. You were claiming that unarmed strike counting as multiple weapons would open the door to this for humans when it obviously doesn't. Do humans have three arms? No. Then they don't meet the prerquisites. How is using a feat they can't meat the prerequisites for as the basis of an argument, a GOOD argument? It would be like me claiming that carrying four shortswords is overpowered because then every human could just take multiattack and use them all. There is an obvious flaw there. emphasize how farfetched your interpretations of weapons/natural weapons/natural attacks/unarmed strikes is, IMO Well since they all come straight from the RAW they arn't my farfetched interpretations. They are the RAW writings. Try looking up those terms in the books. An unarmed strike is a natural part of the human body that can be used as a weapon, but it isn't a natural weapon. Likewise, it's hardly a manufactured weapon, so it doesn't sit in either category. That is why they had to include the "fist" part in the Magic Fang description so it could be affected. Unarmed strike is described in the equipment section of the PHB. My interpretation comes directly from there, not farfetched. Honestly I feel it's more farfetched to not allow mulitple unarmed strikes than to allow unarmed strikes.
Sigfried Trent 07-27-07, 01:46 PM	That is not the way D&D combat works. And I contend that it is. You will have to provide some kind of argument if you want to make that statement. There is nothing unusual about the attack sequence I state there. At leat explain in what way D&D combat works differently (as you understand it) so I can respond. If you are going to mention the descriptions of the attacks, that's just for illustration. I'm not implying the attacks are actualy targeted, but when I play I usualy describe what kind of attack I'm doing for cinematic effect. I realize D&D is not blow by blow, but as a DM and player I like to describe the "connecting shot" when there is a hit for the sake of drama and emersion. If you want a less colorfull version I will use two weapon fighting this round... I make a primary unarmed strike I make an off hand unarmed strike I make my second primary unarmed strike by virtue of my base attack bonus Hardly any differant than... I will be two weapon fighting this round I swing my long sword I swing my off hand short sword I swing my long sword again
Mojo_Rat 07-28-07, 06:13 PM	Ive scanned through some of the arguments here, although not all of them so please correct me if I am wrong here. I had always gotten the impression that When a monk was doing flurry of blows he was effectivly doing 'two weapon fighting for the body' or whatnot?. So the Monk with Base attack bonus +6 and flurry can say I kick him in the stomack I roundhouse punch him in the side of the head I axe kick him. Or he can just say 'i punch him three times. If the same Monk has the 2 Kama he has two options he can use flurry of blows for I stab him with the right hand kama i stab him with the left hand kama i stab him witht he right hand kama (or he can throw in whatever te hell he wants in there if he wants an axe kick in the middle) He could also in theiry use TWF But not flurry? it seems to me thematically both are doing tehe same thing. However a Human fighter level 6 who wants to do a boxing left right Jab would just be 2 attacks yes?. Right hand pnch bonus +6 left hand punch bonus +1 The 2handed sword + flurry of unarmed blows seems kind of cheesy to me. Essentialy the argument would be.. (same level 8 monk now) Monk Stabs with a Yari (is that the right name? the oriental spears) Then follows with 3 'secondary' unarmed attacks?? This seems kind of cheesy and not how the rules were intended.
J_Vhad 07-28-07, 08:59 PM	I'm failing to see the cheesiness. The monk is merely using his offhand (which is his specialty) to a greater effect then a fighter using a two handed sword and armor spikes would be able to use the spikes. What should keep the monk from being able to bicycle kick a dude after stabbing him with a spear? And for goodness sake, why the heck does it take a level six fighter to make a left right unarmed jab when a level one commoner can do the same thing with a pair of gauntlets? I don't see why people keep equating flurry to two-weapon fighting. Everyone I know in my area does this. If it were two-weapons fightings equivalent it would say so, but instead it suggests it's merely the speed of the martial artist (flurry).
Mojo_Rat 07-29-07, 01:04 AM	Well I guess the question is this? Why would flurry of blows go into detail about using main hand and off hand weapons or that if you use a quarter staff you are in fact using both ends If It works with hand in hand with TWF? The wording had always given the impression to me that Flurry just superceded TWF because the Monk is doing alot of the same things if he is wielding say a quarter staff. I really don't think it was intended that say an 8th level monk get what 6 attacks using this TWF/Flurry method? It seems your trying to apply two things wich do the same thing and trying to make them stack and I do not believe they should. The case of the wielding a 2handed weapon then doing like 3 unarmed attacks after again doesnt strike me as what was intended. to be honest until i read this thread to write my previous post the idea of combining the two had never even occured to me.
Zoner 07-29-07, 02:57 AM	#2: We know from the FAQ you can use TWF and Flurry of Blows at the same time. Personally, I feel this is the cruxt of the issue and where it all went wrong. Skippy goofed. Take a look at the RotG for unarmed combat part 3. http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070410a A monk using one or two special monk weapons simply substitutes one attack from each weapon (or from one or both ends of a quarterstaff) as part of a full attack (including a flurry of blows). The monk need not take any penalties for off-hand or two-weapon attacks. The monk, however, does not get an extra attack from a second weapon. If the monk is using a flurry of blows, she adds her full Strength bonus to damage from any successful attack, even if she uses what normally would be her off hand, or uses one end of a quarterstaff as a two-handed weapon. If a monk is not using her flurry of blows ability, she can claim an extra attack from a second weapon. If she does, she takes all the penalties for attacking with two weapons and for attacking with off-hand weapons. A monk using an unarmed strike as an off-hand attack does not suffer any off-hand penalties; however, under the regular rules for two-weapon fighting you get only one extra attack for an off-hand weapon. Unless Skippy wants to contradict the RotG, he basicly goofed. I thought it questionable when I first saw it and the RotG confirm it. Monks should NEVER have been allowed to mix flurry and TWF. They weren't allowed it before Skippy's ruling and it causes this exact conundrum because he said they could. Unarmed combat doestn't matter which limb you use because you could substitute another limb and it's all the same. TWF counts each and every limb as a weapon, but even if you had a sword, a dagger, a boot blade and spiked armor, TWF will only let you select 1 as an offhand weapon. Monks were never meant to use TWF. That's what their flurry is meant for.
Steidas 07-29-07, 03:18 AM	Monks were never meant to use TWF. That's what their flurry is meant for. But we love seeing 11th level monks throwing shurikens like crazy :(
EjoThims 07-29-07, 09:30 AM	Monks were never meant to use TWF. That's what their flurry is meant for. Flurry is meant to grant additional attacks at a lower penalty than standard TWF. If a Monk wanted to take the additional penalties, there is nothing that prevents one from doing so. The text quoted aove merely specifies that when using flurry (and only flurry) main-hand and off-hand weapons can both be used as if they were a main-hand weapon. As well, the hierachry places FAQ articles over RotG articles, so even if a contradiction does occur, the FAQ ruling is the official one.
Zoner 07-29-07, 02:06 PM	Flurry is meant to grant additional attacks at a lower penalty than standard TWF. If a Monk wanted to take the additional penalties, there is nothing that prevents one from doing so. The text quoted aove merely specifies that when using flurry (and only flurry) main-hand and off-hand weapons can both be used as if they were a main-hand weapon. As well, the hierachry places FAQ articles over RotG articles, so even if a contradiction does occur, the FAQ ruling is the official one. "The text quoted aove merely specifies that when using flurry (and only flurry) main-hand and off-hand weapons can both be used as if they were a main-hand weapon." "A monk using one or two special monk weapons simply substitutes one attack from each weapon (or from one or both ends of a quarterstaff) as part of a full attack(including a flurry of blows)." It's not just for when you flurry, it's anytime you use a full attack. "If a monk is not using her flurry of blows ability, she can claim an extra attack from a second weapon." is the same as: "If a monk uses her flurry of blows ability, she cannot claim an extra attack from a second weapon." this means as soon as you claim a 2nd attack from your offhand, you can't be using flurry of blows. That means you can't mix flurry and twf. As for the RotG vs FAQ, when's the last time you saw retractions and self admitted errors coming from the RotG? Now, how many times has Skippy goofed?
EjoThims 07-29-07, 08:13 PM	Finally got an initial response from CustServ. They were not as helping as I thought, but the text they quoted came from the FAQ and not RotG (no surprise there). Subject Unarmed Strikes, Armor Spikes, ad Two Weapon Fighting Discussion Thread Response (Support Agent) 07/29/2007 02:03 PM Hi there Neil, Thank you for contacting Wizards of the Coast game support. 1. 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. To add an off-hand attack to a flurry of blows, stack whatever two-weapon penalty the monk has with the penalty (if any) from the flurry. Attacks from the flurry have the monk’s full damage bonus from Strength, but the off-hand attack gains only half Strength bonus to damage. If the off-hand attack is a weapon, that weapon isn’t available for use in the flurry (if it can be used in a flurry at all, see the previous question). For example, a 4th-level monk with the Two-Weapon Fighting feat and a Strength score of 14 decides to use a flurry of blows and decides to throw in an off-hand attack as well. The monk has a base attack bonus of +3 and a +2 Strength bonus. With a flurry, the character can make two attacks, each at +3 (base +3, -2 flurry, +2 Strength). An unarmed strike is a light weapon, so the monk suffers an additional -2 penalty for both the flurry and the off-hand attack, and the monk makes three attacks, each at an attack bonus of +1. The two attacks from the flurry are primary attacks and add the monk’s full Strength bonus to damage of +2. The single off-hand attack adds half the monk’s Strength bonus to damage (+1). If the monk in our example has two sais to use with the flurry, plus the off-hand attack, she can use both in the flurry (in which case she must make the off-hand attack with an unarmed strike) or one sai for the off-hand attack and one with the flurry. The sai used in the off-hand attack is not available for the flurry and vice versa. 2. Technically no, armor spikes count as a single weapon. But a spiked gauntlet can be used as a separate weapon, if you want to capture the flavor of a two-weapon fighting, spiked battlerager kind of character. 3. Technically yes, but the off-hand unarmed strike adds only half the character's Strength bonus to damage. Remember that the DM has final say regarding any rules that they think are too powerful, or not cool enough. Their house rules for their unique campaigns are encouraged to make the game better for everyone. Take Care and Good Gaming! :) We would appreciate your feedback on the service we are providing you. <a href="http://www.wizards.com/survey/custservemail0105.htm"> Please click here to fill out a short questionnaire</a>. To login to your account, or update your question please <a href="http://wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg/php/enduser/acct_login.php?p_userid=jeiph@mac.com&p_next_page=myq_ilp.php">click here</a>. Sam Customer Service Representative Wizards of the Coast 1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada) 425-204-8069 (From all other countries) Monday-Friday 9am-6pm PST / 12pm-9pm Customer (Neil Thompson) 07/24/2007 10:55 PM Is it possible to use unarmed strikes as both weapons (main-hand and off-hand) while using the two-weapon fighting feats? If it is not normally possibly, is it possible for a Monk to use unarmed strikes as both weapons (main-hand and off-hand) while using the two-weapon fighting feats? Is it possible to use armor spikes as both weapons (main-hand and off-hand) while using the two-weapon fighting feats? Is it possible to use unarmed strikes as an off-hand attack while using a two-handed weapon and the two-weapon fighting feats? ******************** Book Name: Player's Handbook Steps: Step 1: Step 2: Step 3: I especially love how they got the flurry text block out when my question never once mentioned using flurry. The answers to 2 and 3 are the first real evidence I've seen against TWF with unarmed strikes, since 3 establishes that unarmed strikes works like armor spikes, and 2 establishes that armor spikes can not be used for TWF. However, the copy paste job in lue of a direct answer to number 1 still leaves this up in the air, since the rather obvious connections on both sides are ignored and nothing is clarified (as the example still lacks the words to solidly show that unarmed strikes either can or cannot be used as both main-hand and off-hand attacks in the same round).
risner 07-29-07, 08:35 PM	I really don't think it was intended that say an 8th level monk get what 6 attacks using this TWF/Flurry method? How do you get 6? Two from BAB One from Flurry One from TWF One from ITWF That is a max of 5 attacks all at -3 or more.
Steely_Dan 07-30-07, 03:43 AM	Not even politicians would have used it due to it's obvious flaws. You were claiming that unarmed strike counting as multiple weapons would open the door to this for humans when it obviously doesn't. Do humans have three arms? No. Then they don't meet the prerquisites. How is using a feat they can't meat the prerequisites for as the basis of an argument, a GOOD argument? It would be like me claiming that carrying four shortswords is overpowered because then every human could just take multiattack and use them all. There is an obvious flaw there. Well since they all come straight from the RAW they arn't my farfetched interpretations. They are the RAW writings. Try looking up those terms in the books. An unarmed strike is a natural part of the human body that can be used as a weapon, but it isn't a natural weapon. Likewise, it's hardly a manufactured weapon, so it doesn't sit in either category. That is why they had to include the "fist" part in the Magic Fang description so it could be affected. Unarmed strike is described in the equipment section of the PHB. My interpretation comes directly from there, not farfetched. Honestly I feel it's more farfetched to not allow mulitple unarmed strikes than to allow unarmed strikes. Wow, you just won't let it go. …I guess I'll have to repeat myself: "Anyway, this is getting old, so let's just do the old agree to disagree thing. Take her easy,"
EjoThims 07-30-07, 10:38 AM	Just because you're bowing out doesn't mean the discussion suddenly ends for everyone else involved, and your rather silly final slaims should still be down for how silly they are.
Mojo_Rat 07-30-07, 01:39 PM	How do you get 6? Two from BAB One from Flurry One from TWF One from ITWF That is a max of 5 attacks all at -3 or more. I was mis-remembering my monk flurry levels, i was thinking they got the extra attackfrom flurry earlier than they obtained it. Though the extra penalty above twf would disappear at level 9. Generaly speaking, I do not believe TWF was intended with Flurry. As I believe i said in a previous post the flavour description of flurry from using fists to two weapons seems to suggest that you are doing two weapon fighting in the practical sense (even if you are not doing so in the feat sense) I was going to add also that I believe had it been intended it would have been explicitly stated to be intended (however it is admitedly not explicitly stated it was not) Its clear from how effects are described from some monsters that it is ossible to do your full round action and then apply some sort of secondary attack (like a bite or a slam if you are a funky race) But i have never seen either of these attcks expressed in terms of TWF or flurry before.
EjoThims 07-30-07, 01:53 PM	Its clear from how effects are described from some monsters that it is ossible to do your full round action and then apply some sort of secondary attack (like a bite or a slam if you are a funky race) But i have never seen either of these attcks expressed in terms of TWF or flurry before. A creature with a bite or slam can make one in addition to all its iterative attacks, even if with it's iterative attacks it uses TWF or Flurry. The only real restriction on this is that any natural attacks attached to appendages used for the iteratives attacks (claws on the same hand that holds a weapon for example) cannot then be used as secondary attacks.
Mojo_Rat 07-30-07, 03:01 PM	Yes, but there are limitations in the number of extra attacks from a bite or a slam used in a secondary function. You get one Extra Slam or One Extra Bite etc, and there are pre-defined rules and Numberous Character examples of this attack scheme in NPC examples. But I cannot think of one NPC example where Flurry of blows + TWF was shown. If you could show me one That ultimately would end the argument would it not?
EjoThims 07-30-07, 03:11 PM	Yes, but there are limitations in the number of extra attacks from a bite or a slam used in a secondary function. You get one Extra Slam or One Extra Bite etc, and there are pre-defined rules and Numberous Character examples of this attack scheme in NPC examples. If you had a bite and a slam attack you'd get one of each. That's important to remember. But I cannot think of one NPC example where Flurry of blows + TWF was shown. If you could show me one That ultimately would end the argument would it not? Download and read the main FAQ. It goes over this and explicity mentions that TWF + Flurry is a valid tactic. The real thing that some have found to question is whether or not Unarmed Strike can be used in the same round as both the main-hand and the off-hand attack, whether you are using flurry or not. There is nothing to indicate it cannot other than some very loose interpretations of how an unarmed strike applies to someone who has obtained one, but their 'example' is the fact that the FAQ TWF + Flurry used a weapon and unarmed strikes instead of solely unarmed strikes. It's a case of the rules not being clear on if something can be done or not and some saying "well it doens't say you can so you can't even though it makes sense" and others saying "it doesn't say you can't AND it makes sense that you can so the hell shouldn't you be able to"?
Steely_Dan 07-31-07, 03:47 AM	Just because you're bowing out doesn't mean the discussion suddenly ends for everyone else involved, and your rather silly final slaims should still be down for how silly they are. Excuse my ignorance, but what is a "slaims"? I never said the conversation should end for everybody else, I was just asking if you could stop gunning for me, just because we don't agree - no big deal. As for silliness, well…
EjoThims 07-31-07, 08:54 AM	Excuse my ignorance, but what is a "slaims"? I never said the conversation should end for everybody else, I was just asking if you could stop gunning for me, just because we don't agree - no big deal. As for silliness, well… Ah.. I first read it as you saying you didn't see why he was still discussing the topic at all. And as for my proof read "ckills"... They've never been the best... ;)
Steely_Dan 07-31-07, 08:59 AM	Ah.. I first read it as you saying you didn't see why he was still discussing the topic at all. And as for my proof read "ckills"... They've never been the best... ;) Right on, see; communication prevailed!
SeaMan 07-31-07, 04:43 PM	If you have a weapon in both hands and you do not attack with the off hand do you get the penaltys, also if the off hand weapon gives any bonuses like to ac and you do not attack with it do you get the bonus.
Sigfried Trent 07-31-07, 04:47 PM	If you have a weapon in both hands and you do not attack with the off hand do you get the penaltys, also if the off hand weapon gives any bonuses like to ac and you do not attack with it do you get the bonus. As to the first.. you suffer no penalties for simply holding a weapon. As to the second, it probably depends on what the weapon ability description says. Generaly I think most of the weapon bonuses only apply to the use of the weapon itself so I'd think you have to be useing it to get an ac bonus from it, especialy if it's a dodge bonus.
Mojo_Rat 07-31-07, 04:48 PM	You only get the penalties for TWF if you attack with two weapons. As far as I know if the second weapon provides an Ac bonus it would still apply.
Sigfried Trent 07-31-07, 04:48 PM	I'm suprised there is no responce/counter to my interpretation of the "Unarmed Strike" rule.
EjoThims 07-31-07, 04:52 PM	I'm suprised there is no responce/counter to my interpretation of the "Unarmed Strike" rule. Which one was it? Cause if you really want I could try to come up with counter arguments for it even if it's the one I agree with... ;)
Zoner 07-31-07, 07:48 PM	Even though I advocate against mixing flurry and twf or even rapid shot, I think that the other issue of using unarmed strikes as both primary and offhand can be explained like this.... Adding a weapon to a flurry is not unlike taking a weapon out of a flurry. A monk who wields a sai or even 2 sai's can substitute them into the flurry with no penalty. That is, he/she can use either sai or unarmed strikes and replace them. Taking weapons out is the same. That could conceivably work for taking your arm or arms out as well. Think of it like this. Instead of adding your arms to a flurry, you instead take them out of the flurry. So long as you can flurry with other weapons (i.e. your knee, elbow, etc) you can still flurry. Your strikes with your arms/fists are subbed with your knee. That leaves your arms available for inclusion as a twf weapon. The confusion comes because they're both called "unarmed strikes" but they're really multiple weapons that can be used for that unarmed strike. This would be similar to saying, I want to use slashing for my primary and offhand. Well that's ok so long as they were different weapons, even though BOTH are slashing. Same goes for unarmed strikes. They are a type of weapon, not the SAME weapon. You can unarmed strike with your feet for a flurry, and then unarmed strike with one fist for twf, and another to throw a shuriken for a rapid shot, adding -2 for twf and -2 for rapid shot. I still feel it's wrong to mix flurry, twf and rapid shot, however, I felt this might help others to understand better how it can make sense to use unarmed strikes as both primary and secondary. People tend to think of unarmed strikes as your whole body because that is how it is described, however, technically, you are really using different parts of your body, it just doesn't matter as much which parts. Hopefully that helped some of you out there. :confused:
Sigfried Trent 08-01-07, 01:06 PM	Which one was it? Cause if you really want I could try to come up with counter arguments for it even if it's the one I agree with... ;) The cruxt of it was that an "Unarmed Strike" is itself a weapon, not the fist or foot used to deliver it. So any unarmed strike is treated as a seperate weapon.
EjoThims 08-01-07, 01:10 PM	The cruxt of it was that an "Unarmed Strike" is itself a weapon, not the fist or foot used to deliver it. So any unarmed strike is treated as a seperate weapon. Oh, that was covered with the "If 'Unarmed Strike' itself is a weapon it makes the most sense that it works like a double weapon, as it is one weapon that can attack from multiple points. And since double weapons allow TWF, why wouldn't Unarmed Strike?" and the "If you're being that ridiculously literal, then technically each Unarmed Strike weapon takes up no space, weight, or cost. So I just 'buy' two for free and use them both in a round, since each one takes up only one of my main-hand or off-hand slots." arguments. There's really no reason that even the interpretation of all Unarmed Strikes being a single weapon even when made with different body parts prevents one from using TWF with unarmed strikes.
Sigfried Trent 08-01-07, 05:58 PM	There's really no reason that even the interpretation of all Unarmed Strikes being a single weapon even when made with different body parts prevents one from using TWF with unarmed strikes. Well really my contention was supporting the idea that you can TWF with body parts... but in this case because each strike is its a discrete "weapon" indipendent of the body part it is deliverd with.
EjoThims 08-01-07, 11:57 PM	I honestly could not make sense of that last post... Most likely due to my brain being so frie dfrom other things at the moment... But I finally got an EXPLICIT answer one way or the other from Cust Serv: Hi there Xxxx [Yall dun need ta know my name real name... ;) ], Because of the FAQ entry that says you can use your unarmed strikes as part of your flurry along with two-weapon fighting, you can indeed use your unarmed strikes as both primary and off-hand weapons in the same round. If a DM feels that is too powerful for their games, they have every right to disallow this. Any ruling they make overrules any rulings or clarifications we can provide. Take Care and Good Gaming! :) The DM Fiat lines obviously reference rule 0, but until a FAQ article, Sage entry, or errata comes out with text explicity stating otherwise... you can indeed use your unarmed strikes as both primary and off-hand weapons in the same round
Sigfried Trent 08-02-07, 02:45 PM	Victory! lol