Note: I would rather not use any classes from ToB.
==Aelryinth
Untrue. He'd get UA attacks or Natural Attacks, not both...
Yup
and pretty sure he wouldn't get UA as a bear, since all his training as a man doesn't automatically translate into training as a bear.
One of those "It says I do, and then never says I don't anymore, so I should still get it" rules.
Consider playable races with natural claw weapons, can they make unarmed strikes. (yes they can)
You will probably have to sell the DM on it, but it is legal.
Untrue. He'd get UA attacks or Natural Attacks, not both...and pretty sure he wouldn't get UA as a bear, since all his training as a man doesn't automatically translate into training as a bear.
==Aelryinth
It's great that you feel that way, and I respect your feelings. Unfortunately, this is about the rules, not your feelings. If it was just about feelings, I would say that I feel very strongly that my statements hold true because they are awesome. Let us talk about the rules on this board, since it is clear that feelings get us nowhere.
When you feel like talking about the actual rules, quote some and come talk to me.
Moving on.
You can make an Unarmed Strike with any part of your body. This applies to Monks as humans, Monks as Troglodytes, Monks that have been polymorphed into Treants, etc. This also applies to people who have taken the Improved Unarmed Strike feat and turn into bears.
As for being able to follow an Unarmed Strike sequence with natural attacks, I got that from the text of monsters. Note that in the Half Fiend monster description, it says
"Full Attack
A half-fiend fighting without weapons uses both claws and its bite when making a full attack. If armed with a weapon, it usually uses the weapon as its primary attack and its bite as a natural secondary attack. If it has a hand free, it uses a claw as an additional natural secondary attack."
This ability to follow a full attack made without the natural weapons with a natural weapon sequence is not unique to the Half Fiend. The FAQ mentions that you can do this as a centaur monk as well, on page 20.
"Q: Can a monk who has natural weapon attacks (such as a centaur monk) attack unarmed and still use his natural weapons? For example, let’s say he’s a 4th-level monk. Can he use a flurry of blows and attack at +5/+5/+0 unarmed (plus other bonuses) and then at +0/+0 for 2 hooves?
A: If the creature normally is allowed to make both weapon attacks and natural weapon attacks as part of the same full attack routine, the monk can do the same (making unarmed strikes in place of weapon attacks). Since a centaur can make two hoof attacks in addition to his longsword attack, a centaur monk can make two hoof attacks in addition to his unarmed strike attack (or attacks, depending on his base attack bonus).
The monk can’t use his natural weapon attacks as part of a flurry of blows, but he can make natural weapon attacks in addition to his flurry. Such attacks suffer the same –2 penalty as the monk’s flurry attacks in addition to the normal –5 penalty for secondary natural attacks.
An 4th-level centaur monk has a base attack bonus of +7 (+4 from his 4 monstrous humanoid Hit Dice, and +3 from his 8 monk levels). If he performs a flurry of blows, he makes three unarmed strikes, at +5/+5/+0. He can add two hoof attacks at –2/–2 (–5 as secondary weapons, and –2 from the flurry)."
As for the lack of familiarity, clearly the solution is for the barbarian to get angry a lot and beat people up in animal form to get more practice in. That was an easy solution that came to me with bearly any effort.
Ok currently playing a game with a barbarian 6/frost rager 5. I am thinking of taking Fist of the Forest 3 so a. my not raging attacks deal good damage. b. get con to my AC. (among other obvious reasons) My DM has allowed me to use gauntlets with the fist of the forest ability since it does no specifically say them (he knows he is being nice about it) so i got a weapon to enchant. Looking for any further ideas with this character (feats, magic items, classes, etc) All official 3.0-3.5 sources are allowed. Thanks in advance for the help.
Note: I would rather not use any classes from ToB.
What are your existing feats, race, alternate class features, and magic items, since you're already playing this character? I don't think you're going to go wrong with Fist of the Forest at this point. I'm also assuming you have all of the prerequisites-- Frostrager shares most of them, but the skill requirements are a bit different along with the Great Fortitude feat.
If you can retrain (and don't have them already), you might want to take a look at some of the alternate class features like Whirling Frenzy and the various totems (either Complete Champion or UA). For feats, I would probably consider Extra Rage among others-- you only have 2/day at the moment. To solve range issues, you could consider gloves of endless javelins (MIC) and the Brutal Throw feat.
Race Human
str 20
dex 18
con 20 (18 +2 from belt)
int 16
wis 16
cha 15
Barbarian 6/ Frost Rager 5.....next want to do Fist of the Forest 3
Feats: (not sure if in the right order but here we go)
H:Great Fortitude
1:Improved Unarmed Attack
3: Power Attack
6: Frozen Berserker
9: Extra Rage
Magic:
+2 Adamantine Guantlets
+3 Bracers of Armor
Belt of Dwarvenkind (plan to eventually switch out for belt of giants str and amulet of health (+6) when get more money)
Also have a masterwork composite longbow for range but dont really need it too much since i have a speed of 40 which next lvl will jump to 50 so i can usally reach my enemies.
I had to make this character in a hurry (25 min) so it is not as optimized as I would like. I would love ideas besided bear warrior if anyone has them. Not that I am completly oposed to bear warrior but A. still not sure if it works with my frost rager abilities and combination of unarmed ATTACKS (again not STRIKES) B. not really the theme i am going for. C. would love to find a 5 lvl prestige class or a multiple dips.
Ok First of all I am not a monk. So my unarmed ATTACKS (not strikes) are not considered weapons. So all the talk about using weapon attacks with natural weapons DOES NOT apply to me since my unarmed attacks are not weapons. .
There is no difference. The only thing a monk has over your average joe fighter who takes Improved Unarmed STRIKE (its the name of the feat...thats what it does...) is that a monk's unarmed strike is allowed to count as a manufactured weapon WITH REGARDS TO SPELLS AND EFFECTS that modify manufactured weapons.
Like it or not, Unarmed Strike is a WEAPON! and everyone has one, regardless of whether they are a monk, a FotF, a level 1 wizard, or a bear.
A nice 5 level PrC that I like is Occult Slayer. Its not the greatest, but it has full BAB and a couple of nice abilities including +3 to all saves. Prereqs aren't that bad (Imp Init and Weapon Focus, couple ranks in Know Arcana and Spellcraft).
Since it looks like you're running without armor anyway, you might also want to pick up ninja or chaos monk in order to grab Wisdom to AC. Between that and Fist of the Forest, you'll be in pretty good shape for AC at that point. Chaos monk (Dragon #335) also gives you the "flailing strike" ability, which is actually quite good.
If you wanted more Str (and have someone in your party who can control you), you could go with Frenzied Berserker. That "have someone who can control you" piece is important, though and the requirements would be tough. Duskblade and 4 levels of Dragon Disciple could be another option for that as well which might be easier. Another outright "barbarian" prestige class would be runescarred berserker (Unapproachable East), for a bit of pseudo spellcasting, more rages, and AC/DR bumps.
I would definitely look at Snow Tiger Berserker (from the same book) for your feats-- you're fighting with light weapons (unarmed strike), so that feat will give you a full attack on a charge. Plus, it at least sounds thematic for a frost rager.
I would probably go with something like Barbarian 6/Frost Rager 5/Fist of the Forest 3/Ranger (wildshape) 1/Monk (chaos) 2/Fighter 2 myself though.
for a bear, the claws would sub for the hands. Ergo, you can't use UA for 'hands' AND get claw attacks.
You could get the bite. Your UA attacks don't interfere with it. You'd have to take the penalty for multiple weapon attacks, however.
Could you swap UA with Naturals? Yes, you could. I never said you couldn't. But for each specific attack with your claws, you'd have to choose one or the other.
And giving Monk UA damage to a creature in beast form is a major stretch of rules logic. Monks are basically humanoids, using their bodies as weapons. Change that body, and you've got a major conflict in justifying UA dmg...exactly when did he learn to spend a lifetime of honing a bear body?
It's just like the rules don't say when you're dead, you can't move around and fight. Some things just need to have logic applied.
==Aelryinth
Change that body, and you've got a major conflict in justifying UA dmg...exactly when did he learn to spend a lifetime of honing a bear body?
It's just like the rules don't say when you're dead, you can't move around and fight. Some things just need to have logic applied.
==Aelryinth
Ehh... as far as logic goes, monk unarmed damage doesn't require a lifetime spent honing the body. Per the rules (and only if you're using training), it takes all of... say, 2 weeks, spent working with someone on how to throw a punch. (i.e. multiclassing into monk, less time potentially without training times enforced) No reason to believe you couldn't take 2 weeks to become familiar with a new body as well. With the exception of certain feats, you can typically use any part of the body to throw an unarmed strike as well.
You can find a clarification of the rules here though, which adds some pieces that aren't in the books in some cases. (The combination of natural weapons and unarmed strikes is assumed to use your primary hand, for instance.)
Kindly note your example is positing a centaur using his hands for a weapon and hooves for Natural Attacks.
for a bear, the claws would sub for the hands. Ergo, you can't use UA for 'hands' AND get claw attacks.
Except UASs don't require you to use your "hands". They can be made with any part of your body.
You are looking for rules where they don't exist, and falling woefully short. There are enough rules that don't make sense without you making up rules that are inconsistant.
for a bear, the claws would sub for the hands. Ergo, you can't use UA for 'hands' AND get claw attacks.
Fortunately, since Unarmed Strikes can delivered with other parts of the body, I don't have to use my bear hands to deliver them which frees up my claws.
for a bear, the claws would sub for the hands. Ergo, you can't use UA for 'hands' AND get claw attacks.
Fortunately, since Unarmed Strikes can delivered with other parts of the body, I don't have to use my bear hands to deliver them which frees up my claws.
I.
AM.
NOT.
A.
MONK.
So unless you can find an SRD that says that a normal unarmed strike from just the feat and not the monk class ability then maybe it would be more doable.
I.
AM.
NOT.
A.
MONK.
YOU.
ALSO.
DON'T.
KNOW.
HOW.
TO.
PROPERLY.
SHOW.
GRATITUDE.
TO.
PEOPLE.
WHO.
ARE.
TRYING.
TO.
HELP.
YOU.
So unless you can find an SRD that says that a normal unarmed strike from just the feat and not the monk class ability then maybe it would be more doable.
1. The text for unarmed strike just says it is an unarmed attack you make. There is no restriction on which part of the body, though like the rules with regards to death, common sense applies as to which body parts can deal damage.
2. If intepreated otherwise, that it only applies to a fist, it would logically follow that a martial artist who is not a monk (say, a Fighter boxer, or a barbarian brawler) could not headbutt, shoulder ram, elbow strike, knee, or kick his opponents.
3. The Sage appearently supports the intepretation that an unarmed strike is more than just a punch. Then again, it is the Sage...
"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. This means you don't need a free hand to make an unarmed attack."
for a bear, the claws would sub for the hands. Ergo, you can't use UA for 'hands' AND get claw attacks.
Fortunately, since Unarmed Strikes can delivered with other parts of the body, I don't have to use my bear hands to deliver them which frees up my claws.
"bear" hands? I "bare"ly got that.
"A creature can choose to treat its unarmed attacks as its primary attacks and its natural weapons as secondary attacks. (This method is normally used to add weapon attacks to a natural attack routine.) The creature must make all unarmed attacks with its primary limb, which prevents that hand from being used for a natural attack such as a claw or slam. It uses its full base attack bonus for the natural attack, gaining additional attacks as normal for a high base attack bonus, and adds its full Strength bonus on damage rolls. Of course, each of these attacks provokes an attack of opportunity if the target is unarmed (unless the creature has Improved Unarmed Strike). However, its natural weapons all become secondary attacks, taking the -5 penalty on attack rolls (or -2 with the Multiattack feat) and adding only half the monster's Strength bonus on damage rolls.
A simpler method is to treat the creature's unarmed attack as an off-hand attack. (After all, an unarmed strike is rarely as effective as a weapon attack would be, so it doesn't really merit the same level of priority in the average monster's attack array.) Instead of using its primary limb to deliver the unarmed attack, it uses a kick, head butt, or other appendage that isn't otherwise used to deliver a natural attack. The creature gains one unarmed strike, which deals damage appropriate to its size plus half its Strength bonus (since it's an off-hand attack). A creature using this method suffers a -4 penalty on all attacks (since it's effectively fighting with two weapons and its off-hand weapon is light). The damage for its natural attacks is unchanged. This method requires fewer calculations on the fly, so it's probably easier to use in play."
My only remaining question about this is what exactly is your "primary limb"? (can my leg be my primary limb and be a kicker?)
Also if anyone has any more suggestions they would be greatly appreciated as always even if I am an a**hole who doesn't know how to show gratitude properly. Thank you Balthanon for the choas monk idea; it frees up a feat slot, gives me a free bonus feat, wis to ac (woot for 3 stats to AC!) and that interesting flailing strike ability.
My only remaining question about this is what exactly is your "primary limb"? (can my leg be my primary limb and be a kicker?)Also if anyone has any more suggestions they would be greatly appreciated as always even if I am an a**hole who doesn't know how to show gratitude properly. Thank you Balthanon for the choas monk idea; it frees up a feat slot, gives me a free bonus feat, wis to ac (woot for 3 stats to AC!) and that interesting flailing strike ability.
I belive primary limb is selected when you start the attack. I can't seem to find it on the srd.
My only remaining question about this is what exactly is your "primary limb"? (can my leg be my primary limb and be a kicker?)
It isn't a defined term (and as far as I know, was one of the additions to the explanation by Skip). This is an area where you probably just want to get a ruling from your DM if it comes up. In the article, Skip is assuming it is an arm along the lines of "I write with this arm, or swing a bat from this side", but it's up to your DM ultimately.
Get real. If you are using limbs for something, you can't use them for UA. The centaur can't use his hoof attacks for UA if he's using them for hoof attacks. Thus multi-weapon penalties, as he CAN'T use hiswhole body for UA...he's using parts of it for something else.
Process of elimination therefore rules (in addition to common sense.) No bear-monk getting claw attacks and bite attacks if he wants UA attacks. He hasn't got anything left to hit with, except his rumble belly.
Skips ruling 'bears' this out, but also violates the spirit of UA...your 'whole body' is NOT available for the UA attacks. I suppose this is why you'd take TWF penalty.
==Aelryinth
Meh, just playing fast and loose with the rules. If you're going to use your claws and teeth, then you need to tell the DM exactly what you are going to be doing the damage with. You're a bear...you can't kick. What are you going to do, panda-tummy rush them to death?!? Do UA dmg with a great bear fart, or a big burp?
Get real. If you are using limbs for something, you can't use them for UA. The centaur can't use his hoof attacks for UA if he's using them for hoof attacks. Thus multi-weapon penalties, as he CAN'T use hiswhole body for UA...he's using parts of it for something else.
Process of elimination therefore rules (in addition to common sense.) No bear-monk getting claw attacks and bite attacks if he wants UA attacks. He hasn't got anything left to hit with, except his rumble belly.
Skips ruling 'bears' this out, but also violates the spirit of UA...your 'whole body' is NOT available for the UA attacks. I suppose this is why you'd take TWF penalty.
==Aelryinth
Well acording to Rules of the Game article I copied and pasted over you can use UAs and Natural Attacks together. Also in the monk description it says you can use any part of your body to make a unarmed strike with. My only argument with Dandu was that if you were not a monk you could only use your fists because monks were special but the Rules of the Game article contradicts that assumption of mine. I agree that considering a leg as the primary limb is a bit over the top but at that point you only lose 1 claw attack for your primary limb attacks. Although a monk could not of course flurry with the natural attacks since natural weapons are not special monk weapons.
Meh, just playing fast and loose with the rules. If you're going to use your claws and teeth, then you need to tell the DM exactly what you are going to be doing the damage with. You're a bear...you can't kick. What are you going to do, panda-tummy rush them to death?!? Do UA dmg with a great bear fart, or a big burp?
Get real. If you are using limbs for something, you can't use them for UA. The centaur can't use his hoof attacks for UA if he's using them for hoof attacks. Thus multi-weapon penalties, as he CAN'T use hiswhole body for UA...he's using parts of it for something else.
Process of elimination therefore rules (in addition to common sense.) No bear-monk getting claw attacks and bite attacks if he wants UA attacks. He hasn't got anything left to hit with, except his rumble belly.
Bear can headbutt, you know.
I had a HUGE post typed up about how manufactured weapons (which UASs are treated like) and natural weapons interact, but I hit the stupid back button on my mouse and lost it. If you are really interested, I can retype it, but blah that was a lot of work lost...
Meh, just playing fast and loose with the rules. If you're going to use your claws and teeth, then you need to tell the DM exactly what you are going to be doing the damage with. You're a bear...you can't kick. What are you going to do, panda-tummy rush them to death?!? Do UA dmg with a great bear fart, or a big burp?
Get real. If you are using limbs for something, you can't use them for UA. The centaur can't use his hoof attacks for UA if he's using them for hoof attacks. Thus multi-weapon penalties, as he CAN'T use hiswhole body for UA...he's using parts of it for something else.
Process of elimination therefore rules (in addition to common sense.) No bear-monk getting claw attacks and bite attacks if he wants UA attacks. He hasn't got anything left to hit with, except his rumble belly.
Bear can headbutt, you know.
As a DM I might consider ruling that you would lose one of your claws since it would be wierd for your head to be your primary limb...it is a bit of a stretch..but still leaves you with your other claw and a bite which in combination with a full BAB full attack of UAs is enough attacks to seriously make an oponent unhappy (if not dead).
Using the same hand/limb and getting both benefits just isn't going to fly. It doesn't matter if you can use your whole body for ua...if you are limited to JUST head-butting an opponent, you should be taking massive penalties to UA, because you can't use your whole body...which is the whole point of UA being effective!
==Aelryinth
Keep throwing a fit if you want, Aelryinth, but no one's listening and no one cares.
So, Phrofe, is there any other assistance that you require?
==Aelryinth
Trollish troll is immune to normal fire...burn hotter!
So...don't use the limb of your natural weapon with your UAS. UAS can be ANY part of your body. No problem.
6 barbabrian/5 frost rager/ 3 fist of the forest/ 1 chaos monk (using the overwhelming attack variant)/ 1 barbarian/ 5?
FEATS:
H:Great Fortitude
1: Leap attack (retrained from power attack)
3: Extra Rage (retrained from improved unarmed strike)
6:Frozen Berserker
9:reckless rage
12: snow tiger berserker
Monk: power attack and improved unarmed strike
15: Chaotic Rage (think thats the correct name...the one from dragon magazine that adds 4 to barbarian lvl to determine rage effects)
This is just a I think so I am still open to ideas. And aelryinth i agree partly with your point of view as i mentioned so there is no reason to be upity...thank you again for all the help
Another prestige class you could take a look at is Shou Disciple. It's a full base attack bonus prestige class that advances flurry. It also gets some bonus feats, the ability to flurry with weapons, and some Dodge bonuses. 3 levels of chaos monk and 2 of shou disciple will drop the penalty on your flailing strike or overwhelming attack by 1 point.
Also... double check with your DM on some of your retraining. Even though you're getting the feats again later, you're not meeting the prerequisites earlier in your build-- Leap Attack you definitely couldn't do by the rules (you don't qualify for it at 1st level, since you no longer have the Power Attack prerequisite) and Extra Rage is a bit shady as well since you need Improved Unarmed Strike earlier in the build to qualify for Frostrager.
Barbarian 6/Frost Rager 5/ chaos monk 1 / fist 3/ Black blood cultist 6....
H: Great Fortitude
1: Power attack (retrain to snow tiger berserker)
3: Improved unarmed strike (retrain to track)
6: Frozen Berserker
9:Extra Rage?
Monk: improved unarmed strike, power attack
12: Leap Attack
15: chaotic rage
18: reckless rage?
According to the rules for class and feat retraining if I do not meet the prerequisites of a prestige class I have already taken I lose the special abilities and saves until I can meet the prerequisites again. Therefore I could retrain the power attack and improved unarmed strike even though I need them for frost rager since I would get the prerequisites that same lvl again anyways so I would not lose anything.
Also I am thinking of retraining extra rage at lvl 15 since with chaotic rage and black blood lvls I would get the rage 4/day anyway so any suggestions for that feat and/or a different lvl 18 feat would be appreciated. Also any other criticism or suggestions is also always welcomed. Thanks to EVERYONE who has helped on this even if I didn't take your suggestions...
You should take Poison Healer, from the Fiendish Codex.
It seems interesting but very situational...unless there is a way to use it I do not understand......
Alcohol.
Oh. That could be interesting. Btw is there a list of the d&d alcohols? I know the rules for getting drunk are in cityscape but was wondering if there was a list of the more exotic alcohols out there.
If you are going to be drinking anyway, you might want to take a look at Drunken Master from complete warrior. At least the first 2 levels of it.
Also, I was wrong on unarmed strikes/natural weapons earlier. But it has been clarified a thousand times. For whatever reason I was thinking natural attacks (claws) can't be done with weapons. Forgetting that you are unarmed striking. You can't claw and sword, but you can claw and kick.
Lord Prof, wasn't aiming at you, you already said your DM ruled away from core, so it's not an issue. It's the other people thinking their way is the 'right' way, when the rules and the Sage don't agree.
==Aelryinth
I believe alcohol is technically listed as a drug, and not a poison.
Page 33 of your Arms and Equipment Guide states that Neutralize Poison can be used to counter the effects of alcohol poisoning.
The Sage's example is crystal clear...if you want to make natural attacks, you can't use that limb for UA. Thus, TWF penalties...something is going to be off hand. And NOT having your whole body available is the whole reason for it...if you can't use your hands tod efend or attack, that's a problem for you, even if you can use your whole body. Whole body is a euphemism for 'all limbs'...you aren't going to 'panda-bounce' someone with your huge gut, after all.
it has to be reasonable, and it has to make sense. The way you're combining the two definitely does not. You're stretching 'whole body' waaaaay past the area it was meant to define.
==Aelryinth
If you have a BAB of +6, and you were wielding a greatsword and armor spikes, and you had Improved Unarmed Strike, your attack routine, WITHOUT TWFing, could look like any of these:
Greatsword +6/+1
or
UAS +6/+1
or
Armor Spikes +6/+1
or
Greatsword +6/UAS +1
or
Greatsword+6/Armor Spikes +1
or
UAS +6/Armor Spikes +1
or
UAS +6/Greatsword +1
or
Armor Spikes +6/UAS +1
or
Armor Spikes +6/Greatsword +1
All of those are valid combinations, and none of them involve TWFing. Notice how limbs has nothing to do with it? You can make any combination of weapon attacks you want, as long as you don't claim extra attacks per round via TWF. Stop putting TWFing rules into the discussion.
Now, that out of the way, natural attacks are explicitly allowed at the end of a full attack. Primary natural weapons are converted to secondary natural weapons in the presense of a weapon capable of making iterative attacks (which UASs are classified as, despite not being a manufactured weapon). Secondary natural attacks are made at highest AB-5 and get half +str bonus. The only time you can't use a natural weapon is when it is occupied by a weapon. UNARMED STRIKES DON'T OCCUPY ANY SPACE, AND CAN NEVER EVER EVER INTERFERE WITH NATURAL WEAPON ATTACKS. EVER!
Savvy?
EDIT: Furthermore, you can't even use a natural weapon as mainhand or offhand weapon while TWFing, because you can't make iterative attacks with a natural weapon. This should be self-explainatory...
Whole body is a euphemism for 'all limbs'...you aren't going to 'panda-bounce' someone with your huge gut, after all.
it has to be reasonable, and it has to make sense. The way you're combining the two definitely does not. You're stretching 'whole body' waaaaay past the area it was meant to define.
==Aelryinth
Um I have to disagree on this one aelryinth. Not as a player and DM but as a martial artist. I have the rank of master in a European combat form and am wokring on tai chi chuan and tae kwon do. In do is a style that focuses on using kicks. Tai chi chuan is a style that focuses on locks, breaks and counters using your arms and hands. In many Korean and Taiwanese martial arts you use your knees and your elbows as the primary offense. My point is that depending on the marital art style the part of your body you use to attack varies. Now taking this to d&d if someone is used to using their legs to attack there is no reason either mechanically RAW or in the spirit of the rules (and as a law student here in DC I can sympathize with how you want to follow the "spirit of the law") that says you can't use your natural attacks with your unarmed strikes. Yes I would partly agree that attacking with a claw and your fist with the same hand MIGHT be a bit of a stretch for the spirit of the rules BUT this does not mean you can't use your head, fist, elbow, knee, or even belly if you just want to be silly, to do the unarmed strikes.
Limb is not your hands. It is your arm. It is not your feet, it is your legs. It is not your jaw, it is your head.
You cannot use your arms is not just your hands. If you are going to seriously try to argue that someone who cannot use their arms is able to perform equally with someone who can, why don't I straitjacket a black belt and you nominate one, and I'll bet mine gets his ass kicked. IUS posits that your entire body is available to attack with by default, and being able to attack with your hands full is quite realistically not going to be as effective as attacking with them empty and available.
Secondly, Mr Wyvern doesn't know what he's arguing about. This has nothing to do with iteratives. It has everything to do with weapons readied.
If you have multiple weapons readied and intend to use them in a non-iterative manner, you take TWF penalties. That includes the TH sword guy who wants to ALSO use his armor spikes. Not as iteratives, as weapons on their own.
Which is what the fellow up above was telling the OP he could do, without penalty. Get all his natural attacks and all his UA attacks, without any penalties. zrrt, no.
If he wants to interchange UA and Nat Attacks, that's fine, using the iterative rules. If he wants them in addition to his UA, he's going to take TWF penalties, and multi-weapon if he uses his bite attack. He's also got the problem that bears don't kick, so if he uses his two claws and bite, WHAT is he attacking with for UA...he's got no limbs left to attack with, which brings up my 'panda-belly' snarkiness.
Get your arguments straight, please. I've never said ANYTHING about iteratives.
==Aelryinth
Citation
Natural WeaponsNatural weapons are weapons that are physically a part of a creature. A creature making a melee attack with a natural weapon is considered armed and does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Likewise, it threatens any space it can reach. Creatures do not receive additional attacks from a high base attack bonus when using natural weapons. The number of attacks a creature can make with its natural weapons depends on the type of the attack—generally, a creature can make one bite attack, one attack per claw or tentacle, one gore attack, one sting attack, or one slam attack (although Large creatures with arms or arm-like limbs can make a slam attack with each arm). Refer to the individual monster descriptions.
Bolded for emphasis. YOU CAN NOT MAKE ITERATIVE ATTACKS WITH NATURAL WEAPONS! NOT ALONE, NOT IN CONJUNCTION WITH WEAPON ATTACKS. EVER! NO, NOT EVEN THEN!
Well, actually, there are 2 feats that give you "iteratives" with a pair of natural weapons. Rapidstrike and Improved Rapid Strike in the Draconomnomnomnomnomnomicon give you extra attacks, but they aren't explicitly true iteratives.
Now, if you can't get that right, how can we expect you to get anything right? Another falsehood was committed here:
If he wants to interchange UA and Nat Attacks, that's fine, using the iterative rules. If he wants them in addition to his UA, he's going to take TWF penalties, and multi-weapon if he uses his bite attack.
Explain to me how our friendly little lizard man, shown here makes bite attacks in conjunction with his club attacks? I'm confused, because according to you, he should have TWFing in order to do that. But he doesn't. You know why? CAUSE YOU ARE WRONG. Its one thing to be unaware, its yet another to deliberately spread falsehoods to mislead others.
Another example....how about the Xill. Loveable little 4-armed bugger. He has claws that can wield weapons, just like the lizard man can. His weapon sets as shown are 2 swords and 2 claws, or 4 claws. Notice how the first sword gets 1d6+2, while the 2nd gets 1d6+1? Thats because the first is a primary attack, and the 2nd is an offhand attack, defined by the +1/2 Str bonus applied. THEN, on top of that, he gets 2 more claw attacks. These also get only +1 damage, since secondary natural attacks only get 1/2 +str bonus. His alternate attack mode, if he doesn't have any swords, would be to make 4 claw attacks. Again, the 1st one is a primary natural attack, and gets full +2 damage from str. The other 3 are all secondary natural attacks.
Now, we equip our Xill a little different. Lets give him 2 more swords. Since he has MWF, he can make attacks with all of them. Now he gets 4x short sword attacks, and like before, one of them gets the full +2 damage from Str because its primary. The other three would all get +1, which is half, because they are all considered offhand.
NOW, lets tack a single level of monk on top of this bad boy and throw away the swords. He now has Improved Unarmed Strike, and since he has multiweapon fighting, can make an UAS attack for each of his arms. These attacks do NOT, however, have to be with the "hand", hand are only counted to determine how many attacks he gets with his Multiweapon Fighting feat. Also, since he isn't holding any swords, he can ALSO make secondary natural attacks with all of his claws that aren't holding weapons (hint: thats all of them), just like he did in the first full attack sequence with 2 swords and 2 claws. So he makes 4 UAS attacks, one primary (full +Str damage) and 3 offhand (1/2 +Str damage), THEN he makes 4 claw attacks, all secondary (again, 1/2 +str damage). Now, he can only get his claws if he attacks regularly. If he uses Flurry of Blows, he has to forfeit all of his natual attacks, since natural weapons aren't considered "special monk weapons". If he chose to flurry, he would get 2 attacks with his main "hand" and three more because of his "offhands". The ONLY time extra arms matter for ANYTHING, is for determining how many sets of iteratives you get with Multiweapon Fighting.
So now lets do another little experiment, lets add 4 more levels of monk to this guy. That gets his BAB up past +6 and gives him a feat at ECL9 that we'll spend on Improved Multiweapon Fighting. Now he can make 2 attacks with each of his offhands. His attack routine would then be 2 mainhand attacks, 6 offhand attacks, and 4 claws. If he flurryed, he'd get 3 mainhand attacks, 6 offhand attacks, and 0 claw attacks.
And now we apply this to a Dire Bear. Dire Bears have a BAB of 9. Lets change out one of his feats, say...Endurance, for Improved Unarmed Strike. Our Dire Bear can now attack as such:
UAS +19/+14 (1d4+10), Claws +14/+14 (2d4+5 each), Bite +14 (2d8+5).
Since he's wielding a weapon that gets iterative attacks (his Unarmed Strike), his claws which are NORMALLY his primary natural attacks get bumped down to secondary natural attacks (complete with half +str damage). His UAS damage is 1d4 because he's large size. Now, lets play around with our bear a little bit. Lets throw an Ioun Stone over his head to give him +2 Dex (15 total) and now lets swap another one of his feats, say...Toughness, for Two Weapon Fighting. Now his attack routine looks like this:
UAS +17/+12 (1d4+10), UAS +17 (1d4+5), Claws +12/+12 (2d4+5 each), Bite +12 (2d8+5)
Now this is a TWFing kung-fu panda. Notice the -2 penalty across the board because he's using TWFing. He doesn't qualify for MWF like the Xill does, because he only has 2 "arms". Thus, he's limited to TWFing like use lowly humans are.
There, now that I've educated you how natural attacks work, especially in conjunction with iterative attacks. I trust you won't mislead others again, accidentally or intentionally. Play nice.
By the way if you do take unarmed fighting be sure to take snap kick and boost your unarmed damage.
That said, Unarmed Strikes are similar to natural attacks, but different. The main way they are different is that they are treated as manufactured weapons WRT iterative attacks. They are the ONLY natural weapon that is treated this way. For all other circumstances, they are treated as natural weapons (except for monk's UASs, which are explicitly treated as both all of the time).
Making iterative attacks only impedes your natural attack routine if the natural weapon is being used to wield a weapon. Since UASs don't occupy any space, they can't possibly interfere with natural attack routines. At all. No, not even then. Period.
You get your weapon atatcks (or UA) then you get your natural attacks at a -5 penalty (or -2 with the muliattack feat). That is it. That is all. Please stop fighting about it its getting anoying.
Improved unarmed strike
Improved Unarmed Strike [General]
Benefit
You are considered to be armed even when unarmed —that is, you do not provoke attacks or opportunity from armed opponents when you attack them while unarmed. However, you still get an attack of opportunity against any opponent who makes an unarmed attack on you.
In addition, your unarmed strikes can deal lethal or nonlethal damage, at your option.
Normal
Without this feat, you are considered unarmed when attacking with an unarmed strike, and you can deal only nonlethal damage with such an attack.
Monk's Unarmed Strike Class Feature
Unarmed Strike
At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk’s attacks may be with either fist interchangeably or even from elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may even make unarmed strikes with her hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply her full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all her unarmed strikes.
Usually a monk’s unarmed strikes deal lethal damage, but she can choose to deal nonlethal damage instead with no penalty on her attack roll. She has the same choice to deal lethal or nonlethal damage while grappling.
A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.
A monk also deals more damage with her unarmed strikes than a normal person would, as shown on Table: The Monk. The unarmed damage on Table: The Monk is for Medium monks. A Small monk deals less damage than the amount given there with her unarmed attacks, while a Large monk deals more damage; see Table: Small or Large Monk Unarmed Damage.
Both from hyperlink srd.
The only mentions of "Hands" or "Arms" or even "limbs" in either is to say that a monk can make unarmed strikes while his hands are full, or the bit about how they can be fist, elbow, knee, and foot.
Ael I think you are pretty solidly wrong on this one.
Kick/Kick/Claw/Claw is a totally valid attack pattern.
Did know one read that thing I coped over from the sage or is everyone just ignoring it?
The Sage has a rather lengthy history of being very, very wrong on some rather simple things.
He also tended to make up stuff just so it made sense to him or balanced in his eyes without any rules back up.
/gasp! The Sage is really aelryinth? My world, it has just been blown!
You're arguing apples and oranges. The monk is attacking with any and all parts of his body for UA. right hand, left hand, whatever.
NOW you want to add in a natural attack or weapon.
Bing, now you are fighting with two weapons, and take the appropriate penalty. The monk can't use that limb for UA, and the weapon has to accomodate all the wild thrashing about a UA guy uses. If he's JUST using ua, no TWF. Add in another weapon, ping!
If you don't have any limbs available for attacking, you can't use UA. If your hands are unavailable, you are at a penalty vis someone whose hands are available...this is where the 'common sense' portion of the rules comes in. Again, slap a straight jacket on one of two martial artists, and try to convince me otherwise. At the very least, you've got a penalty to hit, because I can block you much easier when I don't have to worry about your hands. Hence, the TWF rules. Generally speaking, if you can attack normally with your hands full, it's because they aren't full, they are holding something you are using to block or threaten.
If the fighter/monk wants to make sword/natural attack/sword, he's quite welcome to as part of an iterative sequence wihtout violating any rules. He can also pick up Rapidstrike to get iteratives with a single Nat Attack limb. Getting multiple attacks with a single natural attack does take the feat. Following iteratives with different NA weapons does not...although he'd be silly to do so if the penalty is high.
==Aelryinth
Let me turn it around on you, Krusk.
So no then? You can't?
Can you cite a rule where UA is not treated as a weapon for purposes of TWF? It's not a natural attack. That doesn't leave much.
I never said UA wasn't a weapon. I said you can make unarmed attacks, and then natural attacks just fine. Even with a BAB of +0.
Can you cite a rule where you can designate 'kick' as your primary hand? Pretty damn sure primary 'hand' is relegated to something you can wield weapons in.
Why would I be able to cite that? I keep asking you to cite where you are finding primary hand, and supplements and focal points. I can't find that section in any book anywhere. Why would I know where something giving me an exception to those rules would be? [I recognize that in twf, they reference primary and off hand penalties, and that a primary hand would be one of your choice, but these are unarmed attacks (which count as weapons) being combined with natural attacks (Which explicitly stack with weapons). So we have weapons (UA) stacking with natural attacks(Claws) just like the rules explicitly state they can. I can cite that if you need me too.]
This rule has been covered by the Sage. UA takes up a hand slot, and you do other stuff with your off hand. You can't ignore it and claim the 'rest of the body' suddenly gives you '3 weapon fighting'. It doesn't work that way, and its also extremely unbalanced.
Sage opinion is worth slightly more than asking your local gameshop owner. He has a solid knowledge of the rules, but is also prone to adding to the rules, which is not a job he is allowed to do. His job is to clarify rules, or explain how they work. Not add more.
Also, can you show me that sage quote, I'd like to read what it actually says instead of what you are saying it says. Just so I'm clear in what I'm arguing.
I love Pathfinder. They basically totally ruled out any form of TWF by saying UA requires the whole body, and 'FLurry' is functionally TWF for UA...which it is in 3.5, if you look at it, they just never explicitly say so, and so people exploit the loophole.
Pathfinder is a pile of ... actually thats not at all relevant, so I don't know why you brought it up. Yes, it seems they came up with a houserule you enjoy. That does not mean those of us playing a different system need to follow said rule.
Heck, in RIFTS, my juicers unarmed attacks do Megadamage, and can blow up tanks. So in 3.5, my guy with improved unarmed strike should be doing 1d4X100 damage, because the MD to D ratio is something like 1-100. (but only 1 way, normal damage never dealing MD.)
You're selectively ignoring the rules to try to bolster your argument.
UA is considered a weapon, not a natural weapon. That means it falls under the weapon-wielding rules.
The weapon-wielding rules are right there in TWF...primary hand and secondary hand. There's nothing in UA that says it gets a bye from those. UA is considered a weapon. It has to obey the rules for weapons because it is a weapon!
The Natural weapons rules give them the pattern for primary and secondary attacks, independent of weapon wielding. Using a Natural weapon as your off-hand doesn't use TWF, but it does use secondary hand, and so you get a penalty....the troglodyte example above, of weapon/claw/bite illustrated that perfectly. If that claw could still be primary, it would not have had a penalty. UA is simply going to take the primary hand slot from the sword...there's nowhere else for it to go, by the weapon wielding rules!
My search-fu on these boards is horrible. I've seen that Sage ruling quoted a score of times, however, because nobody seriously believed the loophole allowing you to use UA with TWF until he agreed that it was technically allowed.
And, you've got to read Caelic's Optimization bible posts. The Sage may occasionally get things wrong, but it's not often, and his rulings basically stand because there's no updates to them...unless you go over to Paizo, which is truly attempting to finetune the system. Trashing the Sage only works if he's flagrantly wrong (Arcane Thesis, where he eventually reversed himself). Customer Support at WoTC was always unreliable, because it was often so narrowly based on how a question was worded.
What you're challenging me to do is locate a rule that specifically says that UA takes a weapon arm. There isn't one, because UA is a weapon, and all weapons take a weapon arm, by default. There's no rule that says UA is an exception to this. Trying to make me find a rule that hurts you isn't going to work, because these rules are already in place!
==Aelryinth
What you're challenging me to do is locate a rule that specifically says that UA takes a weapon arm. There isn't one, because UA is a weapon, and all weapons take a weapon arm, by default. There's no rule that says UA is an exception to this. Trying to make me find a rule that hurts you isn't going to work, because these rules are already in place!
But it explicitly says "You can do this with feet and knees and stuff" so saying "Which hand are you punching with" is against both the spirit and letter of the rules, which allow you to kick.
Rifts Ultimate Edition Pg. 288
One Mega-Damage (M.D.C.) point inflicts the equivilent of 100 S.D.C., so a Mega-Damage weapon that does 1d6 M.D. inflicts the equivilent of of 100-600 S.D.C/Hit Point damage!
I'm sure they have a few mistakes/typos in those books though, and reference a 1-10 ratio a few times. That system is a really hard one to run thanks to their layouts, and general quality...The Robotech RPG uses mega damage and it uses 1 MD=100 SDC
Its written by the same people, and is really a mod on the RIFTS system. They have a whole bunch of similar things. At the core though, they are all similar enough that you are supposed to be able to play a mech from robotech, a juicer from rifts, and a knight from rifts fantasy in the same game.
Being that the main system is so unbalanced its not even funny (on purpose and explicitly stated in the designers notes at the beginning) I guess it succeeded in letting you combine all the mods.
UA 'can' do damage with your feet, but the primary focus is on the hands. Any serious martial artist will tell you that you never imperil your balance by striking much with the feet. Everything starts with the hands. Even if you can't hit with your hands, they are still available to block with.
So, while you might be damaging the enemy with a panda-belly slam, or a swift smash of your ass to his forebrain, the weapon rules still say 'chose a weapon-wielding primary limb'. If your Nat Attacks are occupying those, then all your attention is on using Natural attacks, and not on UA.
Havng UA does NOT allow you to conjure extra attacks out of nowhere, and that sounds an awful lot like what you are trying to do.
==Aelryinth
Realize that the whole bit about feet and legs is flavor text. Your feet and legs are NEVER primary or secondary weapons, unless you happen to have claws or hooves on them as Natural Attacks.
[Citation Needed]
UA 'can' do damage with your feet, but the primary focus is on the hands. Any serious martial artist will tell you that you never imperil your balance by striking much with the feet. Everything starts with the hands. Even if you can't hit with your hands, they are still available to block with.
George St. Pierre would like a word with you...or a foot. Seriously, more proof that you have no flippin clue what you are talking about. Keep digging that hole, this is amusing me.
So, while you might be damaging the enemy with a panda-belly slam, or a swift smash of your ass to his forebrain, the weapon rules still say 'chose a weapon-wielding primary limb'. If your Nat Attacks are occupying those, then all your attention is on using Natural attacks, and not on UA.
D&D isn't a computer game. There is no "paper doll" screen where you drag and drop weapons into predetermined slots. D&D is different. You can work outside the box. You can wield a weapon "not in your hand", such as a Knee Blade, Weighted Cloak, Armor Spikes, or UAS. If the mechanic says you don't have to use your hands, then you don't have to use your hands. Period. To say otherwise is MAKING UP RULES. Or trolling with the intent to mislead people. Your call.
Lets take a troglodyte. He has a Claw/Claw/Bite routine, just like normal. Lets equip him with Armor Spikes. If he attacks with his Armor Spikes, how many claws do you think he'll get? I'm curious.
Havng UA does NOT allow you to conjure extra attacks out of nowhere, and that sounds an awful lot like what you are trying to do.
Its well within the established pattern of how UASs interact with other attacks. You just don't like it, so you are making up house-rules to limit it. Guess what? It doesn't need to be limited.
==Faelryinth
==Wyvernhand
UA 'can' do damage with your feet, but the primary focus is on the hands. Any serious martial artist will tell you that you never imperil your balance by striking much with the feet. Everything starts with the hands. Even if you can't hit with your hands, they are still available to block with.
You need one of these:
Also, I guess Tae Kwan Do and Capoeira aren't serious martial arts then?
High kicks are flashy and elegant and photograph well. That doesn't meant they are your PRIMARY means of hitting someone. Capoiera and Tae Kwon Do both have a full array of hand strikes. Good ol' Chuck smacks people more then he boots them!
==Aelryinth
Please keep your posts respectful of other members, even if they disagree with you.
ORC_Slaver
Realize that the whole bit about feet and legs is flavor text. Your feet and legs are NEVER primary or secondary weapons, unless you happen to have claws or hooves on them as Natural Attacks. Cite snap-kick...it has to specifically cite that you are using your feet, and only your feet, for that attack.
You have continued to hone your unarmed combat skills, and you deal more damage with your unarmed strikes. Prerequisite: Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +6. Benefit: When you make a melee attack with one or more melee weapons (including a standard attack, full attack, or even a strike maneuver), you can make an additional attack at your highest attack bonus. This attack is an unarmed attack that deals damage equal to your base unarmed attack damage + 1/2 your Str bonus. You take a –2 penalty on all attack rolls you make this round.
Says nothing about your feet. Even in the flavor bit. It specifically says nothing about feet. Seriously, not one word. If you ask someone to cite it, you ought to have read it yourself.
UA 'can' do damage with your feet, but the primary focus is on the hands.
You literally just said that what we are saying it can do, can be done. "It isn't a primary focus, but it 'can' be done." You literally just agreed with us.
Any serious martial artist will tell you that you never imperil your balance by striking much with the feet. Everything starts with the hands. Even if you can't hit with your hands, they are still available to block with.
Well thats just incorrect on every front.
So, while you might be damaging the enemy with a panda-belly slam, or a swift smash of your ass to his forebrain, the weapon rules still say 'chose a weapon-wielding primary limb'.
You keep throwing this rule out, curious where it comes from.
Tae Kwon Do was invented for the purpose of getting a kick high enough to knock someone off a horse. Go watch unlimited martial arts. You rarely see high kicks, and arts like jeet kune do never kick above the waist.
High kicks are flashy and elegant and photograph well. That doesn't meant they are your PRIMARY means of hitting someone. Capoiera and Tae Kwon Do both have a full array of hand strikes. Good ol' Chuck smacks people more then he boots them!
==Aelryinth
But the fact that both martial arts (and many others) include an array of kicks which are used often (at least in the matches I've seen) would seem to run counter to your argument that serious martial artists do not use kicks.
By your own admission, there are martial arts (like Jeet Kun Do) use kicks. They might not go above the waist, but high kicks were never the point of contention, just the use of kicks in general.
Which doesn't exist anywhere except in the Snap Kick feat. All TWF etc stuff cites the hands, and UA is a weapon, it uses the hands for purposes of what you're trying to do. It nowhere says that you get Three-Weapon fighting if you dual wield and attack with your feet using UA. Nat attacks are no different.
==Aelryinth
Period.
Are you alergic to citing these "rules" you keep coming up with? I have NEVER in th 4ish years I've read this forum EVER seen you cite anything to back up anything you've ever said. Please, if you are so right, prove it. I dare you.
Which doesn't exist anywhere except in the Snap Kick feat.
I feel like we can't have a debate until you open a book. You keep citing the snap kick feat and its reference to how you can suddenly now kick people, and I keep pointing out that reference doesn't exist.
You really need to read it. I even quoted it in my post right before yours, that you then responded to.
If you aren't going to open the book, we cannot debate the contents of said book.
Here is part of my previous post.
SNAP KICK READ THIS BEFORE YOU CITE IT AGAIN
Realize that the whole bit about feet and legs is flavor text. Your feet and legs are NEVER primary or secondary weapons, unless you happen to have claws or hooves on them as Natural Attacks. Cite snap-kick...it has to specifically cite that you are using your feet, and only your feet, for that attack.You have continued to hone your unarmed combat skills, and you deal more damage with your unarmed strikes. Prerequisite: Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +6. Benefit: When you make a melee attack with one or more melee weapons (including a standard attack, full attack, or even a strike maneuver), you can make an additional attack at your highest attack bonus. This attack is an unarmed attack that deals damage equal to your base unarmed attack damage + 1/2 your Str bonus. You take a –2 penalty on all attack rolls you make this round.
Says nothing about your feet. Even in the flavor bit. It specifically says nothing about feet. Seriously, not one word. If you ask someone to cite it, you ought to have read it yourself.
Regardless...
I'd argue that Off hand is only a term coined for two weapon fighting only.
Under the natural attacks rules says you can make any nat attacks in addition to your normal attacks.
Even with what aelryinthis saying you should be able to make your UA say with your feet and then claw claw bite.
I think the key phrase he is missing is "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed."
ya know after reading 10 pages of this thread I don't think i've seen aelryinth quote a single rule.
Regardless...
I'd argue that Off hand is only a term coined for two weapon fighting only.
Under the natural attacks rules says you can make any nat attacks in addition to your normal attacks.
Even with what aelryinthis saying you should be able to make your UA say with your feet and then claw claw bite.
I think the key phrase he is missing is "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed."
We are not just talking about monks though...we are referring to unarmed attacks in general.
ya know after reading 10 pages of this thread I don't think i've seen aelryinth quote a single rule.
Regardless...
I'd argue that Off hand is only a term coined for two weapon fighting only.
Under the natural attacks rules says you can make any nat attacks in addition to your normal attacks.
Even with what aelryinthis saying you should be able to make your UA say with your feet and then claw claw bite.
I think the key phrase he is missing is "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed."
Plus lets not open the can of worms of what "there is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed" really means.
As for not kicking in martial arts, pah, Muay Thai, kicks and knee strikes are regularly used, along with elbows and shins. I know, cos it hurts to train for the first few weeks.
But anyways, I cannot find a rule that states ANYWHERE that you can only use your hands to make an unarmed strike. And there is nothing saying that natural attacks cannot be used with unarmed strikes, for example, I knee someone, then elbow them, then use my claws following up to finish the job. I fail to see how the rules don't support this
I think the key phrase he is missing is "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed.
This is just reminder text. Normally, there is no such thing as an offhand attack for a monk. Normally, there is also no such thing as an offhand attack for a fighter, a paladin, a rogue, or a wizard either. Period. The exception to this, however, is when you GIVE the monk/fighter/paladin/rogue/wizard an offhand attack via the Two Weapon Fighting combat rules. If a fighter has a +6 or higher BAB and holds a longsword in his right hand and a flail in his left hand, he can attack with the sword at +6 and the flail at +1, or the flail at +6 and the sword at +1, or twice with either at +6/+1. Neither hand is "offhand" because he isn't TWFing. Same with a monk. He can punch with his right hand, then his left hand, or he can punch twice with his right, or punch once with his left and kick with his right foot, or headbutt someone followed by a pelvic thrust. Normally, this isn't two weapon fighting for ANYONE. If, however, the monk opts to take an EXTRA unarmed strike attack more than what his BAB or flurry or other normal applicable abilities would give, THEN he is TWFing and thusly gains an offhand attack with all of the penalties that apply.
That's all this phrase is...reminder text on how the rules normally work. The TWFing combat option is the exception to the normal rule.
EDIT: PS, I think this is the first day in several I've come home from work and NOT had a faelryinth response to reply to...guess he ran out of troll.
Amusing! Snap Kick doesn't even say you're using your feet. That IS funny. I guess we can't go by the titles, then!
I have major problems with people believing that UA + Nat AC = 3 and 4 weapon fighting. It doesn't work that way, and there's absolutely no rule you can cite that it does work that way. The rules DO say that UA is treated as a weapon, and when you want to use a second weapon, you use Two Weapon Fighting, which specifically DEMANDS a primary and secondary hand for your weapons. Furthermore, even Wyvernhand posted an example where Natural Attacks combined with a weapon used the primary/secondary hand rule (the troglodyte). For some reason, you're hanging flavor text as official permission to break the TWF rules, and that doesn't fly.
The rules to be cited have all been cited in defense of the TWF rules. You're choosing to somehow imply that 'can attack with any part of the body' opens up a whole new subset of rules, and it doesn't. That's really all there is to it.
To Wit: You can combine UA with Natural Attacks. UA still has to take a primary limb, becuase it's treated as a weapon, regardless of what you attack with 'in reality'. Natural attack/Multiattack rules govern the bonuses for the natural attacks.
You can combine UA with Weapons. You use TWF rules and assign a primary and secondary hand, as per normal weapons, and take the appropriate penalties.
If you can find a feat anywhere that allows you to just add on standard UA iteratives, in addition to all your other attacks, congrats, you've just broken UA. Since the feat doesn't exist, I suggest trying to interpret the rules as providing it for free is not a good way to go. Because, if you can do it for natural attacks, there's no reason you couldn't do it with weapons, and you've just intro'd 3 weapon fighting for no cost.
==Aelryinth
Half Fiend
Full Attack
A half-fiend fighting without weapons uses both claws and its bite when making a full attack. If armed with a weapon, it usually uses the weapon as its primary attack and its bite as a natural secondary attack. If it has a hand free, it uses a claw as an additional natural secondary attack.
Or my above troglodyte example where the base trog who DOESN'T HAVE TWFING. Can you explain the base, monstrous manual troglodyte? Or any Dragon? A Dragon has primary bite and secondary claws and secondary wings and secondary tail. According to your interpretation of the rules, he should be 4 weapon fighting. But...if you add up the attack bonuses, there is no Multiweapon Fighting penalties in their stat blocks. Can you explain that? I doubt it. But I'm willing to watch you try.
Oh wait, you don't prove anything, you just make baseless declarations. GO AWAY TROLL!
Unarmed strikes are not natural weapons. if they were, they'd be listed as such. You want to use Natural attacks in place of UA, you have to prove that they are monk weapons and interchangeable.
I don't think anyone is saying they are natural attacks. We are saying you can kick, and then then make your natural weapon attacks just like normal.
Here is the issue, you seem to think unarmed fighting occupies a weapon slot, not only a weapon slot but a hand held weapon slot. It clearly doesn't.
Also, how do you think boot daggers and arm blades work?
You see, he doesn't trust books; they're all fact and no heart. And that's exactly what's tearing our board apart today. Face it folks, we are a divided community. Not between Third and Fouth edition, or between roleplayers and rollplayers - or Wizards and Pathfinder, for that matter - but between those who think with their heads and those who know with their heart.
Consider Giacomo. If you think about his guide to monks, of course it's absurd. But doesn't it feel nice when you read about how monks are actually misunderstood, and that there is nothing wrong with the 3.5e core at all? A nice, warm, comfortable sensation right in your gut?
That there's where the truth really comes from, from ladies and gentlemen, the gut. Now I know some of you may not trust your gut yet, but with Aelryinth's help you will. The truthiness is, anyone can read the rules to you, but only Aelryinth can to feel the rules at you.
Dwarf comment is a refference to OotS and is meant to be humorous not to be taken seriously.
Guys, guys, you're going about this all wrong. We're being eliteist, telling people what is or is not true, and how things do or do not work. Who are we to say that you can follow an attack with armor spikes with a natural attack sequence without incurring TWFing penalties? If Aelrynth wants to say otherwise, that's his right.
You see, he doesn't trust books; they're all fact and no heart. And that's exactly what's tearing our board apart today. Face it folks, we are a divided community. Not between Third and Fouth edition, or between roleplayers and rollplayers - or Wizards and Pathfinder, for that matter - but between those who think with their heads and those who know with their heart.
Consider Giacomo. If you think about his guide to monks, of course it's absurd. But doesn't it feel nice when you read about how monks are actually misunderstood, and that there is nothing wrong with the 3.5e core at all? A nice, warm, comfortable sensation right in your gut?
That there's where the truth really comes from, from ladies and gentlemen, the gut. Now I know some of you may not trust your gut yet, but with Aelryinth's help you will. The truthiness is, anyone can read the rules to you, but only Aelryinth can to feel the rules at you.
Had to read this several times and still not sure how serious you were. Read it outloud to my girlfriend (also a player and a DM) and she though you must be on some sort of drug in the morning and I...well I am still amused and confused by the post.
EDIT: and now just watched the video....wow just wow. Nice adaptation though.
I've yet to see a single explanation that allows you to turn UA into Three Weapon Fighting. "Oh, but I can use my feet now" doesn't mean a damn thing to the rules. You STILL have to declare that primary hand. And nothing you are trying to argue goes around that fact. The only way around it is Snap Kick, which specifically lets you get a single extra attack, and doesn't care about your hands.
In short, I'm arguing the rules, and you're trying to pass off flavor text as rules. It's just not flying. Which is why the BG trolls are mocking...they've lost the argument, and are trying to find something to distract themselves.
SOP for BG Archrpower alts.
And go read Blade Boots and stuff. either they specifically allow an extra attack, or they specifically have to use off hand penalties or iteratives from a primary hand. They don't conjure extra attacks out of thin air, which is what you are trying to argue by leaning on flavor text.
Stick to the rules, mm?
===Aelryinth
I’ve removed content from this thread because baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code of Conduct here: wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg...
The entire description is to be replaced with:
Blade Boot: Custom-fitted to the wearer’s boot, this device consists of a sturdy sole assembly concealing a spring-loaded dagger. The buyer can add one blade to either of his boots at the given cost, or buy a matched set for double the amount.
The wearer’s movement is not impaired when the blades are retracted. With one or both blades extended, the wearer cannot run or charge. A monk using a blade boot can strike with his unarmed base attack, including his more favorable number of attacks per round, for normal blade boot damage. The Weapon Finesse feat can be applied to blade boots.
A character proficient in the blade boot can attack with single blade boot as his primary weapon, or with two blade boots as if attacking with two weapons, provided he makes no attacks with his hands. He can instead choose to attack with a weapon in his primary hand and use a single blade boot as his off-hand weapon, but in this case he cannot attack with an off-hand weapon in his secondary hand. A character cannot attack with a primary weapon, an off-hand weapon, and a blade boot in the same round unless he knows the Multiweapon Fighting feat described in the Monster Manual.
A character wearing blade boots gains a +4 bonus on Escape Artist checks made to escape from rope bonds.
I've yet to see a single explanation that allows you to turn UA into Three Weapon Fighting. "Oh, but I can use my feet now" doesn't mean a damn thing to the rules. You STILL have to declare that primary hand. And nothing you are trying to argue goes around that fact. The only way around it is Snap Kick, which specifically lets you get a single extra attack, and doesn't care about your hands.
It has nothing to do with TWF or MWF at all. You keep saying it does, but it doesn't. Its two different mechanics combined together. UASs are part of a class of weapons that let you make iterative attacks. Natural attacks are a special class of attacks that include one attack with each natural weapon. When you combine them, you make all of your iterative attacks first, THEN you make all of your natural weapon attacks, so long as those natural weapons aren't blocked by the use of a weapon. Unarmed Strikes do not occupy any space. That is the virtue of UASs. Thats what offsets their drawbacks like low damage and difficulty to enchant. Look at any monster that wields a weapon and also has natural attacks, like the troglodyte, the marilith, or the xill. Its not hard to figure out how they work together. Or at least it shouldn't be.
Oh, and Snap Kick isn't the only thing...Rapid Shot, Whirling Frenzy, Flurry of Blows, Flurry of Strikes, One-Two Punch, just to name a few. Might help if you knew the rules a little better before you start making claims like that.
In short, I'm arguing the rules, and you're trying to pass off flavor text as rules. It's just not flying. Which is why the BG trolls are mocking...they've lost the argument, and are trying to find something to distract themselves.
You aren't arguing anything. To argue is to back up your opinions with facts. I have NEVER seen you cite a single sourcebook. Ever. Not even once. What you are doing is stating your opinion. There is a difference. Don't get confused.
SOP for BG Archrpower alts.
I told you I'm not archrpwr. Trace my IP or whatever. I don't care. I'm not him. Saying that I'm him only discredits yourself. I'm sure the mod staff around here would have already banned me if I was him given that they've banned him so many times already. But they haven't, because I'm not.
And go read Blade Boots and stuff. either they specifically allow an extra attack, or they specifically have to use off hand penalties or iteratives from a primary hand. They don't conjure extra attacks out of thin air, which is what you are trying to argue by leaning on flavor text.
Oh?
SRD, Armor SpikesYou can have spikes added to your armor, which allow you to deal extra piercing damage (see Table: Weapons) on a successful grapple attack. The spikes count as a martial weapon. If you are not proficient with them, you take a -4 penalty on grapple checks when you try to use them. You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case. (You can’t also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.)
Bolded for emphasis. Tell me, what hand does armor spikes take up? How would having armor spikes on stop you from attacking someone with your claws, or your bite, or your tentacles? They don't. Nothing says they do. They can be a main hand or they can be an offhand.
Complete Scoundrel, page 109
Scoundrels generally avoid fair fights. Many hide various weapons about their bodies to glean whatever advantage they can. A hidden blade is a springloaded blade attached to the inside of armor or boots or strapped to the scoundrel’s body. Activating a hidden blade requires a move action. Hidden blades can be made masterwork or magic just as normal weapons can be. Attacking with a hidden blade imposes a –2 penalty on the attack roll. Discovering a hidden blade before it has been activated requires a DC 15 Search check.
Looking at that text, I see a -2 penalty imposed on attacks made with a hidden blade. Nothing about offhand penalties, nothing about extra attacks, nothing about what hand they take up. The -2 penalty is NOT an offhand penalty. It is in no way identified as an offhand penalty. To infer that it IS an offhand penalty is stretching the rules by any imagination. Lots of things that aren't offhands give penalties, some of which are -2 penalties. So...where are you getting these "rules" from? Your gut?
Stick to the rules, mm?
You first. Incidently, if I've lost the arguement, how come everyone agrees with me? How come no one agrees with you? Look around.
Aelryinth seems to have made a basic logical assumption that is required to keep his argument afloat.
He's pointed out inconsistencies with this assumption a couple times, but never realized the implications.
First: When you make an unarmed strike as part of a two weapon fighting routine, you must designate that weapon (and it is a weapon) as either a main hand or off hand attack.
Let's say we designate it "Off hand". Main hand attack will be a longsword.
Now we have:
Main hand: Longsword
Off hand: Unarmed Strike.
Nowhere in unarmed strike does it state that an unarmed strike must be with the fist.
Why is this important? Well, Aelryinth's position is that main hand and off hand strikes must be made with hands, or with an item held in hands. This is not supported in the rules. In fact, numerous weapons (armor spikes, boot blades, for example) don't use hands, and are considered off hand attacks.
He's pointed out that Snap Kick doesn't need to be a kick (because it doesn't say so), but he hasn't considered that an off hand attack may not need to be with a hand.
On the second note (Aelryinth's position that attacking with natural weapons in addition to manufactured weapons incurs a two weapon fighting penalty)...
Manufactured WeaponsSome monsters employ manufactured weapons when they attack. Creatures that use swords, bows, spears, and the like follow the same rules as characters, including those for additional attacks from a high base attack bonus and two-weapon fighting penalties. This category also includes “found items,” such as rocks and logs, that a creature wields in combat— in essence, any weapon that is not intrinsic to the creature.
Some creatures combine attacks with natural and manufactured weapons when they make a full attack. When they do so, the manufactured weapon attack is considered the primary attack unless the creature’s description indicates otherwise and any natural weapons the creature also uses are considered secondary natural attacks. These secondary attacks do not interfere with the primary attack as attacking with an off-hand weapon does, but they take the usual -5 penalty (or -2 with the Multiattack feat) for such attacks, even if the natural weapon used is normally the creature’s primary natural weapon.
There is a direct rules disproof of his stance on this issue. Since it pluralizes, this means that a character may attack with Manufactured weapons (following all rules for it), and then may attack with any available natural attacks (treating them as secondary attacks, but not affecting the manufactured weapon attacks.
Look around.
Look around you.
Look around you.
Just look around you.
Have you worked out what we're looking for?
I nowhere state that you must make attacks with the hand. Go back and look. I state that you must declare a primary and secondary hand for those attacks, BY THE RULES. It doesn't matter that you are attacking with fist, feet, headbutt, or panda-belly. You STILL MUST DECLARE A HAND.
And that's what you are all going wrong about. Just because you can attack without using that hand doesn't mean you get to use it for something else.
Furthermore, you're completely missing the point on Natural Attacks...repeatedly. Natural Attacks have their own rules for two weapon fighting...which he cited. They are differnt for the penalties from weapon and weapon...but they are STILL PENALTIES FOR USING MULTIPLE LIMBS. And UA doesn't mean you can ignore them, either.
Eesh.
===Aelryinth
I nowhere state that you must make attacks with the hand. Go back and look. I state that you must declare a primary and secondary hand for those attacks, BY THE RULES. It doesn't matter that you are attacking with fist, feet, headbutt, or panda-belly. You STILL MUST DECLARE A HAND.
And that's what you are all going wrong about. Just because you can attack without using that hand doesn't mean you get to use it for something else.
Citation? Prove it. Again, no proof from you, despite proof from others. I'll copy the relevant quote because you seem to have missed reading it.
Manufactured Weapons
Some monsters employ manufactured weapons when they attack. Creatures that use swords, bows, spears, and the like follow the same rules as characters, including those for additional attacks from a high base attack bonus and two-weapon fighting penalties. This category also includes “found items,” such as rocks and logs, that a creature wields in combat— in essence, any weapon that is not intrinsic to the creature.
Some creatures combine attacks with natural and manufactured weapons when they make a full attack. When they do so, the manufactured weapon attack is considered the primary attack unless the creature’s description indicates otherwise and any natural weapons the creature also uses are considered secondary natural attacks. These secondary attacks do not interfere with the primary attack as attacking with an off-hand weapon does, but they take the usual -5 penalty (or -2 with the Multiattack feat) for such attacks, even if the natural weapon used is normally the creature’s primary natural weapon.
It seems that you don't have a primary hand to stand on, so to speak.
Furthermore, you're completely missing the point on Natural Attacks...repeatedly. Natural Attacks have their own rules for two weapon fighting...which he cited. They are differnt for the penalties from weapon and weapon...but they are STILL PENALTIES FOR USING MULTIPLE LIMBS. And UA doesn't mean you can ignore them, either.
Allow me to reiterate what I've been stating for the last...3-4 pages:
TWO WEAPON FIGHTING IS NOT THE SAME MECHANIC AS ATTACKING WITH NATURAL WEAPONS! THE TWO ARE NOT ANYWHERE CLOSE TO BEING THE SAME! THEY ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT MECHANICS THAT ARE RESOLVED SEPERATELY EVEN IF THEY CAN BE COMBINED! PERIOD!
BY THE RULES
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.[/iningo montoya]
You can't argue succintly OR accurately. Please go home, and stop trying to defend free Three Weapon Fighting.
Wut?
It's not a loophole and it doesn't exist.
Its not a loophole, but it does exist. Its the very basis of unarmed strikes. Just because YOU don't like it, doesn't mean its wrong. YOU can houserule all you want, but until you can cite a rule to back up your statement like everyone else, you are the one trolling, not me. Good day sir!
and as normal, you are making straw men out of the arguments, talking around the points instead of addressing them.
I nowhere state that you must make attacks with the hand. Go back and look. I state that you must declare a primary and secondary hand for those attacks, BY THE RULES. It doesn't matter that you are attacking with fist, feet, headbutt, or panda-belly. You STILL MUST DECLARE A HAND.
And that's what you are all going wrong about. Just because you can attack without using that hand doesn't mean you get to use it for something else.
Furthermore, you're completely missing the point on Natural Attacks...repeatedly. Natural Attacks have their own rules for two weapon fighting...which he cited. They are differnt for the penalties from weapon and weapon...but they are STILL PENALTIES FOR USING MULTIPLE LIMBS. And UA doesn't mean you can ignore them, either.
Eesh.
===Aelryinth
Incorrect. When you declare an attack, using two weapon fighting rules, you must declare that attack to be either a main hand or an off hand attack. Nowhere in the rules does that have any game effect, including limiting other actions which may be legally taken. In other words, for an additional restriction to be in place, the game would have to define that restriction. And so far, the only definitions I've seen occur exclusively within the realms of your unsupported personal opinion.
Let's take this example. I have Fred the fighter. He has a longsword and a heavy shield, and his armor spikes. He makes a two weapon attack, using his longsword as his main hand attack, and his armor spikes as his off hand attack. Does that mean he no longer gets his shield bonus? Nope.
Because the rules do not establish any relationship for a main hand attack and off hand attack, and actually preventing the use of those hands for other use. Because it does not state that a main hand attack uses a hand, requires a hand, or has anything at all do with a hand.
Just like snap kick doesn't have anything to do with kicks. It's a descriptive representation of a concept with no rules weight.
...Or can you point out any text that requires main hand and off hand attacks to preclude the use of hands for other things? The rules should use text similar to Heavy shield ("A heavy shield is so heavy that you can’t use your shield hand for anything else."). See, there's a line that shows a limit based on using a heavy shield. However, if you had a prehensile tail(feat: Serpent Kingdoms), you could ready that shield in that instead. In that case, even though the tail is not a hand, it cannot be used for anything else.
Because hands aren't always hands, by RAW. And you are assuming that.
and as normal, you are making straw men out of the arguments, talking around the points instead of addressing them.
If I have ever made a strawman argument with you, I would prefer you point out where, and explain what you actually meant instead of just declare "YOU USED A STRAW MAN I WIN", and then ignore everything said.
As normal indicates this happens in other discussions, if you PM me about those and clarify I would love to know.
The shield is a bonus as long as it is equipped. Your argument is ignoring that fact. You are also ignoring the fact that while armor spikes occupy the 'hand' definition for fighting, they don't occupy an actual hand. They don't have to. What they do is limit that hand for being used for yet another attack.
What you are ALSO ignoring is that by your definition, because you didn't declare that hand as being used, you are now free to attack with it, i.e. armor spikes just generated 'three weapon fighting'. YAY, wear armor spikes and you can attack with three weapons, because the spikes aren't in your hand!
Which is also wrong. You can still hold onto your shield, but you can't attack with it...you already committed your 'secondary hand' by declaring it to be the spikes. If you want to shield bash, it has to be on a swapping basis with one of your iteratives. The exact same argument happens for UA.
Armor spikes don't let you make free attacks anymore then UA does. It doesn't matter if you're holding anything in the hand...once you commit the attacks, it can't be used for more free ones, natural or UA or otherwise.
None of your arguments have any rules support except flavor text that defines absolutely nothing. The game clearly defines the use of off hand weapons, secondary hands and natural attacks, etc., and you are attempting to house rule them and say its RAW. Sorry, they just don't work that way.
There IS NO THREE WEAPON FIGHTING. Let it drop. Your arguments have no basis in the rules.
==Aelryinth
Again, a straw man argument.
And again, a reply from you with no rules citations. Why can't you just support your arguement? Just once? Oh, right...because it’s wrong.
The shield is a bonus as long as it is equipped. Your argument is ignoring that fact. You are also ignoring the fact that while armor spikes occupy the 'hand' definition for fighting, they don't occupy an actual hand. They don't have to. What they do is limit that hand for being used for yet another attack.
What you are ALSO ignoring is that by your definition, because you didn't declare that hand as being used, you are now free to attack with it, i.e. armor spikes just generated 'three weapon fighting'. YAY, wear armor spikes and you can attack with three weapons, because the spikes aren't in your hand!
Which is also wrong. You can still hold onto your shield, but you can't attack with it...you already committed your 'secondary hand' by declaring it to be the spikes. If you want to shield bash, it has to be on a swapping basis with one of your iteratives. The exact same argument happens for UA.
You are missing the point. The point is that armor spikes don't take up any space on your hand. You don't get more attacks per round with them than any normal person would get with a mainhand + offhand weapon. The point is that, even when you use them as your "offhand" weapon, they aren't actually held in your hand, and they wouldn't prevent you from also attacking with your claws. THAT is the point you are missing. Nobody is saying you get extra attacks. People are saying that when you combine manufactured weapon attack routines with natural weapon attack routines, the only thing that prevents you from making natural attacks on top of your iterative weapon attacks is the limb with the natural attack being occupied by an object, be it a weapon or other misc item. If the limb isn't holding a weapon or item, it can make natural attacks like the rules dictate it can. Since UASs and armor spikes don't occupy the same space as an item like a claw attack, they don't prohibit you from making claw attacks like a sword held in your clawed hand would. That is ALL that is being argued. If you are seeing more than that, you are the one straw-manning our position because nobody EVER stated that you get to make MORE attacks per round than you'd normally be granted, just that attacking with UASs or armor spikes keep your secondary natural attacks from being limited.
His point was, normally, if you bash with a shield, you lose it's armor bonus (assuming you don't have the Imp Shield Bash feat). Normally, a shield is your offhand attack. If you attack with a different, non-shield offhand (like...armor spikes), you don't lose your shield bonus because you aren't attacking with the shield. Its an entirely different offhand. Thus, it doesn't cause you the same problem as attacking with the shield.
Same thing with natural attacks. If you attack with an offhand weapon, NORMALLY that weapon prevents you from making claw attacks. If you attack with an offhand that doesn't occupy your hand, however, like armor spikes or an unarmed strike, then you can still make claw attacks because the offhand attacks don't interfere with your claws like bashing normally interferes with your ability to get the AC bonus from it. Since its not made with X, it doesn't have the same penalties as attacking with X has. Period.
Armor spikes don't let you make free attacks anymore then UA does. It doesn't matter if you're holding anything in the hand...once you commit the attacks, it can't be used for more free ones, natural or UA or otherwise.
Wrong. The only thing that prevents you from attacking with a given natural attack is the attack limb not being available.
None of your arguments have any rules support except flavor text that defines absolutely nothing. The game clearly defines the use of off hand weapons, secondary hands and natural attacks, etc., and you are attempting to house rule them and say its RAW. Sorry, they just don't work that way.
More proof that you don't know what you are talking about. There is no such rule mechanic as secondary hands. There is main hand, there is offhand, there is primary natural weapon(s), and there are secondary natural weapons. Tehre is no such thing as a secondary hand. Period. I don't know where you came up with this term from, but the game doesn't support it.
There IS NO THREE WEAPON FIGHTING. Let it drop. Your arguments have no basis in the rules.
You are correct. There is no three weapon fighting. Attacking with natural weapons falls OUTSIDE of the realm of one, two, three, or twelve weapon fighting. It has its own mechanic. The mechanic explicitly allows you to attack ONCE with EACH of your natural weapons, so long as that weapon isn't blocked by something held in your hand. Its right there in the text that was quoted. How can you deny that text? I'll link it again, just so you can't miss it...
Manufactured Weapons
Some monsters employ manufactured weapons when they attack. Creatures that use swords, bows, spears, and the like follow the same rules as characters, including those for additional attacks from a high base attack bonus and two-weapon fighting penalties. This category also includes “found items,” such as rocks and logs, that a creature wields in combat— in essence, any weapon that is not intrinsic to the creature.
Some creatures combine attacks with natural and manufactured weapons when they make a full attack. When they do so, the manufactured weapon attack is considered the primary attack unless the creature’s description indicates otherwise and any natural weapons the creature also uses are considered secondary natural attacks. These secondary attacks do not interfere with the primary attack as attacking with an off-hand weapon does, but they take the usual -5 penalty (or -2 with the Multiattack feat) for such attacks, even if the natural weapon used is normally the creature’s primary natural weapon.
So...you can always make secondary natural attacks on top of your manufactured weapon attacks. Period. You can't argue that point, its in the rules. IF the natural attack is occupied by a weapon or other item, THEN you can't make attacks with that limb. Period. You can't argue with this fact either. Its in the rules above. Also, UASs can be made with ANY part of the body, and armor spikes do not occupy a "hand", so they don't block any natural attacks. This is ALSO in the rules, so you can't argue against it. Combining it all together, means you can make iterative attacks with your main hand and offhand and still make all of your natural attacks, so long as you use a non-handed weapon like UASs or armor spikes. THIS IS THE RULE FOR NATURAL ATTACKS! IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THREE HANDED FIGHTING OR FOUR HANDED FIGHTING OR TWENTY HANDED FIGHTING. PERIOD.
==Faelryinth
===Wyvernhand
So two swords and claw is a no go. Hands are holding sword, claws need hands to be free.
Sword and one claw is fine.
Sword and axe are fine.
Two handed sword and armor spikes, still fine. (Sword occupies your hands, but armor spikes require a shoulder and are thus free for your "off hand")
Two swords and a bite is fine because the bite is a natural attack, and swords require hands, not mouths. You can bite all you want.
Two Swords, a bite, and a tail smash is fine. Swords take hands, bite takes mouth, and tail takes tail. Tail and bite are natural attacks, and are slapped on the end.
Two unarmed strikes and a bite is (???) I would say fine. Two weapon fighting rules apply to the punches and the bite is natural it is fine. If it is not allowed, why is this? (Ael looking at you)
Two unarmed strikes and a claw is (???) I would say fine, see the above. Lets change those punches to kicks and we are good to go. Claws take hands and the kicks take feet. (Ael, if you disagree with this assessment please explain why)
Side Note- Whats the fallacy where you don't say what you actually are arguing, but then shout strawman whenever anyone proves you are incorrect? (similar to moving the goal posts, but you don't even really establish any in the first place, just a lot of shouting "WRONG YOU STRAWMANED")
Again, a straw man argument.
Straw man would imply that I am misrepresenting your point. If it's straw man, point out how.
Otherwise, well... You can only cry wolf so long before nobody believes you. That point, for me, was 2 posts back. So show HOW it's a straw man, or live knowing that the next time I read you saying that, I'll be laughing at you IRL.
The shield is a bonus as long as it is equipped. Your argument is ignoring that fact. You are also ignoring the fact that while armor spikes occupy the 'hand' definition for fighting, they don't occupy an actual hand. They don't have to. What they do is limit that hand for being used for yet another attack.
No, a shield does not. When you attack with a shield, for instance, you lose the bonus granted, even though it is equipped.
Also, please show how using armor spikes limits the hand being used for something else. I've looked over the rules, and don't see it. There's nothing preventing a greatsword and armor spikes to be TWF'd. If there is a single rule that defines a connection between an off hand attack and the actual hand, I'd like to see it. You're claiming that, but aren't supporting it. If you keep doing that, nobody will take you seriously. I certainly won't.
What you are ALSO ignoring is that by your definition, because you didn't declare that hand as being used, you are now free to attack with it, i.e. armor spikes just generated 'three weapon fighting'. YAY, wear armor spikes and you can attack with three weapons, because the spikes aren't in your hand!
You can, yes. However, two weapon fighting only reduces the penalties for fighting with two weapons. If you use three weapons, you suffer penalties. That doesn't prevent you from using a shield, or holding a potion, or any number of other things with that hand, as long as you don't attack (or, if you do, it's an attack form that explicitly states it doesn't interfere with normal iterative progression).
Multiweapon Fighting replaces two weapon fighting if you have more than 2 arms, and grants benefits for more than 2 hand fighting, however.
Which is also wrong. You can still hold onto your shield, but you can't attack with it...you already committed your 'secondary hand' by declaring it to be the spikes. If you want to shield bash, it has to be on a swapping basis with one of your iteratives. The exact same argument happens for UA.
You're correct that you will suffer additional penalties if you attempt to attack with three manufactured weapons with only two weapon fighting. You are incorrect as to the reasons. However, you may use a 2 handed sword and an unarmed strike to two weapon fight, because two weapon fighting only cares about the number of weapons you use. Natural weapons don't interfere with this, also, per previously cited text.
Armor spikes don't let you make free attacks anymore then UA does. It doesn't matter if you're holding anything in the hand...once you commit the attacks, it can't be used for more free ones, natural or UA or otherwise.
Armor spikes don't allow free attacks. Neither does unarmed strike. They allow additional attacks, in accordance with the rules which govern two weapon fighting. In the event that you have multiweapon fighting, they add additional attacks in accordance with rules governing those.
However, natural weapons are an explicit exception in the rules. "These secondary attacks do not interfere with the primary attack as attacking with an off-hand weapon does"... What does this mean? Secondary attacks are NOT off hand attacks. It allows for natural weapons to be used, as well as manufactured weapons.
Therefore, a character with a greatsword, armor spikes, a bite attack, a tail slap, a slam attack, and 2 wing attacks, and a BAB of 6?
Can full attack Greatsword +4 / IUS +4 / Greatsword -1 / IUS -1 for the iteratives (2 weapons, in accordance with the RULES on two weapon fighting)....
and add on:
Bite -1, Tail Slap -1, slam -1, and 2 wing attacks -1.
Because the rules on natural weapons explicitly allow this, and also state that they do not interfere with the manufactured weapon attacks.
Those are the rules. And if you want to tell me I'm wrong, I damn sure want to see rules to support why.
None of your arguments have any rules support except flavor text that defines absolutely nothing. The game clearly defines the use of off hand weapons, secondary hands and natural attacks, etc., and you are attempting to house rule them and say its RAW. Sorry, they just don't work that way.
There IS NO THREE WEAPON FIGHTING. Let it drop. Your arguments have no basis in the rules.
Except for the SRD text I've quoted twice. Which makes two more times than I've seen you cite any rule. Please. Do me a favor. Outline exactly where the use of an off hand attack uses up a hand, even though that hand can still be used to hold things, or wield shields, or the like. Take me through your argument, step by step, with rules support. And show me how the following link doesn't exist... Since, you know, there's no three weapon fighting.
www.d20srd.org/srd/monsterFeats.htm#mult...
Because without it, you might as well be another 9 year old on the playground, with a cap gun, yelling that you did too hit the indian. Without rules, this is all just playground Cowboys and Indians.
So, right on the topic. What's best build for frost rager/fist of the forest /bear warrior/warshaper?
Is someting like Human monk 2/barbarian 4/frostrager 5/ fist of the forest 3/bear warrior 1/warshaper 3 viable?
I will appreciate if you do a breakdown on the levels and at what level should I get.
F.E 1. Barbarian 1 - Power attack, Great fortitude ( or Frostrager) and so on.
So, how many attacks is this character going to have (basic, then include flurry pls), in what order should I get the levels for this to be optimized? DM win't allow the pouncing barbarian... he thinks it's too broken
.Thanks
God, this got a massacre
So, right on the topic. What's best build for frost rager/fist of the forest /bear warrior/warshaper?
Is someting like Human monk 2/barbarian 4/frostrager 5/ fist of the forest 3/bear warrior 1/warshaper 3 viable?
I will appreciate if you do a breakdown on the levels and at what level should I get.
F.E 1. Barbarian 1 - Power attack, Great fortitude ( or Frostrager) and so on.
So, how many attacks is this character going to have (basic, then include flurry pls), in what order should I get the levels for this to be optimized? DM win't allow the pouncing barbarian... he thinks it's too broken .
Thanks
Are you sure you don't want to play a druid?
DM win't allow the pouncing barbarian... he thinks it's too broken .
Has he banned Wizard, Cleric or Druid then?
You don't have to be able to charge to be able to hurt the opponent with many attacks however. One round charge, next round ruin their day.
You'll want power attack, I'd recommend leap attack as well
God, this got a massacre
So, right on the topic. What's best build for frost rager/fist of the forest /bear warrior/warshaper?
Is someting like Human monk 2/barbarian 4/frostrager 5/ fist of the forest 3/bear warrior 1/warshaper 3 viable?
I will appreciate if you do a breakdown on the levels and at what level should I get.
F.E 1. Barbarian 1 - Power attack, Great fortitude ( or Frostrager) and so on.
So, how many attacks is this character going to have (basic, then include flurry pls), in what order should I get the levels for this to be optimized? DM win't allow the pouncing barbarian... he thinks it's too broken .
Thanks
Human Barbarian1/ Chaos monk 1/ Barbarian 5/ Frost Rager 5/ Fist of the Forest 3/ Bear Warrior 5
H: Great Fortitude
1: Frost Berserker
Monk: Improved unarmed strike
Bonus monk: Power Attack (using the UA variant)
3: Leap Attack
6: Snow Tiger Berserker (now you have pounce)
9: Extra Rage
12: Improved Bull Rush
15:Shock Trooper
18:
Attacks:
one two punch (-2) (17/17/12/7/3) UA attacks (kicks, belly bounces, knee strikes, etc) + claw/claw/bite 14/14/14 (19bab -5 for secondary attacks?) Not sure if i did the natural weapon attack bab correctly but it should look something like that .
Noteworthy Abilities:
+20ft to your base speed (not sure if it aplies in bear form)
Con, Dex and Wis to AC
3 Different Rages (Frost rage, Nature frenzy, bear warrior)
Improved Uncanny dodge
Rend**
Pounce
Improved grab
Realllllly strong
Get some wings and ring of evasion and you can be the flying kicking frozen dodging pouncing rending grabbing bear thing.
And I would like to thank you, as the OP, of getting this thread back on track.
So two swords and claw is a no go. Hands are holding sword, claws need hands to be free.
Sword and one claw is fine.
Sword and axe are fine.
Two handed sword and armor spikes, still fine. (Sword occupies your hands, but armor spikes require a shoulder and are thus free for your "off hand")
Two swords and a bite is fine because the bite is a natural attack, and swords require hands, not mouths. You can bite all you want.
Two Swords, a bite, and a tail smash is fine. Swords take hands, bite takes mouth, and tail takes tail. Tail and bite are natural attacks, and are slapped on the end.
Two unarmed strikes and a bite is (???) I would say fine. Two weapon fighting rules apply to the punches and the bite is natural it is fine. If it is not allowed, why is this? (Ael looking at you)
Two unarmed strikes and a claw is (???) I would say fine, see the above. Lets change those punches to kicks and we are good to go. Claws take hands and the kicks take feet. (Ael, if you disagree with this assessment please explain why)
Side Note- Whats the fallacy where you don't say what you actually are arguing, but then shout strawman whenever anyone proves you are incorrect? (similar to moving the goal posts, but you don't even really establish any in the first place, just a lot of shouting "WRONG YOU STRAWMANED")
Two unarmed strikes and a claw are not fine. By the rules, you must select a hand for a weapon attack, and UA is considered a weapon attack. You MUST declare a hand. It doesn't matter if your flavor text says you're kicking him...by the rules you must still declare that hand.
Two unarmed and a bite is fine. Bites don't use hand slots.
Everything else is fine.
I'm declaring strawmen because that's what they are doing...ignoring the core rules and building an edifice over there that's incorrect and then saying I'm wrong. It's extremely annoying, and they still keep doing it.
==Aelryinth
Otherwise, well... You can only cry wolf so long before nobody believes you. That point, for me, was 2 posts back. So show HOW it's a straw man, or live knowing that the next time I read you saying that, I'll be laughing at you IRL.
If you can't see it, it's not worth my time to explain it to you.
No, a shield does not. When you attack with a shield, for instance, you lose the bonus granted, even though it is equipped.
Excuse me, you said you were attacking with armor spikes, NOT the shield. Straw man.
Also, please show how using armor spikes limits the hand being used for something else. I've looked over the rules, and don't see it. There's nothing preventing a greatsword and armor spikes to be TWF'd. If there is a single rule that defines a connection between an off hand attack and the actual hand, I'd like to see it. You're claiming that, but aren't supporting it. If you keep doing that, nobody will take you seriously. I certainly won't.
STrawman, putting words in my mouth. I never, ever said you couldn't use a greatsword and spikes. That would indeed be TWF.
You can, yes. However, two weapon fighting only reduces the penalties for fighting with two weapons. If you use three weapons, you suffer penalties. That doesn't prevent you from using a shield, or holding a potion, or any number of other things with that hand, as long as you don't attack (or, if you do, it's an attack form that explicitly states it doesn't interfere with normal iterative progression).
Yesssssss....and your point is? I did say you could still get the shield bonus, why are you building a strawman again?
Multiweapon Fighting replaces two weapon fighting if you have more than 2 arms, and grants benefits for more than 2 hand fighting, however.
Yessssss....another obvious thing that does nothing for your argument?
You're correct that you will suffer additional penalties if you attempt to attack with three manufactured weapons with only two weapon fighting. You are incorrect as to the reasons. However, you may use a 2 handed sword and an unarmed strike to two weapon fight, because two weapon fighting only cares about the number of weapons you use. Natural weapons don't interfere with this, also, per previously cited text.
Excuse me, I need you to cite anywhere in the rules that you are allowed to attack with 3 manufactured weapons 'simultaneously' as a normal biped.
Since said rule does not exist, and indeed only exists if you have multiple arms, you have a complete false argument here.
Armor spikes don't allow free attacks. Neither does unarmed strike. They allow additional attacks, in accordance with the rules which govern two weapon fighting. In the event that you have multiweapon fighting, they add additional attacks in accordance with rules governing those.
However, natural weapons are an explicit exception in the rules. "These secondary attacks do not interfere with the primary attack as attacking with an off-hand weapon does"... What does this mean? Secondary attacks are NOT off hand attacks. It allows for natural weapons to be used, as well as manufactured weapons.
Therefore, a character with a greatsword, armor spikes, a bite attack, a tail slap, a slam attack, and 2 wing attacks, and a BAB of 6?
Can full attack Greatsword +4 / IUS +4 / Greatsword -1 / IUS -1 for the iteratives (2 weapons, in accordance with the RULES on two weapon fighting)....
and add on:
Bite -1, Tail Slap -1, slam -1, and 2 wing attacks -1.
Because the rules on natural weapons explicitly allow this, and also state that they do not interfere with the manufactured weapon attacks.
Those are the rules. And if you want to tell me I'm wrong, I damn sure want to see rules to support why.
You are incorrect, because the monster can't make a slam attack with the limbs that are holding the greatsword, unless your lack of details includes an extra limb. Your example is also mixing up UA with armor spikes.
If there IS a third limb, you're absolutely fine, I never argued otherwise, and you're putting words in my mouth again.
None of your arguments have any rules support except flavor text that defines absolutely nothing. The game clearly defines the use of off hand weapons, secondary hands and natural attacks, etc., and you are attempting to house rule them and say its RAW. Sorry, they just don't work that way.
There IS NO THREE WEAPON FIGHTING. Let it drop. Your arguments have no basis in the rules.
Except for the SRD text I've quoted twice. Which makes two more times than I've seen you cite any rule. Please. Do me a favor. Outline exactly where the use of an off hand attack uses up a hand, even though that hand can still be used to hold things, or wield shields, or the like. Take me through your argument, step by step, with rules support. And show me how the following link doesn't exist... Since, you know, there's no three weapon fighting.
www.d20srd.org/srd/monsterFeats.htm#mult...
Because without it, you might as well be another 9 year old on the playground, with a cap gun, yelling that you did too hit the indian. Without rules, this is all just playground Cowboys and Indians.
All you did is repeatedly prove my point...you're building strawmen, they're errorneous, and then you're putting words in my mouth that I never spoke to 'prove' your false points. It is extremely annoying to go thru it again.
The relevant text has been posted multiple times, and has been ignored multiple times. Here it is AGAIN.
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a -6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a -10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in two ways:
- If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. (An unarmed strike is always considered light.)
- The Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6.
Now, I want you to look carefully at this.
Does it mention wielding a weapon in your off-kick? No? Is UA a weapon? Yes, they even note it above as a 'light weapon'.
Thus, wielding UA follows the rules for Primary Hand and off-hand. There is NO place to declare 'kick'. Look as many times as you need to for it. Technically, by the rules, you can't attack with UA at all if your hands are both occupied, but then the flavor text comes in and says you can...said text does not say you get to ignore TWF rules OR that it generates a 'third weapon'. The same applies to armor spikes...they are an exception to the 'needs hand free' rule, but not to the 'primary hand/off-hand' rules that govern TWF.
Does it say if you use UA that your hands are otherwise freed up to do whatever? No.
IF there is a hand free, UA takes it...it's a weapon, and it become primary, it takes the slot.
If there is not a hand free, you can still add it as a secondary attack (Greatsword, etc) for the appropriate penalties. By the rules, you can even make it primary with both hands occupied and useless...but those hands cannot be doing ANYTHING else, or primary / off-hand rules immediately take over. So, no Claw/Claw routine with UA.
UA will always be primary over a natural attack, and take a limb. You cannot get around it, much as you might like. Arguing otherwise is fruitless and against the rules. (and yes, the manufactured/natural weapon rules have also been posted, and support me).
---==Aelryinth
While I'm not conceding I am wrong on this issue, I really don't have the desire to debate ael on this issue anymore, especially when arguements like this are made.
If you can't see it, it's not worth my time to explain it to you.
If you really care PM me about specific points, otherwise I am done arguing the point.
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a -6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a -10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in two ways:
- If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. (An unarmed strike is always considered light.)
- The Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6.
Now, I want you to look carefully at this.
Does it mention wielding a weapon in your off-kick? No? Is UA a weapon? Yes, they even note it above as a 'light weapon'.
Thus, wielding UA follows the rules for Primary Hand and off-hand. There is NO place to declare 'kick'. Look as many times as you need to for it. Technically, by the rules, you can't attack with UA at all if your hands are both occupied, but then the flavor text comes in and says you can...said text does not say you get to ignore TWF rules OR that it generates a 'third weapon'. The same applies to armor spikes...they are an exception to the 'needs hand free' rule, but not to the 'primary hand/off-hand' rules that govern TWF.
Does it say if you use UA that your hands are otherwise freed up to do whatever? No.
IF there is a hand free, UA takes it...it's a weapon, and it become primary, it takes the slot.
If there is not a hand free, you can still add it as a secondary attack (Greatsword, etc) for the appropriate penalties. By the rules, you can even make it primary with both hands occupied and useless...but those hands cannot be doing ANYTHING else, or primary / off-hand rules immediately take over. So, no Claw/Claw routine with UA.
UA will always be primary over a natural attack, and take a limb. You cannot get around it, much as you might like. Arguing otherwise is fruitless and against the rules. (and yes, the manufactured/natural weapon rules have also been posted, and support me).
Now that particularly tickled me. Are you saying that when someone makes an offhand comment they are indeed talking with their hand? An offhand attack can be a knee strike, it doesn't necessarily mean it came from your hand. On top of this the rules posted for everything have actually gone against you Aelryinth. Everyone else can see it. You've not supported yourself. But again, everyone else can see this.
So ultimately your own break down of what has been said was a strawman arguement, as you've taken parts completely out of context and quoted them as though they were made as single points. Which in itself breaks your arguement down.
Ultimately: It IS supported by the rules, all the examples show it. Show your DM and ask them to confirm it. Since you can indeed strike and claw, but if the DM says no, then that's his/her call
UA will always be primary over a natural attack, and take a limb. You cannot get around it, much as you might like. Arguing otherwise is fruitless and against the rules. (and yes, the manufactured/natural weapon rules have also been posted, and support me).
Until you cite this rule, I'm done arguing with you. Prove that an unarmed strike "takes a limb". Well, technically I've never been arguing with you, since you refuse to cite sources. Thus, I'm done with being talked at by you and done responding to your lies and trollery. Go away.
---==Faelryinth
==--%%@@!** Wyvernhand
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a -6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a -10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in two ways:
- If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. (An unarmed strike is always considered light.)
- The Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6.
Now, I want you to look carefully at this.
Does it mention wielding a weapon in your off-kick? No? Is UA a weapon? Yes, they even note it above as a 'light weapon'.
Thus, wielding UA follows the rules for Primary Hand and off-hand. There is NO place to declare 'kick'. Look as many times as you need to for it. Technically, by the rules, you can't attack with UA at all if your hands are both occupied, but then the flavor text comes in and says you can...said text does not say you get to ignore TWF rules OR that it generates a 'third weapon'. The same applies to armor spikes...they are an exception to the 'needs hand free' rule, but not to the 'primary hand/off-hand' rules that govern TWF.
Does it say if you use UA that your hands are otherwise freed up to do whatever? No.
IF there is a hand free, UA takes it...it's a weapon, and it become primary, it takes the slot.
If there is not a hand free, you can still add it as a secondary attack (Greatsword, etc) for the appropriate penalties. By the rules, you can even make it primary with both hands occupied and useless...but those hands cannot be doing ANYTHING else, or primary / off-hand rules immediately take over. So, no Claw/Claw routine with UA.
UA will always be primary over a natural attack, and take a limb. You cannot get around it, much as you might like. Arguing otherwise is fruitless and against the rules. (and yes, the manufactured/natural weapon rules have also been posted, and support me).
Now that particularly tickled me. Are you saying that when someone makes an offhand comment they are indeed talking with their hand? An offhand attack can be a knee strike, it doesn't necessarily mean it came from your hand. On top of this the rules posted for everything have actually gone against you Aelryinth. Everyone else can see it. You've not supported yourself. But again, everyone else can see this.
So ultimately your own break down of what has been said was a strawman arguement, as you've taken parts completely out of context and quoted them as though they were made as single points. Which in itself breaks your arguement down.
Ultimately: It IS supported by the rules, all the examples show it. Show your DM and ask them to confirm it. Since you can indeed strike and claw, but if the DM says no, then that's his/her call
Now you're not making any sense. I never said you couldn't UA and Claw. I said you couldn't UA and Claw/Claw, because UA is going to take one of the limbs (by the weapon rules) and there is absolutely nothing in the rules that says you can declare 'kick' and go around it.
Nothing. Absolutely nothing. You're trying to invent three-weapon fighting, and it's not working.
You're also consistently messing up 'hand' with 'uses hand'. TWF doesn't actually say you have to use the hand...but you have to declare primary and secondary. As a weapon (remember, UA is ALWAYS a light weapon), if there is a hand free, UA takes it.
You can't get around it, and you are saying because you are 'kicking', that you can. "kick' is not an attack, it's an abstract of UA. There is no 'kick' attack anywhere. It's either primary or off-hand. Find me a rule in the combat section declaring 'kick' as an option.
It's not there.
The rules say no.
Prove me otherwise, which you can't, because it's not happening.
===Aelryinth
Considering NOBODY in this thread thinks your arguement has any merit, ever consider that just MAYBE you might be wrong? Its ok, it happens sometimes, even to the best of us. Your attitude is still **** though.
Prove me otherwise, which you can't, because it's not happening.
It has been proven to everyone else, however clearly cannot read properly if you think it still needs proving. Try this one, prove to everyone else on this thread that YOU are right. Quote actual rules and not your nonsense, give a direct source of proof.
No? You can't that is why. Ultimately you cannot show that you are correct, because the proof is against you. So yes you can UA then use your natural attacks, until you actually show us otherwise.
Regardless, this thread needs to get bac on topic, as it has clearly been established amongst other more credible members of the board (Members I find credibal, being quite new myself) that you can indeed UA and Nat attack... at least until old Aelryinth actually proves his point, or concedes that he's lost.
So back to the build.
I'd advise picking up a belt of battle to, because they are a really good item for combatants
Prove me otherwise, which you can't, because it's not happening.
It has been proven to everyone else, however clearly cannot read properly if you think it still needs proving. Try this one, prove to everyone else on this thread that YOU are right. Quote actual rules and not your nonsense, give a direct source of proof.
No? You can't that is why. Ultimately you cannot show that you are correct, because the proof is against you. So yes you can UA then use your natural attacks, until you actually show us otherwise.
Regardless, this thread needs to get bac on topic, as it has clearly been established amongst other more credible members of the board (Members I find credibal, being quite new myself) that you can indeed UA and Nat attack... at least until old Aelryinth actually proves his point, or concedes that he's lost.
So back to the build.
I'd advise picking up a belt of battle to, because they are a really good item for combatants
Thank you Obsidian. And yes a belt of battle is always a nice thing. Although it takes up the same slot as Belt of Giant str so it always is a toss up for me with melee characters.
If you are using UA then maybe some items to increase dice size? Are there such things?
Prove me otherwise, which you can't, because it's not happening.
It has been proven to everyone else, however clearly cannot read properly if you think it still needs proving. Try this one, prove to everyone else on this thread that YOU are right. Quote actual rules and not your nonsense, give a direct source of proof.
No? You can't that is why. Ultimately you cannot show that you are correct, because the proof is against you. So yes you can UA then use your natural attacks, until you actually show us otherwise.
Regardless, this thread needs to get bac on topic, as it has clearly been established amongst other more credible members of the board (Members I find credibal, being quite new myself) that you can indeed UA and Nat attack... at least until old Aelryinth actually proves his point, or concedes that he's lost.
So back to the build.
I'd advise picking up a belt of battle to, because they are a really good item for combatants
That's a nice assertion. False, but a nice assertaion.
The rules have been quoted multiple times, both by me and others, and they don't support anything of what you are saying. Ergo, you're being willfully obtuse.
There is no free three-weapon fighting. You cannot declare 'kick' anywhere in the rules. When you can prove those exist, or possibly posit some ruling in the base fighting rules to defend yourself, we might be good to go. But none of the examples given pass the test to allow C/C/UA.
Keep trying, it's amusing to watch you fail. And if it's allowed...That's Fine, but it's a House Rule. Which I'm perfectly fine with, as long as you're not going to try and pass it off as canon.
==Aelryinth
Manufactured Weapons
Some monsters employ manufactured weapons when they attack. Creatures that use swords, bows, spears, and the like follow the same rules as characters, including those for additional attacks from a high base attack bonus and two-weapon fighting penalties. This category also includes “found items,” such as rocks and logs, that a creature wields in combat— in essence, any weapon that is not intrinsic to the creature.
Some creatures combine attacks with natural and manufactured weapons when they make a full attack. When they do so, the manufactured weapon attack is considered the primary attack unless the creature’s description indicates otherwise and any natural weapons the creature also uses are considered secondary natural attacks. These secondary attacks do not interfere with the primary attack as attacking with an off-hand weapon does, but they take the usual -5 penalty (or -2 with the Multiattack feat) for such attacks, even if the natural weapon used is normally the creature’s primary natural weapon.
then you don't know how to read. Reread the bolded part.
Its not three-weapon fighting. Its the way natural attacks normally interact with manufactured weapons. Period. No arguement. I do like how you copied and pasted my line about houserules and used it for your own. Pretty much par for the course for your arguements from what I've seen over the last 4-5 years. And you yourself haven't quoted a SINGLE rule, so quit making it sound like you have. I'm gonna have to call bullshit on that remark, because bullshit is what it is.
The rules have been quoted multiple times, both by me and others, and they don't support anything of what you are saying. Ergo, you're being willfully obtuse.
The whole reason I stopped debating this issue with you was because you refused to show any rules to back your interpretation up (combined with telling people your interpretation was so obviously correct, you couldn't be bothered to explain where it comes from).
In fact, you straight up hadn't read rules you were quoting multiple times until I stopped answering you and just quoted the rule. (See Snap Kick). Rules have been quoted multiple times. Never by you.
That's a nice assertion. False, but a nice assertaion.
The rules have been quoted multiple times, both by me and others, and they don't support anything of what you are saying. Ergo, you're being willfully obtuse.
There is no free three-weapon fighting. You cannot declare 'kick' anywhere in the rules. When you can prove those exist, or possibly posit some ruling in the base fighting rules to defend yourself, we might be good to go. But none of the examples given pass the test to allow C/C/UA.
Keep trying, it's amusing to watch you fail. And if it's allowed...That's Fine, but it's a House Rule. Which I'm perfectly fine with, as long as you're not going to try and pass it off as canon.
==Aelryinth
SRD, Combat, TWF:
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a -6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a -10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in two ways
So, with a second weapon, you get an extra attack when you full attack. Any attack which can be held in an off hand, or is treated as an off hand, can qualify. There are ways to reduce the penalties that are incurred. That's neither here nor there.
SRD, Feats, Multiweapon Fighting
Multiweapon Fighting [General]Prerequisites
Dex 13, three or more hands.
Benefit
Penalties for fighting with multiple weapons are reduced by 2 with the primary hand and reduced by 6 with off hands.
Normal
A creature without this feat takes a -6 penalty on attacks made with its primary hand and a -10 penalty on attacks made with its off hands. (It has one primary hand, and all the others are off hands.) See Two-Weapon Fighting.
Special
This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms.
Multiweapon fighting shows that a creature can have more than one off hand attack. There are additional penalties, true, but if one uses multiweapon fighting, then there IS three, four, or even five weapon fighting.
SRD, Special Attacks, Manufactured Weapons:
Manufactured WeaponsSome monsters employ manufactured weapons when they attack. Creatures that use swords, bows, spears, and the like follow the same rules as characters, including those for additional attacks from a high base attack bonus and two-weapon fighting penalties. This category also includes “found items,” such as rocks and logs, that a creature wields in combat— in essence, any weapon that is not intrinsic to the creature.
Some creatures combine attacks with natural and manufactured weapons when they make a full attack. When they do so, the manufactured weapon attack is considered the primary attack unless the creature’s description indicates otherwise and any natural weapons the creature also uses are considered secondary natural attacks. These secondary attacks do not interfere with the primary attack as attacking with an off-hand weapon does, but they take the usual -5 penalty (or -2 with the Multiattack feat) for such attacks, even if the natural weapon used is normally the creature’s primary natural weapon.
With this, it shows that creatures may combine natural attacks with manufactured weapons. These natural weapons do not hinder the manufactured weapon attacks in any way, so there are no additional penalties to the manufactured attacks for doing so. As long as the body part making the natural attack is not presently occupied, it can be added on. Such an attacks follow the rules for secondary natural attacks (full BAB, -5 penalty for secondary, and damage gets only 1/2 str modifier), but they may be added on.
Note: these attacks don't use main hand or off hand, or anything else. They are designated as secondary natural attacks. That's it. According to the rules, claws are sharp appendages. That's it. Nothing says they're on the hands, or even on the arms. SOME natural attacks state that they cannot use that attack when they have made an attack with a weapon in that hand, but that's laid out in the specific natural attack as a specific restriction (Magic of Incarnum shows several of these). That's not a general assumption that should be made.
SRD, Natural Weapons:
When a creature has more than one natural weapon, one of them (or sometimes a pair or set of them) is the primary weapon. All the creature’s remaining natural weapons are secondary.
The primary weapon is given in the creature’s Attack entry, and the primary weapon or weapons is given first in the creature’s Full Attack entry. A creature’s primary natural weapon is its most effective natural attack, usually by virtue of the creature’s physiology, training, or innate talent with the weapon. An attack with a primary natural weapon uses the creature’s full attack bonus. Attacks with secondary natural weapons are less effective and are made with a -5 penalty on the attack roll, no matter how many there are. (Creatures with the Multiattack feat take only a -2 penalty on secondary attacks.) This penalty applies even when the creature makes a single attack with the secondary weapon as part of the attack action or as an attack of opportunity.
So natural weapons have no limit to the number of attacks that can be made. If made as an attack with manufactured weapons, you have a main hand attack, an offhand attack, and secondary natural weapons (which do not provide penalties to the other attacks as an off hand attack would, but instead take a -5 penalty off of the total BAB (or -2 with multiattack)).
This is not three weapon fighting. It's two weapon fighting, with additional natural attacks. It is also fully legal, and if you want to tell me the rules I just cited are not...
Then put up or shut up. Show me the rule that supports your view. Show me what you have declined to show in 15 pages. Show me that you're not a forum troll, and that you have something of actual substance to contribute.
Otherwise, I'm not going to waste any more of my breath on someone who doesn't even provide me with the courtesy to research their own position and provide evidence to support your view. If you won't do that, then really, who the hell will?
Because the rules HAVE been quoted. Not by you, of course, but WE'VE quoted them quite often. And they've been very clearly pointing out that things don't work as you say they do. The only way they could be more clear is if there was an excerpt in the SRD that said, "Aelryinth, you're wrong." Since that is the case, and no rule has supported you... if you want to maintain the position that rules support you, then show us which ones, and why. Because without rules support, your post is nothing but a bunch of worthless opinions and insults to the people here that ARE doing their homework when they refute you.
Contrary to Krusk's assertions, I've posted the rules before...you ignored them. You are nice enough to NOT post the part of the TWF rules that shoot down your hypothesis...shall we repeat them for the THIRD TIME?
First of all, the part you so cleverly left out above.
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a -6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a -10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in two ways:
- If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. (An unarmed strike is always considered light.)
- The Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6.
Table: Two-Weapon Fighting Penalties summarizes the interaction of all these factors.
And the one you DID include, but are ignoring.
Some creatures combine attacks with natural and manufactured weapons when they make a full attack. When they do so, the manufactured weapon attack is considered the primary attack unless the creature’s description indicates otherwise and any natural weapons the creature also uses are considered secondary natural attacks. These secondary attacks do not interfere with the primary attack as attacking with an off-hand weapon does, but they take the usual -5 penalty (or -2 with the Multiattack feat) for such attacks, even if the natural weapon used is normally the creature’s primary natural weapon.
To break it down for you, who seem to be ignoring it:
UA is treated as a light weapon, i.e. just like a dagger or a short sword. Always. See that little 'always' there? Absolute rules are a kicker.
Weapon attacks are considered Primary Attacks. That means if the creature has a primary attack, it gets replaced by a weapon attack, OR, to put it another way, the Weapon Attack replaces a primary natural weapon attack.
Now, what everyone here wants to do is conjure a non-existent 'Primary Attack' out of nowhere, and make this non-existent attack UA so they can abruptly turn all of their other attacks to secondary.
The Rules do not agree with you. UA, like any other weapon, grabs a Primary attack slot, replacing the Natural Attack for that slot. It doesn't make a new slot out of nowhere for ANYONE. It has to take an existing limb, and that limb has to be a primary attack.
Your argument that UA uses the 'whole body' is a complete smokescreen. UA is ALWAYS treated as a light weapon, and so replaces a Primary Natural Attack. There is nowhere in the rules that say you can treat all your attacks as kicks, head-butts, or Panda-Belly Flops, 'conjuring' new 'limbs' out of nowhere. No, they are all simply UA attacks, they are part of the same rules.
Even Snap Kick IS NOT A KICK (which you pointed out, and are ignoring). It's just another UA attack. The name is flavor text. It could be an elbow smash or Panda-Butt Thump. You blow a feat to get an extra UA attack at penalty, that's it.
I've done my homework (repeatedly), and you've received a failing grade. Better luck next time with the misleading quotes. Your assertions that you can conjure an extra attack out of nowhere using UA are not valid.
===Aelryinth
Some creatures combine attacks with natural and manufactured weapons when they make a full attack. When they do so, the manufactured weapon attack is considered the primary attack unless the creature’s description indicates otherwise and any natural weapons the creature also uses are considered secondary natural attacks. These secondary attacks do not interfere with the primary attack as attacking with an off-hand weapon does, but they take the usual -5 penalty (or -2 with the Multiattack feat) for such attacks, even if the natural weapon used is normally the creature’s primary natural weapon.
Bingo. But you are misinterpreting one crucial part.
and any natural weapons the creature also uses are considered secondary natural attacks.
YOu are interpreting this as 'Manufactured weapon replaces natural weapon X' that is not how it reads, it reads that ALL the natural attacks are secondary, so the primary natural attack gets shunted down to secondary, and not replaced. That is the rules, not your claim. It is NOT three weapon fighting, it is the rules
Now, your UA is taking a primary attack slot, probably a claw. That claw is not available for use. All other attacks are naturally available, I've never disputed that. You keep trying to assert that the primary attack for UA exists in a vacuum, and you're conjuring it out of nowhere so you can keep all your Natural Attacks.
It doesn't work that way.
===Aelryinth
Now lets get back on topic, because you are scaring away all of the people who want to use this thread for good.
Bing. I didn't miss anything. See that 'also'? It means 'in addition to.'
Now, your UA is taking a primary attack slot, probably a claw. That claw is not available for use. All other attacks are naturally available, I've never disputed that. You keep trying to assert that the primary attack for UA exists in a vacuum, and you're conjuring it out of nowhere so you can keep all your Natural Attacks.
It doesn't work that way.
===Aelryinth
Yep. You did.
Because Unarmed attacks follow the rules for manufactured weapons. They benefit from iterative attacks, work with two weapon fighting. As such, when unarmed strikes (that is the technical term in the SRD, not "Unarmed Attack". Check the weapon entry, the feats, and what have you) are used, they use the iterative attack routine, and don't impact the natural weapon routine at all, nor are they hindered in any way by the natural weapons.
Since that is the case, you're right, they do take the primary attack slot in the progression. However, in that attack pattern, ALL natural attacks are explicitly secondary attacks. Which means you can't choose that for the progression.
So let's look at this from a rules view.
I have Improved Unarmed Strike, and Armor Spikes (and two weapon fighting). I also have 2 claw attacks and a bite attack. The bite attack is the primary natural attack, and the claw attacks are secondary. I have a BAB of 5, and a strength bonus of +2.
My manufactured progression is:
(main hand) Unarmed Strike +5 (1d3+2) / (off hand) Armor Spikes +5 (1d6+1).
My natural attack progression is:
(primary natural weapon) Bite +5 (1d6+2) / (secondary natural) Claw +0 (1d4+1)/ (secondary natural) Claw +0 (1d4+1)
When I add natural attacks to an attack routine with natural weapons (explicitly allowed), I get:
(main hand) Unarmed Strike +5 (1d3+2) / (off hand) Armor Spikes +5 (1d6+1)/ (secondary natural) Bite +0 (1d6+1)/ (secondary natural) Claw +0 (1d4+1)/ (secondary natural) Claw +0 (1d4+1).
In this case, I've followed the rules for two weapon fighting (primary and off hand), and for purposes of natural attacks, my manufactured weapon attacks are the primary attack. Secondary natural attacks are not restricted, but natural attacks that would normally be primary attacks are, instead, treated as secondary. Because of this, the bite takes a -5 penalty to the attack, and only receives half strength on damage.
But there are no other restrictions to the attacks. When you add natural weapons to an iterative attack routine, you may add ALL of them. The only exception is if the natural attack is physically prevented from being used (you can't bite when you're holding a dagger between your teeth, for example). Otherwise, there are no restictions in any rule I've found.
As you pointed out, Unarmed Strikes are not "kicks" or "punches" or "headbutts". They can be any of these descriptively, but the rules text explicitly points out that any part of the body can be used for an unarmed strike. This means that it does not have to occupy a hand.
If you want to cite a rule showing the restriction you claim, do so. But if you're not going to take your position seriously enough to actually pull the rules and cite them, I certainly am not going to take your position seriously.
You're missing the whole point of 'other' and 'primary'.
Your whole example was conjuring a primary attack out of nowhere. Nowhere. It didn't exist, now it does, and you get all your natural attacks in addition to this mythical extra attack you've created.
Kindly look in any of the feats and tell me where it allows UA to create an extra attack.
You don't have to look very hard, because it doesn't. UA, like all weapons, uses the attacks and limbs you already have. It replaces the Natural Weapons you would be attacking with.
You can go all the way back to the front of the thread, with that dinky troglodyte example...the manufactured weapon REPLACES a claw attack, it's not IN ADDITION TO a claw attack.
And UA is treated as a weapon.
So, no, you don't get to do what you think you are doing. You already have a primary attack, your claw/claw. You chose UA, it replaces your primary attack, one of the claws, and immediately relegates all other claw attacks to secondary status, in addition to any other natural attacks.
The idea that UA forms a 'completely new primary attack' is nowhere in the rules, it's not inferred. Find ANY feat that allows an extra attack, and it will be EXPLICITLY STATED that it does so. UA uses one of your existing attacks, you don't get them both.
Your criticism falling to 'naming conventions' and continued snarkiness about scholarship does not bode well for you.
IF what you said is true, then ANY OTHER WEAPON could use the same bloody argument. Furthermore, I could declare weapon use with anything. I'm going to declare sword/hammer/dagger/lance/lance/spiked boot/spiked boot/mace, AND claw/claw/bite/gore/wing/wing/hoof/hoof/tail, because I can do so and I think I get all my natural attacks in addition to all the weapons I've got on those limbs, too!
YAY, TEN WEAPON FIGHTING! I'm going to hurry home and strap knives to my elbows and knees and forehead and chin so i can conjure yet MORE attacks out of nowhere, because this UA rule lets me do it!
No.
Your entire example is based on a very strained inference and pseudo-logical reading of a feat, not on declared rules anywhere. I get hugely suspicious of arguments based on creative reinterpreting of the English language. You're trying to force open a loophole here that does not exist.
The TWF and Multiattack rules are clearly defined, and none of them involve generating an extra attack, or they would explicitly state that they do. Your insistence that UA makes an extra attack possible has no foundation under it...you're conjuring it up by thinking that a biased reading of one line of a rule generates an extra attack.
No.
==+Aelryinth
Bing. I didn't miss anything. See that 'also'? It means 'in addition to.'
Now, your UA is taking a primary attack slot, probably a claw. That claw is not available for use. All other attacks are naturally available, I've never disputed that. You keep trying to assert that the primary attack for UA exists in a vacuum, and you're conjuring it out of nowhere so you can keep all your Natural Attacks.
It doesn't work that way.
===Aelryinth
Yep. You did.
Because Unarmed attacks follow the rules for manufactured weapons. They benefit from iterative attacks, work with two weapon fighting. As such, when unarmed strikes (that is the technical term in the SRD, not "Unarmed Attack". Check the weapon entry, the feats, and what have you) are used, they use the iterative attack routine, and don't impact the natural weapon routine at all, nor are they hindered in any way by the natural weapons.
Since that is the case, you're right, they do take the primary attack slot in the progression. However, in that attack pattern, ALL natural attacks are explicitly secondary attacks. Which means you can't choose that for the progression.
So let's look at this from a rules view.
I have Improved Unarmed Strike, and Armor Spikes (and two weapon fighting). I also have 2 claw attacks and a bite attack. The bite attack is the primary natural attack, and the claw attacks are secondary. I have a BAB of 5, and a strength bonus of +2.
My manufactured progression is:
(main hand) Unarmed Strike +5 (1d3+2) / (off hand) Armor Spikes +5 (1d6+1).
My natural attack progression is:
(primary natural weapon) Bite +5 (1d6+2) / (secondary natural) Claw +0 (1d4+1)/ (secondary natural) Claw +0 (1d4+1)
When I add natural attacks to an attack routine with natural weapons (explicitly allowed), I get:
(main hand) Unarmed Strike +5 (1d3+2) / (off hand) Armor Spikes +5 (1d6+1)/ (secondary natural) Bite +0 (1d6+1)/ (secondary natural) Claw +0 (1d4+1)/ (secondary natural) Claw +0 (1d4+1).
In this case, I've followed the rules for two weapon fighting (primary and off hand), and for purposes of natural attacks, my manufactured weapon attacks are the primary attack. Secondary natural attacks are not restricted, but natural attacks that would normally be primary attacks are, instead, treated as secondary. Because of this, the bite takes a -5 penalty to the attack, and only receives half strength on damage.
But there are no other restrictions to the attacks. When you add natural weapons to an iterative attack routine, you may add ALL of them. The only exception is if the natural attack is physically prevented from being used (you can't bite when you're holding a dagger between your teeth, for example). Otherwise, there are no restictions in any rule I've found.
As you pointed out, Unarmed Strikes are not "kicks" or "punches" or "headbutts". They can be any of these descriptively, but the rules text explicitly points out that any part of the body can be used for an unarmed strike. This means that it does not have to occupy a hand.
If you want to cite a rule showing the restriction you claim, do so. But if you're not going to take your position seriously enough to actually pull the rules and cite them, I certainly am not going to take your position seriously.
Mahari you are mistaken in the way you did your BAB attacks:
ALL your natural attacks become secondary attacks and therefore take a -5 to attack so your bite and both your claws should have been at a -5.
My position is totally serious, and yours is, from my perspective, delusional.
You're missing the whole point of 'other' and 'primary'.
Your whole example was conjuring a primary attack out of nowhere. Nowhere. It didn't exist, now it does, and you get all your natural attacks in addition to this mythical extra attack you've created.
Kindly look in any of the feats and tell me where it allows UA to create an extra attack.
You don't have to look very hard, because it doesn't. UA, like all weapons, uses the attacks and limbs you already have. It replaces the Natural Weapons you would be attacking with.
You can go all the way back to the front of the thread, with that dinky troglodyte example...the manufactured weapon REPLACES a claw attack, it's not IN ADDITION TO a claw attack.
And UA is treated as a weapon.
So, no, you don't get to do what you think you are doing. You already have a primary attack, your claw/claw. You chose UA, it replaces your primary attack, one of the claws, and immediately relegates all other claw attacks to secondary status, in addition to any other natural attacks.
The idea that UA forms a 'completely new primary attack' is nowhere in the rules, it's not inferred. Find ANY feat that allows an extra attack, and it will be EXPLICITLY STATED that it does so. UA uses one of your existing attacks, you don't get them both.
Your criticism falling to 'naming conventions' and continued snarkiness about scholarship does not bode well for you.
IF what you said is true, then ANY OTHER WEAPON could use the same bloody argument. Furthermore, I could declare weapon use with anything. I'm going to declare sword/hammer/dagger/lance/lance/spiked boot/spiked boot/mace, AND claw/claw/bite/gore/wing/wing/hoof/hoof/tail, because I can do so and I think I get all my natural attacks in addition to all the weapons I've got on those limbs, too!
YAY, TEN WEAPON FIGHTING! I'm going to hurry home and strap knives to my elbows and knees and forehead and chin so i can conjure yet MORE attacks out of nowhere, because this UA rule lets me do it!
No.
Your entire example is based on a very strained inference and pseudo-logical reading of a feat, not on declared rules anywhere. I get hugely suspicious of arguments based on creative reinterpreting of the English language. You're trying to force open a loophole here that does not exist.
The TWF and Multiattack rules are clearly defined, and none of them involve generating an extra attack, or they would explicitly state that they do. Your insistence that UA makes an extra attack possible has no foundation under it...you're conjuring it up by thinking that a biased reading of one line of a rule generates an extra attack.
No.
==+Aelryinth
Aelryinth: you are also mistaken.
He gets both his claws and his bite because he is not using any weapon that makes him unable to use his claw attacks. Because he is not holding anything he can claw.
People have cited the rules for this several times over the thread and you, as far as i can remember in this overly extended 16 page forum about something simple, have not as I recall and the rules you keep on saying on cited to back you up seem to be actually going against you. If you would PLEASE cite again the rules you keep on mentioning I would appreciate it.
As far as I can tell nothing in RAW or the spirit of the rules (in my humble opinion) says you can not kick as your primary weapon since you can use ANY part of your body to make Unarmed Strikes. Based on this there is no reason why you should not be able to use all the natural weapons selected (2 claws and 1 bite).
Also Aelryinth please stop attacking the responses people place and start addressing them. Everyone else please stop flaming Aelryinth. Lets TRY to keep this thread reasonable and figure out everything.
[Racial]
You are trained in an unarmed fighting style that emphasizes a two-handed strike.
Prerequisite: Improved Unarmed Strike, STR 13, dwarf
Benefit: You add one and a half times your Strength bonus on your damage when you hit with an unarmed strike. This extra damage does not apply if you make a flurry of blows attack or if you are holding anything in either hand. You must use both hands to make the unarmed attack.
Rulebook: Races of Faerun (p. 164)
Edition: Forgotten Realms (3.0)
Hammer Fist[Racial]
You are trained in an unarmed fighting style that emphasizes a two-handed strike.
Prerequisite: Improved Unarmed Strike, STR 13, dwarf
Benefit: You add one and a half times your Strength bonus on your damage when you hit with an unarmed strike. This extra damage does not apply if you make a flurry of blows attack or if you are holding anything in either hand. You must use both hands to make the unarmed attack.
Rulebook: Races of Faerun (p. 164)
Edition: Forgotten Realms (3.0)
Just like with natural weapons, just because you get 1.5x +str bonus doesn't mean its treated as effectively two handed. If an animal has a single natural weapon, it often times gets 1.5x +str. They don't get 2:1 PA either.
I understand. I was hoping someone knew of a spell, enchantment, item, feat, stance, class ability, etc that would make an exception.
My position is totally serious, and yours is, from my perspective, delusional.
You're missing the whole point of 'other' and 'primary'.
Your whole example was conjuring a primary attack out of nowhere. Nowhere. It didn't exist, now it does, and you get all your natural attacks in addition to this mythical extra attack you've created.
Kindly look in any of the feats and tell me where it allows UA to create an extra attack.
You don't have to look very hard, because it doesn't. UA, like all weapons, uses the attacks and limbs you already have. It replaces the Natural Weapons you would be attacking with.
You can go all the way back to the front of the thread, with that dinky troglodyte example...the manufactured weapon REPLACES a claw attack, it's not IN ADDITION TO a claw attack.
And UA is treated as a weapon.
So, no, you don't get to do what you think you are doing. You already have a primary attack, your claw/claw. You chose UA, it replaces your primary attack, one of the claws, and immediately relegates all other claw attacks to secondary status, in addition to any other natural attacks.
The idea that UA forms a 'completely new primary attack' is nowhere in the rules, it's not inferred. Find ANY feat that allows an extra attack, and it will be EXPLICITLY STATED that it does so. UA uses one of your existing attacks, you don't get them both.
Your criticism falling to 'naming conventions' and continued snarkiness about scholarship does not bode well for you.
IF what you said is true, then ANY OTHER WEAPON could use the same bloody argument. Furthermore, I could declare weapon use with anything. I'm going to declare sword/hammer/dagger/lance/lance/spiked boot/spiked boot/mace, AND claw/claw/bite/gore/wing/wing/hoof/hoof/tail, because I can do so and I think I get all my natural attacks in addition to all the weapons I've got on those limbs, too!
YAY, TEN WEAPON FIGHTING! I'm going to hurry home and strap knives to my elbows and knees and forehead and chin so i can conjure yet MORE attacks out of nowhere, because this UA rule lets me do it!
No.
Your entire example is based on a very strained inference and pseudo-logical reading of a feat, not on declared rules anywhere. I get hugely suspicious of arguments based on creative reinterpreting of the English language. You're trying to force open a loophole here that does not exist.
The TWF and Multiattack rules are clearly defined, and none of them involve generating an extra attack, or they would explicitly state that they do. Your insistence that UA makes an extra attack possible has no foundation under it...you're conjuring it up by thinking that a biased reading of one line of a rule generates an extra attack.
No.
==+Aelryinth
The troglodyte example is a specific case. Claws on the hands. You can use a weapon in the hand, or you can use a claw. If, however, the weapon does not require the actual use of the hand, however, that case is not invoked. Look in the overall rules for natural weapon and manufactured weapons. Show me anywhere where it requires a natural attack be lost.
It doesn't. Sometimes, specific cases do that, but that's a specific case. I'm saying all Oranges are round things. You're saying all round things are oranges. You can't apply specific exceptions, laid out in individual creature entries, to all attacks.
Let's look at mouthpick weapons, for a moment. They turn your mouth into an "off hand" for that weapon. They state that when you use a mouthpick weapon, you cannot use your bite attack. In this instance, the specific weapon outlines a restriction.
Similarly, when a troglodyte uses one of the weapons in its creature entry (club or javelin), they physically take up the same part of the body that the claw uses. It's like holding a mouthpick weapon in your jaws. You can't use both.
Unarmed Strikes (and Armor Spikes) are a bit different. They're always wielded. How do we know this? Well, do you ever have to take a move action to draw your unarmed strike? No. You do not need to draw an unarmed strike so that you can use it in combat. The rules specifically state that such an attack may be made with any part of the body. Therefore, it doesn't conflict with whatever parts are being used for a natural attack. In other words? Unarmed Strike is not a Punch.
If you need further evidence?
www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/200... - Rules of the game - All about Unarmed Attacks. In this, it explicitly states that you don't need a free hand to make an unarmed strike.
www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/200... - Rules of the game - All about Unarmed Attacks - Part 3. In this, it explicitly states that a monk May make a full unarmed strike attacks, with all bonus attacks for iteratives, and THEN also attack with all natural weapons, INCLUDING claws and bite. Other characters are somewhat more limited, but even then, they can treat the unarmed strike as an off hand attack, use any body part, and get all their natural weapons (shown in Rules of the Game - All about Unarmed attacks, Part 2). With improved two weapon fighting, that would be 2 extra attacks. With greater TWF, it would be 3.
In other words, Skip Williams just said you were wrong. If you'd care to open up the PHb (that's the book that lists the Two Weapon Fighting rules), he's listed in the credits at the front of the book, under "Player's Handbook D&D Design Team". He's also listed similarly as part of the Design team for the DMG and the Monster Manual.
Is he delusional too? Do you somehow have a better understanding of rules on unarmed strike interactions than the people who designed those rules?
He's using UA for his primary attack, he's NOT using his claw. It takes a limb. You can't do the same thing with the same limb...UA is treated EXACTLY like any other weapon.
If his argument is valid, then any person could argue that a limb isn't actually holding anything, and start conjuring free attacks, hence my ten weapon example. If he can get a claw attack with the limb using UA, then he can get a claw attack with the limb while using a spear or sword. The rules are absolutely the same.
His logic does not follow, and does not follow the rules.
==Aelryinth
I just want to say thank you to maharai23 and Wyvern for leading me to the rules that state I can get full UA attacks combined with natural attacks. I have a barbarian/fist of the forrest/primevil/warshaper that will make great use of that. My DM already hates that character because I can grapple any and all of his baddies, and I'm dying to see how much damage I can now squeek out.
Oh, and Aelryinth, let it go. You've been proven wrong time and again. Your words on this subject have no merrit to anyone that has read this entire thread.
"With the full attack action, our example monk can make two unarmed attacks...
...The example monk also can attack with its claws and bite as secondary natural attacks...
...As noted last week, there are no two-weapon or off-hand penalties for these attacks."
This example is exactly what has been proven to be possible over and over.
Aelryinth should have been ignored a long time ago. If he won't accept the RAW, we can't make him.
Now, after reading through this I really wanna play some combination of druid/monk/rogue/master of many forms. Find something with a lot of natural weapons and reach + Adaptable Flanker = flanking with yourself. How many sneak attacks can I fit into a round? Lots.
Edit: To the OP, have you checked out the Kensai PrC from Complete Warrior? It's awesome for any melee....wait, you're probably not lawful. Neeeever mind, all this talk of monks made me forget you aren't one.
What makes you think he has to be holding something in his hand to render it unusable for UA? I don't see that stated anywhere in the rules at all.
He's using UA for his primary attack, he's NOT using his claw. It takes a limb. You can't do the same thing with the same limb...UA is treated EXACTLY like any other weapon.
If his argument is valid, then any person could argue that a limb isn't actually holding anything, and start conjuring free attacks, hence my ten weapon example. If he can get a claw attack with the limb using UA, then he can get a claw attack with the limb while using a spear or sword. The rules are absolutely the same.
His logic does not follow, and does not follow the rules.
==Aelryinth
Hahahahahahaha.... Let me get this straight. You're telling me that when a game designer disagrees with your interpretation of the rules that he, himself made... That he's wrong?
You're saying that he breaks the rules? Really? REALLY? Without even citing a single rule, in 17 pages, to support your cause?
Dude, I'm DONE. You keep thinking what you want. Those of us that live in the real world are going to do something else with our time now.
Hahahahahaha... Skip Williams is delusional. I love it! SOMEONE'S delusional, all right.
I hate to agree with Ael, but the designers are often wrong and it really doesn't prove anything.
EX: The sage column, and the FAQ.
They can be helpful for finding the spirit of the rules (Sometimes) but shouldn't be mistaken for the rules themselves.
I agree with him in this instance, but it really isn't a solid "Hah see you are totally wrong" piece of evidence.
I hate to agree with Ael, but the designers are often wrong and it really doesn't prove anything.
EX: The sage column, and the FAQ.
They can be helpful for finding the spirit of the rules (Sometimes) but shouldn't be mistaken for the rules themselves.
I agree with him in this instance, but it really isn't a solid "Hah see you are totally wrong" piece of evidence.
Krusk 2 thinks. 1 faq and sage from what i understand are not done by the designers there done by support.
2. Skip Williams from what I understand actualy did the rules for unarmed strikes. Mr. Williams is a developer and not support(again from what i understand) so what he says is pritty sollid, in comparison to sage/FAQ.
It's like compairing the FAQ in 4e and the Erratta that gets put out. Errata over rules the FAQ because the FAQ is done by support not by the developers.
Just like monte cook has explained what rules meen/clarified things for 3.0, that he wrote or had his hands in.
Plus i belive that whole article series was written because at the time there was alot of confusion on how UA's and nat weapons interacted.
Sage and FAQ totally tackle topics they didn't personally write. Again, in this instance skip did write the rules he is talking about, so that is a benefit, it doesn't mean he is automatically right.
I don't play "Guess what the designers meant to write" I play "This is what you wrote, errata it if you want it to do something else".
(Side note, skip actually was the sage for a bit, and I think he wrote most of the FAQ)
Sage and FAQ totally tackle topics they didn't personally write. Again, in this instance skip did write the rules he is talking about, so that is a benefit, it doesn't mean he is automatically right.
I don't play "Guess what the designers meant to write" I play "This is what you wrote, errata it if you want it to do something else".
(Side note, skip actually was the sage for a bit, and I think he wrote most of the FAQ)
I don't know. They where not realy big into errata before 4e. I meen i know they put it out. And mabye to them it was clear.
I meen to me when the writer of a game says this is how X rule works they kinda override whats in the book especialy when it was the purson who wrote it. And the fact that he was just clarifing what we all new.
Again you should be able to use in an argument an article written by the guy that wrote the rules. Especialy when the article just expands on how said rules work. I agree sage has been wrong and the FAQ but again most of the time sage was not a designer/writer nor was the FAQ. Just like the FAQ now isn't written by the designers/writers. Its done by there support group. Kinda the TS of the pen and paper world.
No offence krusk but if you can't take the writers own words on how something works, then that is kind of rediculous. It would be different if he didn't write those rules/was sage/was part of techsupport.
Sage and FAQ totally tackle topics they didn't personally write. Again, in this instance skip did write the rules he is talking about, so that is a benefit, it doesn't mean he is automatically right.
I don't play "Guess what the designers meant to write" I play "This is what you wrote, errata it if you want it to do something else".
(Side note, skip actually was the sage for a bit, and I think he wrote most of the FAQ)
The problem with the Sage has been when he makes up a rule on the spot that is not written in the rules. This article is more of a clarification that fits within the rules which is a different thing all together. There were many Sage rulings that made sense within the rules and those were accepted. The rulings that did not fit into existing rules and made up a new rule that is not written anywhere else (even an article on the site or magazine) were generally not accepted.
I said Skip was right in this instance and that I agreed with him, but that it isn't an open and shut case just because he says it.
The real proof Ael is wrong would be all those rules we cited. Not that the designer agrees with us. Thats just some helpful backup.
And when all the supporters devolve to mockery, well, that has always been when the argument is weakest, and they know it.
The fact you have two claws and go UA in no way means you get both of the claws. That limb has been taken by UA, just as if it was holding a sword, or a rock. The rules are perfectly clear on that. You're using your claw hand to UA with as the primary attack, you don't get them both with one limb. Nothing in the rules you cited validates your arguments to the contrary because of the simple primacy rules. Quoting flavor text to justify an argument has never worked.
Which you keep ignoring, because their existence makes that impossible. C'est la vies.
==Aelryinth
Nothing I read in those rules supports your points at all. You're being creative language interpretive to arrive at the destination you want, it doesn't make it the rules.
And when all the supporters devolve to mockery, well, that has always been when the argument is weakest, and they know it.
The fact you have two claws and go UA in no way means you get both of the claws. That limb has been taken by UA, just as if it was holding a sword, or a rock. The rules are perfectly clear on that. You're using your claw hand to UA with as the primary attack, you don't get them both with one limb. Nothing in the rules you cited validates your arguments to the contrary because of the simple primacy rules. Quoting flavor text to justify an argument has never worked.
Which you keep ignoring, because their existence makes that impossible. C'est la vies.
==Aelryinth
Apparently you aren't reading the same thing that everyone else is. Or english is not your first language.
The part that you are obviously getting confused with is:
"With the full attack action, our example monk can make two unarmed attacks...
...The example monk also can attack with its claws and bite as secondary natural attacks...
...As noted last week, there are no two-weapon or off-hand penalties for these attacks."
That "also" means in addition to. Which, if you don't know what that means, it means you can do BOTH full UA and full natural attacks. This follows all the other examples and rules that have been posted. You, Sir, are too caught up in your own vision that you refuse to accept what has been put in front of you.
I will give you one thing though Aelryinth, because of you, I have continued to read this thread. In fact, I created an account because of this thread. And if it weren't for you, I'd have never known about the rule that says you CAN get all your UA attacks in with your natural attacks. So, thank you.
That limb has been taken by UA, just as if it was holding a sword, or a rock. The rules are perfectly clear on that.
Which rule is it? The perfectly clear one. I want to know. We all want to know.
Nothing I read in those rules supports your points at all. You're being creative language interpretive to arrive at the destination you want, it doesn't make it the rules.
And when all the supporters devolve to mockery, well, that has always been when the argument is weakest, and they know it.
The fact you have two claws and go UA in no way means you get both of the claws. That limb has been taken by UA, just as if it was holding a sword, or a rock. The rules are perfectly clear on that. You're using your claw hand to UA with as the primary attack, you don't get them both with one limb. Nothing in the rules you cited validates your arguments to the contrary because of the simple primacy rules. Quoting flavor text to justify an argument has never worked.
Which you keep ignoring, because their existence makes that impossible. C'est la vies.
==Aelryinth
Apparently you aren't reading the same thing that everyone else is. Or english is not your first language.
The part that you are obviously getting confused with is:
"With the full attack action, our example monk can make two unarmed attacks...
...The example monk also can attack with its claws and bite as secondary natural attacks...
...As noted last week, there are no two-weapon or off-hand penalties for these attacks."
That "also" means in addition to. Which, if you don't know what that means, it means you can do BOTH full UA and full natural attacks. This follows all the other examples and rules that have been posted. You, Sir, are too caught up in your own vision that you refuse to accept what has been put in front of you.
I will give you one thing though Aelryinth, because of you, I have continued to read this thread. In fact, I created an account because of this thread. And if it weren't for you, I'd have never known about the rule that says you CAN get all your UA attacks in with your natural attacks. So, thank you.
and see, that example doesn't work as it stands.
You can go right ahead and make your UA attacks, even TWF UA. It's within the rules.
But if those Claw attacks take limbs (and they do), UA is, by the rules, prevelant over them and takes the limb for the primary attacks. It isn't available to claw with.
If he's got two extra claws above and beyond his base 2, sure, he can go ahead and use them while using UA.
But what you are saying is "I can use my Claw to UA at the same time as I claw things, just like if I had a Sword in that hand, I could use the sword and claw with the same hand at the same time."
Because UA is treated is just like any other weapon by the rules. And you cannot DO that. Trying to defend it is just flying in the face of both logic and the rules...it is pure blissful contravention of the English language to mean what you want it to mean.
Ignoring that truth does not mean you are right, you know?
==Aelryinth
But what you are saying is "I can use my Claw to UA at the same time as I claw things
Yes, this is right.
, just like if I had a Sword in that hand, I could use the sword and claw with the same hand at the same time."
And this is where you are wrong. UAS isn't the same as a weapon. Its different. Its not a weapon. It doesn't occupy any space. It doesn't physically take up any room. It doesn't require a hand, clawed or otherwise, to hold. Its just there. And thats supported by the rules. Its not grey, its not ambiguous, and nobody else here is reading them the way you are.
The OP has kindly asked you to stop persuing this. Heed his wishes at the bare minimum, even if you can't be bothered to back up any of your arguements.
Nothing I read in those rules supports your points at all. You're being creative language interpretive to arrive at the destination you want, it doesn't make it the rules.
And when all the supporters devolve to mockery, well, that has always been when the argument is weakest, and they know it.
The fact you have two claws and go UA in no way means you get both of the claws. That limb has been taken by UA, just as if it was holding a sword, or a rock. The rules are perfectly clear on that. You're using your claw hand to UA with as the primary attack, you don't get them both with one limb. Nothing in the rules you cited validates your arguments to the contrary because of the simple primacy rules. Quoting flavor text to justify an argument has never worked.
Which you keep ignoring, because their existence makes that impossible. C'est la vies.
==Aelryinth
Nothing PRINTED in the rules supports yours.
For your point to be valid, the following statements must be true:
Main hand attack: Must be an attack required to be made by an actual physical hand, or an item within it.
Off hand attack: Must be an attack required to be made by an actual physical hand, or an item within it.
Or:
Two-Weapon Fighting: Must have explicit text stating that use of an attack renders the hand designated unusable for other things.
Issues:
Off hand attacks need not be made with hands (Unarmed strike, Armor Spikes, any of the complete scoundrel hidden weapons).
Two weapon fighting makes no such disclaimer.
Now, you cite flavor text being used for justification. What flavor text? The text that unarmed strikes can be made with any portion of the body? That's not flavor. That is a specific statement, in the rules, removing the association between unarmed strikes and hands. You can say it's fluff. But that doesn't matter, because it's in the rules.
Unlike anything you've said.
You've said that it requires, in your opinion, "creative language interpretation" to arrive at the view we have. That acknowledges that there is an interpretation under which our view is correct.
That interpretation is the one that the game designer for unarmed strike goes with. It's not the one that you go with.
If I were talking about, say, Tex Mex cooking, and I had a post from Bobby Flay, telling me how to prepare a tamale, and some random internet guy saying, "no, he's totally wrong"... Honestly, who do you THINK is speaking from a better position to be in the know?
Also: There are actually 2 reasons to devolve into ridiculing your point.
1) there isn't solid rules support to support us (however, we've quoted rules until we're blue in the face, and even designer interpretation of those rules). This is the apparent reason for you calling others delusional, among other things.
2) We are so tired of pandering to someone who obstinately refuses to concede, after:
a) rules posts which disagree
b) appeals to logic which disagree
c) direct statements from game designers which disagree.
Point 2 is the accurate one, further exacerbated by the fact that you state over and over that the rules support your view, but you haven't seen fit to point out a SINGLE RULE THAT DOES.
There's only so many times we can hear the check's in the mail before we all assume you're full of it.
So you got rules that disprove? PUT THEM OUT THERE. Put us in our place. Show us how wrong we all are. There are only two conceivable reasons I can possibly see for not doing so...
Either you're too lazy to justify your position (which doesn't inspire me with confidence on how well you researched it to arrive at your original opinion)...
Or that the rules you say exist actually don't. In which case, you're a dirty, dirty liar. And a troll.
So we have two options now.
1) Post rules justifying your horribly flawed views...
or
2) Be widely considered either an unreliable source, or a dishonest one. Neither of which will help your position.
Pick one.
2) UA attacks can be made with any part of the body. There is nowhere in UA that says you get to pick the part, other then as flavor text. Period. You can't state 'all my UA will be kicks so I can use my hands for something else', there is nowhere in the rules that allows you to 'make attacks' out of nowhere. Occupied hands does not mean 'weapon wielding hands', it means hands not being available for combat. If they were available for combat, they'd be part of your UA attacks. You are seeking to introduce a contradiction where none exists.
Ergo, every position you have above is non-supported from the get go. I've pointed out your contradictions, and you are ignoring them. I've pointed out how UA is treated just like any other weapon, and you are ignoring THAT. You are also ignoring the fact that weapons take Primary attacks....which have also been quoted numerous times.
In short, you are ignoring the rules so you can invent free THree Weapon fighting. None of that is in the rules. So unless you can support yourself in a non-contradictory way, all you are doing is railing against the logic of the rules, which I find extremely funny. You keep presenting the same points, none of which address the actual rules, or my points...because yours contradict what is written.
So either come up with a concrete explanation that satisfies all the rules, or give it a rest. Since you can't, feel free to keep railing. It doesn't change anything.
MAYBE you think I'm contradicting something I'm not...the posts above are getting silly obtuse in their misinterpretations. So, why don't you slow down, take a deep breath, and post exactly what you THINK I'm saying, and I'll point out what I actually AM saying (btw, you can ignore Archrpwr or whoever he is, He's blanked to me, so whatever misinterpretations of my positions he's throwing out I have no clue on).
Otherwise, you're just buying into the Archerpwr rant stuff, which belongs on the BG boards, not here.
==Aelryinth
1) Please. Two weapon fighting refers precisely to main hand and off hand. IF UA takes the main hand, it takes the main hand.
2) UA attacks can be made with any part of the body. There is nowhere in UA that says you get to pick the part, other then as flavor text. Period. You can't state 'all my UA will be kicks so I can use my hands for something else', there is nowhere in the rules that allows you to 'make attacks' out of nowhere. Occupied hands does not mean 'weapon wielding hands', it means hands not being available for combat. If they were available for combat, they'd be part of your UA attacks. You are seeking to introduce a contradiction where none exists.
Ergo, every position you have above is non-supported from the get go. I've pointed out your contradictions, and you are ignoring them. I've pointed out how UA is treated just like any other weapon, and you are ignoring THAT. You are also ignoring the fact that weapons take Primary attacks....which have also been quoted numerous times.
In short, you are ignoring the rules so you can invent free THree Weapon fighting. None of that is in the rules. So unless you can support yourself in a non-contradictory way, all you are doing is railing against the logic of the rules, which I find extremely funny. You keep presenting the same points, none of which address the actual rules, or my points...because yours contradict what is written.
So either come up with a concrete explanation that satisfies all the rules, or give it a rest. Since you can't, feel free to keep railing. It doesn't change anything.
MAYBE you think I'm contradicting something I'm not...the posts above are getting silly obtuse in their misinterpretations. So, why don't you slow down, take a deep breath, and post exactly what you THINK I'm saying, and I'll point out what I actually AM saying (btw, you can ignore Archrpwr or whoever he is, He's blanked to me, so whatever misinterpretations of my positions he's throwing out I have no clue on).
Otherwise, you're just buying into the Archerpwr rant stuff, which belongs on the BG boards, not here.
==Aelryinth
You still have not quoted a rule aelryinth. Would you please? Also the fact that a UA can be made with any part of the body is not flavor text...it is clearly stated in the rule for unarmed strike.
He still thinks I'm Archrpwr...lawl.
==Aelryinth
I've posted all the relevant rules above, what is not to understand? You keep ignoring them, that's your problem, not mine.
==Aelryinth
You keep paraphrasing them in your own writing. If you could use the SRD to quote them it will be better please. Thank you aelryinth.
Everyone lets try to keep the flames to a minimum if we can.
I've posted all the relevant rules above, what is not to understand? You keep ignoring them, that's your problem, not mine.
==Aelryinth
You keep paraphrasing them in your own writing. If you could use the SRD to quote them it will be better please. Thank you aelryinth.
Everyone lets try to keep the flames to a minimum if we can.
Excuse me, I paraphrased nothing. It was your side that was selectively leaving out the rules that disagreed with their assessment. To the extent of chopping off a trailing sentence!
I quoted mine in full and out of the SRD. Obviously you didn't read them. Which doesn't suprise me, sadly. Willful wrongheadness for the sake of argument comes with people from the BG boards. They spread it like an infection.
==Aelryinth
I've posted all the relevant rules above, what is not to understand? You keep ignoring them, that's your problem, not mine.
==Aelryinth
You keep paraphrasing them in your own writing. If you could use the SRD to quote them it will be better please. Thank you aelryinth.
Everyone lets try to keep the flames to a minimum if we can.
Excuse me, I paraphrased nothing. It was your side that was selectively leaving out the rules that disagreed with their assessment. To the extent of chopping off a trailing sentence!
I quoted mine in full and out of the SRD. Obviously you didn't read them. Which doesn't suprise me, sadly. Willful wrongheadness for the sake of argument comes with people from the BG boards. They spread it like an infection.
==Aelryinth
Ok you know what I am done with you. I tried to be nice and tried to keep this thread positive and make some headway with this "problem" but you are unwilling. So please do not post here anymore. Anyone have anything else relvant to the actual thread topic?
I've posted all the relevant rules above, what is not to understand? You keep ignoring them, that's your problem, not mine.
==Aelryinth
You keep paraphrasing them in your own writing. If you could use the SRD to quote them it will be better please. Thank you aelryinth.
Everyone lets try to keep the flames to a minimum if we can.
Excuse me, I paraphrased nothing. It was your side that was selectively leaving out the rules that disagreed with their assessment. To the extent of chopping off a trailing sentence!
I quoted mine in full and out of the SRD. Obviously you didn't read them. Which doesn't suprise me, sadly. Willful wrongheadness for the sake of argument comes with people from the BG boards. They spread it like an infection.
==Aelryinth
Can you please list the post numbers of the posts that you belive you are quoting the SRD?
I know your replyed and quoted some one who already quoted the srd. you have not in fact quoted anything your self from the srd....
So like i said which posts did you quote the srd, as of right now you have not.
I will, however, post the relevant rules, since that's easier.
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a -6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a -10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in two ways:
- If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. (An unarmed strike is always considered light.)
- The Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6.
THIS IS OFF THE SRD.
Notice the emphasis in the rules on 'off hand' and 'primary hand'.
This line shows all the physical attacks the creature makes when it uses a full-round action to make a full attack. It gives the number of attacks along with the weapon, attack bonus, and form of attack (melee or ranged). The first entry is for the creature’s primary weapon, with an attack bonus including modifications for size and Strength (for melee attacks) or Dexterity (for ranged attacks). A creature with the Weapon Finesse feat can use its Dexterity modifier on melee attacks. The remaining weapons are secondary, and attacks with them are made with a -5 penalty to the attack roll, no matter how many there are. Creatures with the Multiattack feat take only a -2 penalty on secondary attacks. The damage that each attack deals is noted parenthetically. Damage from an attack is always at least 1 point, even if a subtraction from a die roll reduces the result to 0 or lower.
A creature’s primary attack damage includes its full Strength modifier (1½ times its Strength bonus if the attack is with the creature’s sole natural weapon) and is given first. Secondary attacks add only ½ the creature’s Strength bonus and are given second in the parentheses.
If any attacks also have some special effect other than damage, that information is given here.
Unless noted otherwise, creatures using natural weapons deal double damage on critical hits.
Manufactured Weapons
Creatures that use manufactured weapons such as swords, bows, spears, and the like follow the same rules as characters do. The bonus for attacks with two-handed weapons is 1½ times the creature’s Strength modifier (if it is a bonus), and is given first. Offhand weapons add only ½ the Strength bonus and are given second in the parentheses.
THIS IS ALSO OFF THE SRD.
Someone else was nice enough to post Snap kick...I'm postinig that as a reference because even though the feat's name is SNAP KICK, the feat description is UNARMED ATTACK...not a kick. You can't delineate a kick. It also SPECIFICALLY says it creates an extra UA attack.
THere is nothing in the rule description anywhere that says you can delineate a non-primary/secondary part of your body as the source of a UA attack. It is NOWHERE. You must name Primary or Secondary. (or Primary and Off-Hand). A limb with a Natural Attack being used for a weapon attack is NOT available for a Natural Attack. It's either/or, not either/and. Note the interchangebility of Primary/off hand, Primary/Secondary Attack between the two rules. They are the same thing.
UA attacks are considered Light Weapon attacks. They MUST Be assigned a limb. You don't get to ignore that rule. You don't get to say "I'll make my UA attack the rest of my body" because 'the rest of my body' is not a Primary attack. You are effectively saying "I'll conjure this extra attack out of thin air." 'The rest of your body' is IN ADDITION to that limb, not INSTEAD of it.
UA is treated like a light weapon, and you can't say that anymore then you can say I'll claw someone at the same time I'm using a sword in the same hand. It is exactly the same rule. The UA thematic of using the whole body is flavor text...the rules treat it exactly like any other weapon. You can 'say' in combat that you are kickinig him...the rules say it's a primary attack, and a primary fighting limb has to be free to use it, just like any other weapon. The fact that your hands can be 'occupied' doesn't mean they can be used to make other attacks. There is nothing in the rules that supports THAT position, either. "Occupied" doesn't mean "Wielded in combat." It means, "otherwise useless". You are still using the occupied limbs to block, parry, threaten, and distract.
I cannot see the logic of the idea that you can conjure an extra attack out of UA use. It simply is not there. It's treated like EVERY OTHER WEAPON.
Meh.
===Aelryinth
- That says "If you use an unarmed strike in your offhand to TWF and it is a light weapon" we are not TW fighting, and we are not putting it in our offhand.
- You need to stop referencing snap kick. That was a serious egg in your face moment, and you ought to downplay it. All it showed was that you had not read the rules, in some cases even when they were posted word for word here for you to do so. It does not help your case at all.
I came back for whatever reason. I think its cause I get confused every time you mention snap kick as a positive instance of where you proved you were reading and citing the rules.
- That says "If you use an unarmed strike in your offhand to TWF and it is a light weapon" we are not TW fighting, and we are not putting it in our offhand.
- You need to stop referencing snap kick. That was a serious egg in your face moment, and you ought to downplay it. All it showed was that you had not read the rules, in some cases even when they were posted word for word here for you to do so. It does not help your case at all.
I came back for whatever reason. I think its cause I get confused every time you mention snap kick as a positive instance of where you proved you were reading and citing the rules.
Actually, Snap Kick was a great defense of my position, because it didn't delineate kicks. All I was saying was that it created a kick attack. The 'proving me wrong' was that it created a UA attack...which further proves you can't name 'kick' as an attack. I was actually happy to see it...because now any argument that you could name a body part as your attack is null and void. You are restricted to primary and secondary attacks, you can't paint a new one out of nowhere.
And I have no idea what you mean by your other argument. If you're using a short sword in your off hand, you're using TWF rules. If it's in your primary hand, you're using TWF rules. Where are you going at with this?
==Aelryinth
Snap kick says "you can kick people when you crit" and then you make an unarmed attack. Note it doesn't have to be a crit with an unarmed attack. It doesn't make any mention of "Normal two weapon fighting rules apply" which it would do if that were the case. Snap kick doesn't say "Crit with unarmed attack" simply "Crit" meaning you can snap kick after a double short sword attack.
Basically my other argument was that your TWF rules quotes apply when you are two weapon fighting. We are using weapons and natural attacks. No where does what you quoted say "Sorry, no natural attacks when two weapon fighting".
We are using claws and kicks. Kicks will be our primary weapons and secondary weapons. They get TWF penalties if we make 2 kicks a round. None if we only make 1. Then we make our natural attacks. Natural attacks only work if the limb is not otherwise engaged. Lets check. Do kicks engage your hand? No? Good, you can kick and claw.
Snap Kick
[General]
You have continued to hone your unarmed combat skills, and you deal more damage with your unarmed strikes.
Prerequisite: Improved Unarmed Strike, base arrack bonus +6
Benefit: When you make a melee attack with one or more melee weapons (including a standard attack, full attack, or even a strike maneuver), you can make an additional attack at your highest attack bonus. This attack is an unarmed attack that deals damage equal to your base unarmed attack damage + 1/2 your Str bonus. You take a -2 penalry on all attack rolls you make this round.
Rulebook: Tome of Battle - Book of Nine Swords (p. 32)
Actually, Snap Kick was a great defense of my position, because it didn't delineate kicks. All I was saying was that it created a kick attack. The 'proving me wrong' was that it created a UA attack...which further proves you can't name 'kick' as an attack.
You are correct that Snap Kick doesn't delineate kicks. What does state that kicks can be named as attacks is this:
Unarmed Attacks
Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:
Someone want to relink this? Apparently Aelryinth has me on ignore because he still thinks I'm archrpwr...
This one quote crumbles his WHOLE arguement. Period.
The SRD agrees with Dandu.
Unarmed Attacks
Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:
Someone want to relink this? Apparently Aelryinth has me on ignore because he still thinks I'm archrpwr...
This one quote crumbles his WHOLE arguement. Period.
I can't imagine why he still thinks you're Archrpwr. The mods would surely have banned you if you were, and they are definately paying attention to this thread if the moderation of Aelryinth's posts is anything to go by.
As I already noted I probably will not be using Bear Warrior anyways I was wondering what would be a good item to have in my off hand if any and my main weapon:
My main hand is CURRENTLY a +2 Adamantine gauntlet. Any recomendations on my gauntlet would be apreciated. I am thinking the final result will be somethng like +5 Valorous Warning Brash Furious Adamantine Gauntlet.
Since I plan to take both chaos monk and fist of the forest I can not have a shield in my offhand or lose the unarmored bonus from both clases. I do not plan on doing TWF either so a weapon is also out of the question. So is there anything else anyone would recomend for using with my off hand?
I think you are thinking of roundablout kick in complete warrior not snap kick in ToB Krusk.
My bad. I get them swapped.... that's even better for the argument.
Ok as the OP of this thread and no longer caring about this argument with ael I actually have a couple questions relevant to the topic of this thread.
As I already noted I probably will not be using Bear Warrior anyways I was wondering what would be a good item to have in my off hand if any and my main weapon:
My main hand is CURRENTLY a +2 Adamantine gauntlet. Any recomendations on my gauntlet would be apreciated. I am thinking the final result will be somethng like +5 Valorous Warning Brash Furious Adamantine Gauntlet.
Since I plan to take both chaos monk and fist of the forest I can not have a shield in my offhand or lose the unarmored bonus from both clases. I do not plan on doing TWF either so a weapon is also out of the question. So is there anything else anyone would recomend for using with my off hand?
The topic of the thread has changed from helping you to shouting at ael. You would honestly be better served starting a new thread for that.
You don't want to get more than a +1 to your weapon if you have a caster in the party. Point out greater magic weapon to them, and ask them to cast it. Maybe buy them a wand if they fight you on it.
Maybe talk the DM into letting you make two handed unarmed strikes with a feat or something?
Sorry, TWF rules specifically say that UA is treated as a light weapon (posted, what, 4 times now, and STILL ignored?) . Just like a dagger. Which means primary hand or secondary hand (like any other weapon). The fact you may or may not be using that hand doesn't mean anything. You STILL have to pick primary hand, and you can't specifically state "Kick", because that would 'create' an extra attack, which is not permitted anywhere in the rules. If it were, then UA could declare both hands, knees, elbows, feet, shoulders, panda belly, panda butt, head and chin as extra attacks...and it can't.
Not just 3 weapon fighting for nothing, but TEN weapon fighting! woo hoo!
UA can pick primary hand, or secondary. that's it. Find a place in the TWF rules where it allows you to name completely new limbs as primary or secondary. Hint: there aren't any.
Strike 3, kindly leave that argument behind, it doesn't work, flavor text is flavor text, mechanics still have to line up, and UA is still a weapon.
and if he's not ARchrpower, he's close enough to it. He's quoting the guy's obnoxious work, and he's imitating the guy's board manner perfectly.
next?
==Aelryinth
The topic of the thread has changed from helping you to shouting at ael. You would honestly be better served starting a new thread for that.
You don't want to get more than a +1 to your weapon if you have a caster in the party. Point out greater magic weapon to them, and ask them to cast it. Maybe buy them a wand if they fight you on it.
Maybe talk the DM into letting you make two handed unarmed strikes with a feat or something?
Yeah the only caster is a glass cannon sorc/elemental savant who would totally not waste time on buffing my butt. Plus I do not like relying on other people to buff me especially when using a Power Attack character.
Concerning the DM allowing me to make a feat fro TH unarmed strikes....yeah not in this lifetime no matter how much I beg (I have a reputation for being the "broken" one of the party so it is difficult for me to get any allowances at all.)
Since this thread consists of everyone but Aelryinth being convinced that UAS and NA work in the manner described in the rules, I think I'll leave him to his feelings on this subject and have fun with my Rogue/Monk/Assassin/Dragon Disciple characters who kick and knee their enemies with Flurries of Blows and then follow up with a Natural Weapon attack routine as per the rules in the Manufactured Weapons section of the SRD.
ps. Ael, it's not that we're ignoring you, it's that you're speldid logic and winning personality are clearly lost on degenerates such as us. Go, go, we cannot keep you here among an entire forum full of people who disagree with you. Out into the world with you, young man, and may your star shine bright amongst the heavens.
Sorry, TWF rules specifically say that UA is treated as a light weapon (posted, what, 4 times now, and STILL ignored?) .
When you are two weapon fighting. We aren't two weapon fighting.
Yeah the only caster is a glass cannon sorc/elemental savant who would totally not waste time on buffing my butt. Plus I do not like relying on other people to buff me especially when using a Power Attack character.
Buy a wand, and tell him to cast it every morning before you adventure.
Sorry, TWF rules specifically say that UA is treated as a light weapon (posted, what, 4 times now, and STILL ignored?) .
When you are two weapon fighting. We aren't two weapon fighting.
I'd love to know how you are employing a weapon attack, and not following the TWF rules which weapons must employ.
Otherwise, you have completely changed the focus of your argument, and lost me completely.
==Aelryinth
I'd love to know how you are employing a weapon attack, and not following the TWF rules which weapons must employ.
Otherwise, you have completely changed the focus of your argument, and lost me completely.
==Aelryinth
Here you go, love.
Manufactured Weapons
Some monsters employ manufactured weapons when they attack. Creatures that use swords, bows, spears, and the like follow the same rules as characters, including those for additional attacks from a high base attack bonus and two-weapon fighting penalties. This category also includes “found items,” such as rocks and logs, that a creature wields in combat— in essence, any weapon that is not intrinsic to the creature.
Some creatures combine attacks with natural and manufactured weapons when they make a full attack. When they do so, the manufactured weapon attack is considered the primary attack unless the creature’s description indicates otherwise and any natural weapons the creature also uses are considered secondary natural attacks. These secondary attacks do not interfere with the primary attack as attacking with an off-hand weapon does, but they take the usual -5 penalty (or -2 with the Multiattack feat) for such attacks, even if the natural weapon used is normally the creature’s primary natural weapon.
UA is still treated as a weapon (TWF rules), and still takes the primary attack (Your post above), just like any other weapon. Where in your logic does it somehow not do so?
Because if you're saying you can use a natural attack on your primary limb at the same time you're using a UA attack on that limb, you're effectively refuting both rules. If you're saying you can assign UA to something other then the primary limb, you're refuting both rules.
I'm confused where your justification is coming from. Which rule are you ignoring to say you can do this?
===Aelryinth
2. UA can be kicks and not take up physical hands.
3. Natural Attacks now relegated to secondary, take -5 penalty (-2 with multiattack)
4. Two Weapon Fighting not invoked.
5. Hi Welcome
1. UA is primary attack.
2. UA can be kicks and not take up physical hands.
3. Natural Attacks now relegated to secondary, take -5 penalty (-2 with multiattack)
4. Two Weapon Fighting not invoked.
5. Hi Welcome
And the fact that UA can be any part of the body is not in the fluff text but the actual ruling under unarmed strikes:
A monk’s attacks may be with either fist interchangeably or even from elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may even make unarmed strikes with her hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply her full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all her unarmed strikes.
Note the bold.
Buy a wand, and tell him to cast it every morning before you adventure.
A wand would be rough. Since its a 3rd level spell, GMW's base CL would be 5. Thats still 3 CLs short of getting to +2. A CL20 wand (to get the full +5) would be 45,000g. Thats REALLY expensive.
See if you can barter something else. A Momento Magica, the spontaneous version of a Pearl of Power, is 18,000g. Thats still cheaper. If you could get a Drakehelm or Knowstone for GMW, it wouldn't cost him any resources and you'll have the advantage of full CL.
You are again ignoring the rules..."takes primary hand/attack." You are 'creating' another primary attack, which nowhere in the rules are you allowed to do, and nowhere in the rules is 'kick' an attack. It's all unarmed.
I think you are all hung up on 'specific limb'. A hand being used for UA is being used as part of the whole body. While the actual attack may occur via a variety of means, that hand is still being used, either as set up, flurry, distraction, block, or otherwise. While you can SAY the attack is a kick, UA does not let you define your UA as a kick. It defines it as whole body, and as a weapon, one limb must be devoted to it.
So, that argument is fluff text and it does not work. The rules clearly say 'primary hand' and 'UA is a weapon.' The rules nowhere say you can narrow UA down to 'kick' or 'non-primary attack' or 'new limb'. UA uses everything, it may end up a kick, but the primary limb is definitely devoted to the attack even if your flavor says it is not the thing that lands.
If you're disputing that, then you don't know how UA works or what the rules mean.
===Aelryinth
A UA attack is a UA attack. It is a weapon attack, and must take the primary attack.
You are again ignoring the rules..."takes primary hand/attack." You are 'creating' another primary attack, which nowhere in the rules are you allowed to do, and nowhere in the rules is 'kick' an attack. It's all unarmed.
I think you are all hung up on 'specific limb'. A hand being used for UA is being used as part of the whole body. While the actual attack may occur via a variety of means, that hand is still being used, either as set up, flurry, distraction, block, or otherwise. While you can SAY the attack is a kick, UA does not let you define your UA as a kick. It defines it as whole body, and as a weapon, one limb must be devoted to it.
So, that argument is fluff text and it does not work. The rules clearly say 'primary hand' and 'UA is a weapon.' The rules nowhere say you can narrow UA down to 'kick' or 'non-primary attack' or 'new limb'. UA uses everything, it may end up a kick, but the primary limb is definitely devoted to the attack even if your flavor says it is not the thing that lands.
If you're disputing that, then you don't know how UA works or what the rules mean.
===Aelryinth
Then why does it SPECIFICALY say that you can attack even if your hands are full? And again ael the fact that you can make a unarmed attack with ANY part of your body is NOT flavor text.
A wand would be rough. Since its a 3rd level spell, GMW's base CL would be 5. Thats still 3 CLs short of getting to +2. A CL20 wand (to get the full +5) would be 45,000g. Thats REALLY expensive.
Eternal Wand from MIC. 10900gp for 1 casting a day at CL 13 for ever. 13 hours is most adventuring days +12 hours 55 minutes. (assuming 24 hours in a day -8 hours of rest gives 16 hours. Assume 1 hour for breakfast/breaking camp gives 15 hours. another hour to make camp puts you at 14 hours. There will be one hour at the end of the day where you only have a +1 weapon.)
You will probably have to up the CL for the full +5 though. I see where you are going... That will again up the price a bit, but its worth it. (And you can buy cheaper ones as you progress through the adventure. Start at the CL 13 one, and when it isn't relevant anymore, upgrade to a CL 15 one. Then go for a CL 20.
Nowhere in UA attack does it say you can assign the UA to a non-attacking limb, viz kick. Go ahead and try to find one. It specifically says exactly the opposite...and you are ignoring it.
What you're doing is selectively interpreting the feat to say you'll always be attacking with the 'rest' of the body, and not the hand, so you can use the hand for something else.
No. The rules specifically say it takes a primary attack. That hand will be part of the UA attack, even if it is full, it is being used for the UA. You can't turn around and do double-duty and claw with it as well...it's being used in the UA 'attack pattern'. Even if it's not landing the blow, it's still being used!
And the kick, headbutt part of UA is most definitely flavor text, otherwise those limbs would be sources of individual attacks...kicks and headbutts, and generate additional attacks. They are just flavor parts of UA, with no distinguishing features. There are no advantages, disadvantages, or working discrepencies between using the rest of the body. It's all ONE ATTACK, however it leads...and your naming the source is IRRELEVANT. You're still using the whole body, and that primary hand, regardless of how it lands.
Where you made the jump from 'hands full' to 'can use claw attacks, too' also leaves me mystified. If your hands were full of swords, could you make claw attacks, too? No. UA is treated the exact same way. It's just a light weapon.
==+Aelryinth
And the kick, headbutt part of UA is most definitely flavor text
You're not *gasp* ignoring something other people have been repeatedly pointing out, are you?
It's been repeated, what, three, four times now?
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. This means you don't need a free hand to make an unarmed attack.
What does your hands being full have to do with assigning a limb to part of a UA attack? The hand never deals the damage all the time, anyways. But it is part of the attack and pattern...it is part of the UA attack...it MUST be. The rules specifically say so.
Nowhere in UA attack does it say you can assign the UA to a non-attacking limb, viz kick. Go ahead and try to find one. It specifically says exactly the opposite...and you are ignoring it.
What you're doing is selectively interpreting the feat to say you'll always be attacking with the 'rest' of the body, and not the hand, so you can use the hand for something else.
No. The rules specifically say it takes a primary attack. That hand will be part of the UA attack, even if it is full, it is being used for the UA. You can't turn around and do double-duty and claw with it as well...it's being used in the UA 'attack pattern'. Even if it's not landing the blow, it's still being used!
And the kick, headbutt part of UA is most definitely flavor text, otherwise those limbs would be sources of individual attacks...kicks and headbutts, and generate additional attacks. They are just flavor parts of UA, with no distinguishing features. There are no advantages, disadvantages, or working discrepencies between using the rest of the body. It's all ONE ATTACK, however it leads...and your naming the source is IRRELEVANT. You're still using the whole body, and that primary hand, regardless of how it lands.
Where you made the jump from 'hands full' to 'can use claw attacks, too' also leaves me mystified. If your hands were full of swords, could you make claw attacks, too? No. UA is treated the exact same way. It's just a light weapon.
==+Aelryinth
1.You are the one saying that a using a kick, headbutt or other part of your body generates extra attacks. No one else is saying that.
2. The description of unarmed strike is not flavor text. Sorry to break it to you. Everyone else here will agree that it is clearly a very main part of the rules of Unarmed Strikes. Because if you are manacled you can still kick, or headbutt. Remember that next time you tie up a prisoner. There is your "advantage".
3. No where in the rules does it say your primary attack, your primary limb, has to be with your arm. If you find something that says primary hand and QUOTE IT, then you will have a decent argument. Cause hey maybe i want to make a weird rogue that all he uses is his boot-knife to fight and holds a wine bottle and wine glass the entire time.
4. And you are saying i am using my "whole body" when i use a sword a shield? How am i using my shield arm to attack if i am using my shield arm to defend. So that part really made no sense to me at all.
By the way you also contradict your self by saying that "the hand never deals all the damage all the time". Thank you for your time.
What does your hands being full have to do with assigning a limb to part of a UA attack? The hand never deals the damage all the time, anyways. But it is part of the attack and pattern...it is part of the UA attack...it MUST be. The rules specifically say so.
Nowhere in UA attack does it say you can assign the UA to a non-attacking limb, viz kick. Go ahead and try to find one. It specifically says exactly the opposite...and you are ignoring it.
What you're doing is selectively interpreting the feat to say you'll always be attacking with the 'rest' of the body, and not the hand, so you can use the hand for something else.
No. The rules specifically say it takes a primary attack. That hand will be part of the UA attack, even if it is full, it is being used for the UA. You can't turn around and do double-duty and claw with it as well...it's being used in the UA 'attack pattern'. Even if it's not landing the blow, it's still being used!
And the kick, headbutt part of UA is most definitely flavor text, otherwise those limbs would be sources of individual attacks...kicks and headbutts, and generate additional attacks. They are just flavor parts of UA, with no distinguishing features. There are no advantages, disadvantages, or working discrepencies between using the rest of the body. It's all ONE ATTACK, however it leads...and your naming the source is IRRELEVANT. You're still using the whole body, and that primary hand, regardless of how it lands.
Where you made the jump from 'hands full' to 'can use claw attacks, too' also leaves me mystified. If your hands were full of swords, could you make claw attacks, too? No. UA is treated the exact same way. It's just a light weapon.
==+Aelryinth
1.You are the one saying that a using a kick, headbutt or other part of your body generates extra attacks. No one else is saying that.
Yes, they are. Because UA uses the whole body, and somehow they are spinning an extra attack out of somewhere so they can use an extra claw attack. If the whole body is being used, including the primary hand by rules default, where is this claw attack coming from?
2. The description of unarmed strike is not flavor text. Sorry to break it to you. Everyone else here will agree that it is clearly a very main part of the rules of Unarmed Strikes. Because if you are manacled you can still kick, or headbutt. Remember that next time you tie up a prisoner. There is your "advantage".
It IS flavor text, because all UA attacks are UA attacks. They are not head butts, kicks, elbows, or whatever. You CANNOT assign all your UA to your feet and say you aren't using everything else. It's your WHOLE BODY. It's not a kick attack, it's not an elbow attack. This whole argument is a smokescreen...there are no kick attacks. There is only UA, which is whole body...and includes, by default, the primary limb.
3. No where in the rules does it say your primary attack, your primary limb, has to be with your arm. If you find something that says primary hand and QUOTE IT, then you will have a decent argument. Cause hey maybe i want to make a weird rogue that all he uses is his boot-knife to fight and holds a wine bottle and wine glass the entire time.
Correction. Nowhere in the rules does it say you can assign a primary attack away from your hands or primary limbs. As a matter of fact, the TWF and NW rules specifically state you must use a primary attack up, and interchange that language with primary limb/hand. Nowhere does it state you have the right to make a non-primary limb suddenly a primary attack.
And it's been quoted FOUR TIMES. Eesh.
And your rogue would have to take UA and be using his WHOLE BODY to carry off that technique, or invent a special feat that allows him to use his feet and only his feet (like, oh, SNAP KICK does NOT allow). He wouldn't be able to just pull it off in the core rules otherwise.
and notice something? While you are carrying the wine glass and bottle, you aren't using claw attacks, either. WHole body, baby.
4. And you are saying i am using my "whole body" when i use a sword a shield? How am i using my shield arm to attack if i am using my shield arm to defend. So that part really made no sense to me at all.
Straw man. You can't defend with your shield arm if you are attacking with it...unless you spend a feat. Note...FEAT COST. Default rules with extra attacks require a feat cost. You aren't paying one.
By the way you also contradict your self by saying that "the hand never deals all the damage all the time". Thank you for your time.
I contradict nothing. THe UA attack requires the slot...just like ANY OTHER WEAPON. read the rules. The hand may be used to block, feint, etc...it is part of the WHOLE BODY attack. But you are required to use that limb as part of the UA attack, and can't use it for any other attack. Doing so amounts to using a claw attack and a sword attack from the same limb...like any other weapon. Flavor says you can declare how it landed, but all the rules say is it is UA dmg. Get it? UA dmg is anything and everything. The rules do not care what you say dealt the dmg...all the rules care is that the primary hand is used up as part of the attack, and you did UA dmg. Flavor as you like.
You cannot circumvent that with 'all kicks' language. There are NO KICKS. There is only UA, and it is all-inclusive. Nowhere in the UA language is there the ability to say "I'm not using my whole body, so I can use other things," without defaulting to Natural Weapon and TWF rules, both of which have their own rules sets which your thesis violates.
Thank you for your time, but your arguments are repeats that do not hold water. You are confusing a hand used as part of the whole body attack for a hand used to do 100% of the UA stuff, which is a blatant misinterpretation being used to defend your logic. That has never been the case with UA, and attempting to misinterpret my language that way is willful obfuscation of English, the worst kind of nit-picky rules lawyering.
==Aelryinth
What does your hands being full have to do with assigning a limb to part of a UA attack? The hand never deals the damage all the time, anyways. But it is part of the attack and pattern...it is part of the UA attack...it MUST be. The rules specifically say so.
Nowhere in UA attack does it say you can assign the UA to a non-attacking limb, viz kick. Go ahead and try to find one. It specifically says exactly the opposite...and you are ignoring it.
What you're doing is selectively interpreting the feat to say you'll always be attacking with the 'rest' of the body, and not the hand, so you can use the hand for something else.
No. The rules specifically say it takes a primary attack. That hand will be part of the UA attack, even if it is full, it is being used for the UA. You can't turn around and do double-duty and claw with it as well...it's being used in the UA 'attack pattern'. Even if it's not landing the blow, it's still being used!
And the kick, headbutt part of UA is most definitely flavor text, otherwise those limbs would be sources of individual attacks...kicks and headbutts, and generate additional attacks. They are just flavor parts of UA, with no distinguishing features. There are no advantages, disadvantages, or working discrepencies between using the rest of the body. It's all ONE ATTACK, however it leads...and your naming the source is IRRELEVANT. You're still using the whole body, and that primary hand, regardless of how it lands.
Where you made the jump from 'hands full' to 'can use claw attacks, too' also leaves me mystified. If your hands were full of swords, could you make claw attacks, too? No. UA is treated the exact same way. It's just a light weapon.
==+Aelryinth
1.You are the one saying that a using a kick, headbutt or other part of your body generates extra attacks. No one else is saying that.
Yes, they are. Because UA uses the whole body, and somehow they are spinning an extra attack out of somewhere so they can use an extra claw attack. If the whole body is being used, including the primary hand by rules default, where is this claw attack coming from?
2. The description of unarmed strike is not flavor text. Sorry to break it to you. Everyone else here will agree that it is clearly a very main part of the rules of Unarmed Strikes. Because if you are manacled you can still kick, or headbutt. Remember that next time you tie up a prisoner. There is your "advantage".
It IS flavor text, because all UA attacks are UA attacks. They are not head butts, kicks, elbows, or whatever. You CANNOT assign all your UA to your feet and say you aren't using everything else. It's your WHOLE BODY. It's not a kick attack, it's not an elbow attack. This whole argument is a smokescreen...there are no kick attacks. There is only UA, which is whole body...and includes, by default, the primary limb.
3. No where in the rules does it say your primary attack, your primary limb, has to be with your arm. If you find something that says primary hand and QUOTE IT, then you will have a decent argument. Cause hey maybe i want to make a weird rogue that all he uses is his boot-knife to fight and holds a wine bottle and wine glass the entire time.
Correction. Nowhere in the rules does it say you can assign a primary attack away from your hands or primary limbs. As a matter of fact, the TWF and NW rules specifically state you must use a primary attack up, and interchange that language with primary limb/hand. Nowhere does it state you have the right to make a non-primary limb suddenly a primary attack.
And it's been quoted FOUR TIMES. Eesh.
And your rogue would have to take UA and be using his WHOLE BODY to carry off that technique, or invent a special feat that allows him to use his feet and only his feet (like, oh, SNAP KICK does NOT allow). He wouldn't be able to just pull it off in the core rules otherwise.
and notice something? While you are carrying the wine glass and bottle, you aren't using claw attacks, either. WHole body, baby.
4. And you are saying i am using my "whole body" when i use a sword a shield? How am i using my shield arm to attack if i am using my shield arm to defend. So that part really made no sense to me at all.
Straw man. You can't defend with your shield arm if you are attacking with it...unless you spend a feat. Note...FEAT COST. Default rules with extra attacks require a feat cost. You aren't paying one.
By the way you also contradict your self by saying that "the hand never deals all the damage all the time". Thank you for your time.
I contradict nothing. THe UA attack requires the slot...just like ANY OTHER WEAPON. read the rules. The hand may be used to block, feint, etc...it is part of the WHOLE BODY attack. But you are required to use that limb as part of the UA attack, and can't use it for any other attack. Doing so amounts to using a claw attack and a sword attack from the same limb...like any other weapon. Flavor says you can declare how it landed, but all the rules say is it is UA dmg. Get it? UA dmg is anything and everything. The rules do not care what you say dealt the dmg...all the rules care is that the primary hand is used up as part of the attack, and you did UA dmg. Flavor as you like.
You cannot circumvent that with 'all kicks' language. There are NO KICKS. There is only UA, and it is all-inclusive. Nowhere in the UA language is there the ability to say "I'm not using my whole body, so I can use other things," without defaulting to Natural Weapon and TWF rules, both of which have their own rules sets which your thesis violates.
Thank you for your time, but your arguments are repeats that do not hold water. You are confusing a hand used as part of the whole body attack for a hand used to do 100% of the UA stuff, which is a blatant misinterpretation being used to defend your logic. That has never been the case with UA, and attempting to misinterpret my language that way is willful obfuscation of English, the worst kind of nit-picky rules lawyering.
==Aelryinth
Well first of all thank your for the last comment. I am actually a law student and take my bar exam for New York and California next year.
Again we will try this by the numbers:
1. AGAIN NO ONE EXCEPT YOU is saying that using that using UA grants an additional attack. If this is not true of the people who are on this side of the argument (which is everyone but you Ael) please correct me.
2. You are contradicting yourself again....first of all if an UA was the "Whole body" i couldn't claw or bite at all with my natural attacks since they would be already used up. Second, any time you attack you do not use your entire body....that is just stupid and contradicts the use of a primary limb..which is one "LIMB" not the whole body.
3. Going to do this one backwards....the rogue would not be using claw attacks since he would not have any...that was merely a demonstration of what could be done with a boot knife. Moving on up NO WHERE in the description of boot knife or hidden blades (the category it is under) says that you need to take a special feat or use UA to use the boot knife (which is treated as a dagger by the way). If you do not believe me it is on page 109-110 of Complete Scoundrel. Look it up. And last of all...where does it say that you can not make your leg your primary limb?
4. This was a again to demonstrate that you do not use your "whole body" to attack. No where did I say I wished to attack with my shield...my question to you is how I could defend with my shield if I am forced to use my whole body to attack as you say?
As to your still self contradiction let me try to understand that you are saying it takes the ENTIRE BODY to make a UA attack? Even though it specifically says you can make one even if your hands are full? How could you, if you wanted, use TWF and UA if you are SUPOSEDLY using your ENTIRE BODY to make the attacks and therefore have no primary and secondary limb?
"You are confusing a hand used as part of the whole body attack for a hand used to do 100% of the UA stuff" WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN?!!?
Honest question and not trying to be a ahole about this one: Is English your primary language? IF it was not a lot of your arguments might make more sense.
Well first of all thank your for the last comment. I am actually a law student and take my bar exam for New York and California next year.
If you end up in California, let me know. I may be working/going to graduate school in SoCal.
Well first of all thank your for the last comment. I am actually a law student and take my bar exam for New York and California next year.
If you end up in California, let me know. I may be working/going to graduate school in SoCal.
Nice. I did my undergrad and my masters program at UCSD.
What does your hands being full have to do with assigning a limb to part of a UA attack? The hand never deals the damage all the time, anyways. But it is part of the attack and pattern...it is part of the UA attack...it MUST be. The rules specifically say so.
Nowhere in UA attack does it say you can assign the UA to a non-attacking limb, viz kick. Go ahead and try to find one. It specifically says exactly the opposite...and you are ignoring it.
What you're doing is selectively interpreting the feat to say you'll always be attacking with the 'rest' of the body, and not the hand, so you can use the hand for something else.
No. The rules specifically say it takes a primary attack. That hand will be part of the UA attack, even if it is full, it is being used for the UA. You can't turn around and do double-duty and claw with it as well...it's being used in the UA 'attack pattern'. Even if it's not landing the blow, it's still being used!
And the kick, headbutt part of UA is most definitely flavor text, otherwise those limbs would be sources of individual attacks...kicks and headbutts, and generate additional attacks. They are just flavor parts of UA, with no distinguishing features. There are no advantages, disadvantages, or working discrepencies between using the rest of the body. It's all ONE ATTACK, however it leads...and your naming the source is IRRELEVANT. You're still using the whole body, and that primary hand, regardless of how it lands.
Where you made the jump from 'hands full' to 'can use claw attacks, too' also leaves me mystified. If your hands were full of swords, could you make claw attacks, too? No. UA is treated the exact same way. It's just a light weapon.
==+Aelryinth
1.You are the one saying that a using a kick, headbutt or other part of your body generates extra attacks. No one else is saying that.
Yes, they are. Because UA uses the whole body, and somehow they are spinning an extra attack out of somewhere so they can use an extra claw attack. If the whole body is being used, including the primary hand by rules default, where is this claw attack coming from?
2. The description of unarmed strike is not flavor text. Sorry to break it to you. Everyone else here will agree that it is clearly a very main part of the rules of Unarmed Strikes. Because if you are manacled you can still kick, or headbutt. Remember that next time you tie up a prisoner. There is your "advantage".
It IS flavor text, because all UA attacks are UA attacks. They are not head butts, kicks, elbows, or whatever. You CANNOT assign all your UA to your feet and say you aren't using everything else. It's your WHOLE BODY. It's not a kick attack, it's not an elbow attack. This whole argument is a smokescreen...there are no kick attacks. There is only UA, which is whole body...and includes, by default, the primary limb.
3. No where in the rules does it say your primary attack, your primary limb, has to be with your arm. If you find something that says primary hand and QUOTE IT, then you will have a decent argument. Cause hey maybe i want to make a weird rogue that all he uses is his boot-knife to fight and holds a wine bottle and wine glass the entire time.
Correction. Nowhere in the rules does it say you can assign a primary attack away from your hands or primary limbs. As a matter of fact, the TWF and NW rules specifically state you must use a primary attack up, and interchange that language with primary limb/hand. Nowhere does it state you have the right to make a non-primary limb suddenly a primary attack.
And it's been quoted FOUR TIMES. Eesh.
And your rogue would have to take UA and be using his WHOLE BODY to carry off that technique, or invent a special feat that allows him to use his feet and only his feet (like, oh, SNAP KICK does NOT allow). He wouldn't be able to just pull it off in the core rules otherwise.
and notice something? While you are carrying the wine glass and bottle, you aren't using claw attacks, either. WHole body, baby.
4. And you are saying i am using my "whole body" when i use a sword a shield? How am i using my shield arm to attack if i am using my shield arm to defend. So that part really made no sense to me at all.
Straw man. You can't defend with your shield arm if you are attacking with it...unless you spend a feat. Note...FEAT COST. Default rules with extra attacks require a feat cost. You aren't paying one.
By the way you also contradict your self by saying that "the hand never deals all the damage all the time". Thank you for your time.
I contradict nothing. THe UA attack requires the slot...just like ANY OTHER WEAPON. read the rules. The hand may be used to block, feint, etc...it is part of the WHOLE BODY attack. But you are required to use that limb as part of the UA attack, and can't use it for any other attack. Doing so amounts to using a claw attack and a sword attack from the same limb...like any other weapon. Flavor says you can declare how it landed, but all the rules say is it is UA dmg. Get it? UA dmg is anything and everything. The rules do not care what you say dealt the dmg...all the rules care is that the primary hand is used up as part of the attack, and you did UA dmg. Flavor as you like.
You cannot circumvent that with 'all kicks' language. There are NO KICKS. There is only UA, and it is all-inclusive. Nowhere in the UA language is there the ability to say "I'm not using my whole body, so I can use other things," without defaulting to Natural Weapon and TWF rules, both of which have their own rules sets which your thesis violates.
Thank you for your time, but your arguments are repeats that do not hold water. You are confusing a hand used as part of the whole body attack for a hand used to do 100% of the UA stuff, which is a blatant misinterpretation being used to defend your logic. That has never been the case with UA, and attempting to misinterpret my language that way is willful obfuscation of English, the worst kind of nit-picky rules lawyering.
==Aelryinth
Well first of all thank your for the last comment. I am actually a law student and take my bar exam for New York and California next year.
Again we will try this by the numbers:
1. AGAIN NO ONE EXCEPT YOU is saying that using that using UA grants an additional attack. If this is not true of the people who are on this side of the argument (which is everyone but you Ael) please correct me.
2. You are contradicting yourself again....first of all if an UA was the "Whole body" i couldn't claw or bite at all with my natural attacks since they would be already used up. Second, any time you attack you do not use your entire body....that is just stupid and contradicts the use of a primary limb..which is one "LIMB" not the whole body.
3. Going to do this one backwards....the rogue would not be using claw attacks since he would not have any...that was merely a demonstration of what could be done with a boot knife. Moving on up NO WHERE in the description of boot knife or hidden blades (the category it is under) says that you need to take a special feat or use UA to use the boot knife (which is treated as a dagger by the way). If you do not believe me it is on page 109-110 of Complete Scoundrel. Look it up. And last of all...where does it say that you can not make your leg your primary limb?
4. This was a again to demonstrate that you do not use your "whole body" to attack. No where did I say I wished to attack with my shield...my question to you is how I could defend with my shield if I am forced to use my whole body to attack as you say?
As to your still self contradiction let me try to understand that you are saying it takes the ENTIRE BODY to make a UA attack? Even though it specifically says you can make one even if your hands are full? How could you, if you wanted, use TWF and UA if you are SUPOSEDLY using your ENTIRE BODY to make the attacks and therefore have no primary and secondary limb?
"You are confusing a hand used as part of the whole body attack for a hand used to do 100% of the UA stuff" WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN?!!?
Honest question and not trying to be a ahole about this one: Is English your primary language? IF it was not a lot of your arguments might make more sense.
Okay, you really need to go back and read the rules.
The Feat:
You are considered to be armed even when unarmed —that is, you do not provoke attacks or opportunity from armed opponents when you attack them while unarmed. However, you still get an attack of opportunity against any opponent who makes an unarmed attack on you.
Note: nowhere in this does it name hand, fist, kick, elbow, headbutt, panda belly, or butt crushing.
The monk:
At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk’s attacks may be with either fist interchangeably or even from elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may even make unarmed strikes with her hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply her full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all her unarmed strikes.
Now take a look at this.
Pont 1: there are no off-hand attacks. That means, technically, that EVERYTHING is included in Unarmed Strike. Both hands, interchangeably, or any other angle. In short, the whole body can deliver a UA strike.
Point 2: The attack can be made with lots of things...but it's never DEFINED as that item. It's not a kick attack. It's not a punch attack. It's not an elbow attack. It's an Unarmed Strike. Kick/Punch/other are not part of the attack lexicon in the way Weapon x/UA/Claw/Bite/Wing/Tail/Hoof/Rear Claw attacks are. Ergo, you cannot simply say UA is 'never the hands'. It's the whole body, and there is no 'off-hand'...it's always primary, and by the TWF rules quoted above, it's treated as a light weapon and always takes the primary limb. If UA meant to let you say "All these attacks are kicks", it would have been defined as Kick Attacks.
Such do not exist.
If you're not using your whole body as potential UA strikes, there's the normal TWF penalties. IN the case of natural attacks, the NWF penalties. Because you suddenly aren't using your whole body for UA...you're using part of it for something else. In this case, a claw strike. And you're taking penalties for it.
But the TWF rules don't let you take both hands for claw strikes, because of the primary limb rule. That limb must always be included in the UA strike, even if it's not doing the damage 'this time'.
The 'hands full' argument is a smokescreen, too. Hands full does not mean 'being used to claw' something'. It means they are otherwise occupied and you're not hitting with a fist, you're using the rest of you. It also means you aren't using the hands in combat, because then they wouldn't be 'full', they'd be in use in combat, which I'm pretty sure doesn't mean 'full'.
Everything in the monk stuff is flavor text, because it says 'may'. A Primary limb has absolute rules attached to it, there is no 'may'. You're interpreting 'may' as your choice to be 'always', and suddenly conjure an additional attack where none is allowed...because Primary limb is not 'may'. It simply IS required.
===========
As for blade boots, I'm not familiar with the rules on them at all. You're going to have to post them. If mere equipment lets you sprog the rules, well, what's done is done, and they aren't going back to fix it. But guess what? UA isn't blade boots. And the rules are pretty clear that you can't do a UA attack without taking a primary limb, which means that limb isn't available for a claw attack.
Now, if somehow you can refute the absolute rule that UA is a light weapon, and a takes a limb like all other weapons, you have an argument. But there's no 'may' in that rule, unlike the above, and UA isn't an exception...it's specifically called out and treated as a light weapon, so the above language does NOT override it.
===Aelryinth
Nowhere in the rules you posted did it say anything about UA taking a limb "like all other weapons." In fact, the rule you quoted, said the opposite. In fact, what you said proves that everyone else is right.
At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk’s attacks may be with either fist interchangeably or even from elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may even make unarmed strikes with her hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply her full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all her unarmed strikes.
The only reason is says anything about "off-hand" attacks, is to show that you get full strength bonus no matter what you decide to attack with. Which is why the follow-up sentence says "Thus." as it refers to the previous statement. That is all.
Also, you are forgetting about the rules clarification posted several pages ago by one of the game designers who uses a monk as an example. It specifically states that they get full UA attacks AND your natural attacks. So, your interpretation of the rules is completely wrong. Get off these forums and troll elsewhere. Your arguments are not backed up by any evidence and what you have posted, has been contrary to what you speak. Get outta this thread, you've derailed it long enough.
Point 2: The attack can be made with lots of things...but it's never DEFINED as that item. It's not a kick attack. It's not a punch attack. It's not an elbow attack. It's an Unarmed Strike. Kick/Punch/other are not part of the attack lexicon in the way Weapon x/UA/Claw/Bite/Wing/Tail/Hoof/Rear Claw attacks are. Ergo, you cannot simply say UA is 'never the hands'. It's the whole body, and there is no 'off-hand'...it's always primary, and by the TWF rules quoted above, it's treated as a light weapon and always takes the primary limb. If UA meant to let you say "All these attacks are kicks", it would have been defined as Kick Attacks.
This part is wrong. If you had read the TWFing rules that you mentioned, you'd see this:
Two-Weapon Fighting
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a -6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a -10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in two ways:
- If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. (An unarmed strike is always considered light.)
- The Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6.
Now, that looks to me like they are saying you can use an UAS as an offhand attack. So...what are you arguing here? Or, right...not aruging, since that would imply backing up points. What are you speaking at us? Your points do not line up, and often contradict the rules. You've been asked several times to stop, including by the OP. Please go away and stop trolling this thread. Thank you.
1) Are you in agreement that the language of 'primary hand/secondary hand' and 'main/off-hand' are interchangeable? They are used interchangeably in the Natural Weapon and Two Weapon fighting rules, and I believe they are the same thing.
2) The Nat Weapon rules state that a weapon attack becomes primary/main hand and all natural attacks become secondary/off-hand when they are used together. Are you in agreement with this?
3) The TWF rules state that UA is treated as a light weapon. Are you in agreement with this?
4) Are you thus in agreement that when UA is employed in conjunction with natural attacks, it is the primary attack, and all natural attacks are secondary? (this has nothing to do with another weapon being wielded, btw).
Thanks!
==Aelryinth
1) Are you in agreement that the language of 'primary hand/secondary hand' and 'main/off-hand' are interchangeable? They are used interchangeably in the Natural Weapon and Two Weapon fighting rules, and I believe they are the same thing.
Wrong. You can make iterative attacks with a main/offhand weapon. You can't make iterative attacks with natural weapons. Also, you can gain a lot of extra secondary natural attacks simply by gaining more natural attacks (such as through Totemist soulmelds or feats like Deepspawn (Lords of Madness) or by binding a vestige like Amon or various racial choices like Kobold or Warforged or Skarn. There is no theoretical limit to the number of secondary natural attacks you can make. The only way to gain extra offhand attacks is to take the next level of TWFing feats, to a max of 3 pre-epic. They are different animals. Plus, its possible to make mainhand attacks, offhand attacks, AND secondary natural attacks, so long as your hands aren't occupied. For example, the Deepspawn feat gives you 2 tentacles attacks. You could make a main hand longsword attack, an offhand flail attack, AND 2 secondary tentacle attacks. Your mainhand and offhand attacks are both your "primary" attacks, and your natural weapons are your secondary attacks.
2) The Nat Weapon rules state that a weapon attack becomes primary/main hand and all natural attacks become secondary/off-hand when they are used together. Are you in agreement with this?
Nope, still wrong. As I stated, you can have mainhand, offhand AND secondary natural attacks. Offhands are not the same as secondary attacks. That is the primary issue with your arguement. Thats not a conclusion you can draw.
3) The TWF rules state that UA is treated as a light weapon. Are you in agreement with this?
This is actually correct. UASs are treated as light weapons, except with regards to Power Attack, and which spells, effects, and feats can buff them (unless you are a monk).
4) Are you thus in agreement that when UA is employed in conjunction with natural attacks, it is the primary attack, and all natural attacks are secondary? (this has nothing to do with another weapon being wielded, btw).
This is also correct. UASs are treated as weapons, rather than natural weapons, when you attack. They can get iteratives which natural attacks can't. Thus, when you attack with your UAS, it supercedes your primary natural attacks. Your normal primary natural attacks become secondary natural attacks, and you can make them along with any other secondary natural attacks after you make your mainhand iterative attacks (and offhand iterative attacks as your abilities dictate). Secondary natural attacks are NOT the same as offhand iteratives.
So, your logic isn't all off, but you have a flaw in your base premise that perpetuates through the whole iteration and skews your final result.
I especially want to see the justification for this:
You suffer a -6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a -10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way
not representing primary and main hand representing the same thing as interchangeable terms. Can't seem to find any basis for primary, regular, and main hand attacks not all being the same thing. Which would then extend to secondary and off-hand attacks being basically the same thing as well.
==Aelryinth
1) Are you in agreement that the language of 'primary hand/secondary hand' and 'main/off-hand' are interchangeable? They are used interchangeably in the Natural Weapon and Two Weapon fighting rules, and I believe they are the same thing.
Wrong. You can make iterative attacks with a main/offhand weapon. You can't make iterative attacks with natural weapons. Also, you can gain a lot of extra secondary natural attacks simply by gaining more natural attacks (such as through Totemist soulmelds or feats like Deepspawn (Lords of Madness) or by binding a vestige like Amon or various racial choices like Kobold or Warforged or Skarn. There is no theoretical limit to the number of secondary natural attacks you can make. The only way to gain extra offhand attacks is to take the next level of TWFing feats, to a max of 3 pre-epic. They are different animals. Plus, its possible to make mainhand attacks, offhand attacks, AND secondary natural attacks, so long as your hands aren't occupied. For example, the Deepspawn feat gives you 2 tentacles attacks. You could make a main hand longsword attack, an offhand flail attack, AND 2 secondary tentacle attacks. Your mainhand and offhand attacks are both your "primary" attacks, and your natural weapons are your secondary attacks.2) The Nat Weapon rules state that a weapon attack becomes primary/main hand and all natural attacks become secondary/off-hand when they are used together. Are you in agreement with this?
Nope, still wrong. As I stated, you can have mainhand, offhand AND secondary natural attacks. Offhands are not the same as secondary attacks. That is the primary issue with your arguement. Thats not a conclusion you can draw.3) The TWF rules state that UA is treated as a light weapon. Are you in agreement with this?
This is actually correct. UASs are treated as light weapons, except with regards to Power Attack, and which spells, effects, and feats can buff them (unless you are a monk).4) Are you thus in agreement that when UA is employed in conjunction with natural attacks, it is the primary attack, and all natural attacks are secondary? (this has nothing to do with another weapon being wielded, btw).
This is also correct. UASs are treated as weapons, rather than natural weapons, when you attack. They can get iteratives which natural attacks can't. Thus, when you attack with your UAS, it supercedes your primary natural attacks. Your normal primary natural attacks become secondary natural attacks, and you can make them along with any other secondary natural attacks after you make your mainhand iterative attacks (and offhand iterative attacks as your abilities dictate). Secondary natural attacks are NOT the same as offhand iteratives.
So, your logic isn't all off, but you have a flaw in your base premise that perpetuates through the whole iteration and skews your final result.
I see he still has me on ignore...wow. Would someone mind copying my post since I worked so hard on it?
Reposted on behalf of wyverhand.
As for me getting 'frustrated with ignorance,' when I post the rules, and people then challenge me to post the rules, I kinda think they are willfully blind, and only looking at the parts that support their positions. And not looking back to see what's been done before.
Meh.
===Aelryinth
Hey, for the lawyer types here. Need confirmation on your positions.
1) Are you in agreement that the language of 'primary hand/secondary hand' and 'main/off-hand' are interchangeable? They are used interchangeably in the Natural Weapon and Two Weapon fighting rules, and I believe they are the same thing.
2) The Nat Weapon rules state that a weapon attack becomes primary/main hand and all natural attacks become secondary/off-hand when they are used together. Are you in agreement with this?
3) The TWF rules state that UA is treated as a light weapon. Are you in agreement with this?
4) Are you thus in agreement that when UA is employed in conjunction with natural attacks, it is the primary attack, and all natural attacks are secondary? (this has nothing to do with another weapon being wielded, btw).
Thanks!
==Aelryinth
1. Wrong. You can make iterative attacks with a main/offhand weapon. You can't make iterative attacks with natural weapons. Also, you can gain a lot of extra secondary natural attacks simply by gaining more natural attacks (such as through Totemist soulmelds or feats like Deepspawn (Lords of Madness) or by binding a vestige like Amon or various racial choices like Kobold or Warforged or Skarn. There is no theoretical limit to the number of secondary natural attacks you can make. The only way to gain extra offhand attacks is to take the next level of TWFing feats, to a max of 3 pre-epic. They are different animals. Plus, its possible to make mainhand attacks, offhand attacks, AND secondary natural attacks, so long as your hands aren't occupied. For example, the Deepspawn feat gives you 2 tentacles attacks. You could make a main hand longsword attack, an offhand flail attack, AND 2 secondary tentacle attacks. Your mainhand and offhand attacks are both your "primary" attacks, and your natural weapons are your secondary attacks.
2.Nope, still wrong. As I stated, you can have mainhand, offhand AND secondary natural attacks. Offhands are not the same as secondary attacks. That is the primary issue with your arguement. Thats not a conclusion you can draw.
3.This is actually correct. UASs are treated as light weapons, except with regards to Power Attack, and which spells, effects, and feats can buff them (unless you are a monk).
4.
This is also correct. UASs are treated as weapons, rather than natural weapons, when you attack. They can get iteratives which natural attacks can't. Thus, when you attack with your UAS, it supercedes your primary natural attacks. Your normal primary natural attacks become secondary natural attacks, and you can make them along with any other secondary natural attacks after you make your mainhand iterative attacks (and offhand iterative attacks as your abilities dictate). Secondary natural attacks are NOT the same as offhand iteratives.
So, your logic isn't all off, but you have a flaw in your base premise that perpetuates through the whole iteration and skews your final result.
Please keep your posts civil and on topic.
I'm still waiting for a real response. Preferably not in absolutist, rude language
So we do have something on common.
Comrade!
On that repost...
1) He's wrong, + his examples are answering somebody else's question, certainly not mine.
2) He's wrong, + I dunno what he's talking about. Does he always address the wrong points?
3, 4 ) Wow, he was able to agree with me? And then he explains the rules that are already obvious, sigh.
And still not seeing any consideration of the fact that TWF uses primary and main-hand interchangeably, which he denies is relevant.
===Aelryinth
Still no real response?
On that repost...
1) He's wrong, + his examples are answering somebody else's question, certainly not mine.
2) He's wrong, + I dunno what he's talking about. Does he always address the wrong points?
3, 4 ) Wow, he was able to agree with me? And then he explains the rules that are already obvious, sigh.
And still not seeing any consideration of the fact that TWF uses primary and main-hand interchangeably, which he denies is relevant.
===Aelryinth
No there qwhere a few posts i just assume you have them on ignore.
1. Did you even read the responce? As I reposted because I agree with him. You did realy refute him. So i assume you just don't understand.
2.
You said:
"The Nat Weapon rules state that a weapon attack becomes primary/main hand and all natural attacks become secondary/off-hand when they are used together. Are you in agreement with this?"
He said:
"Nope, still wrong. As I stated, you can have mainhand, offhand AND secondary natural attacks. Offhands are not the same as secondary attacks. That is the primary issue with your arguement. Thats not a conclusion you can draw."
Honestly he should have worded it as "no you have mainhand, offhand, and secondary natural attacks. Secondary natural attacks and offhands are not the same thing."
As that seems to be the stumbling block in which you are arguing.
SO yes he did actualy answer your question.
3/4 You where asking if we agree with you on your statements and 3 and 4 we are in agreeance with. He was agreeing with you.
So realy if you could specificaly explain why you think hes /we are wrong that would be best as you where asking if people agreed with your statments, which we answered and answered why.
For #2, he doesn't answer the question, he goes around it and answers some other question by redefining mine...which isn't the one I asked. Ergo, he's wrong...he didn't answer the question, again.
So, no, he didn't answer the question. And yes, I did read it, albeit reluctantly. He's being selectively blind, ignoring what he doesn't want to see and redefining what he does see. And I did boil it down to simple yes/no questions, and he couldn't just answer with those?
==Aelryinth
Two-Weapon Fighting
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a -6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a -10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in two ways:
- If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. (An unarmed strike is always considered light.)
- The Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6.
Table: Two-Weapon Fighting Penalties summarizes the interaction of all these factors.
Double Weapons
You can use a double weapon to make an extra attack with the off-hand end of the weapon as if you were fighting with two weapons. The penalties apply as if the off-hand end of the weapon were a light weapon.
Thrown Weapons
The same rules apply when you throw a weapon from each hand. Treat a dart or shuriken as a light weapon when used in this manner, and treat a bolas, javelin, net, or sling as a one-handed weapon.
Shield Bash Attacks
You can bash an opponent with a light shield or heavy shield, using it as an off-hand weapon. See Table: Weapons for the damage dealt by a shield bash. Used this way, a shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon. For the purpose of penalties on attack rolls, treat a heavy shield as a one-handed weapon and a light shield as a light weapon. If you use your shield as a weapon, you lose its AC bonus until your next action (usually until the next round). An enhancement bonus on a shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but the shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right.
Shield SpikesWhen added to your shield, these spikes turn it into a martial piercing weapon that increases the damage dealt by a shield bash as if the shield were designed for a creature one size category larger than you. You can’t put spikes on a buckler or a tower shield. Otherwise, attacking with a spiked shield is like making a shield bash attack.
An enhancement bonus on a spiked shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but a spiked shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right.
So...it doesn't mention natural weapons ANYWHERE in that text. So...wtf?
What language in the TWFing rules?Two-Weapon Fighting
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a -6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a -10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in two ways:
- If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. (An unarmed strike is always considered light.)
- The Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6.
Table: Two-Weapon Fighting Penalties summarizes the interaction of all these factors.
Double Weapons
You can use a double weapon to make an extra attack with the off-hand end of the weapon as if you were fighting with two weapons. The penalties apply as if the off-hand end of the weapon were a light weapon.
Thrown Weapons
The same rules apply when you throw a weapon from each hand. Treat a dart or shuriken as a light weapon when used in this manner, and treat a bolas, javelin, net, or sling as a one-handed weapon.
Shield Bash Attacks
You can bash an opponent with a light shield or heavy shield, using it as an off-hand weapon. See Table: Weapons for the damage dealt by a shield bash. Used this way, a shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon. For the purpose of penalties on attack rolls, treat a heavy shield as a one-handed weapon and a light shield as a light weapon. If you use your shield as a weapon, you lose its AC bonus until your next action (usually until the next round). An enhancement bonus on a shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but the shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right.
Shield SpikesWhen added to your shield, these spikes turn it into a martial piercing weapon that increases the damage dealt by a shield bash as if the shield were designed for a creature one size category larger than you. You can’t put spikes on a buckler or a tower shield. Otherwise, attacking with a spiked shield is like making a shield bash attack.
An enhancement bonus on a spiked shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but a spiked shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right.
So...it doesn't mention natural weapons ANYWHERE in that text. So...wtf?
Except he has you on ignore....but wait! This will make him "read" it...if he even bothers
Let's see... Here's MY proposals.
1) Skip Williams, designer of the UAS/TWF/Natural Attacks rules has been quoted stating a position which is contrary to Ael's opinion on the function of the rules.
2) The rules interpretation Skip Williams uses is not in actual violation of any rule, and is within the bounds of possible interpretations of those rules.
3) Ael's view of TWF/Natural Attacks/UAS relies on assumptions not laid forth in the rules, laid out below:
(a) Main hand is equivalent to Primary Natural attack
(b) Off hand is equivalent to Secondary Natural attack
(c) When one designates a main hand or off hand attack, one must declare actual hands to be used, which then become unusable for other functions. This means that even if you use armor spikes as an off hand attack, your second hand cannot do anything with the attack, because somehow, your hand must be used in getting spikes on your stomach into the other guy.
4) Ael's view on the points in (3) relies on at least one assumption directly contradicted in the rules.
(a) There is no 3 weapon fighting (directly contradicted by the multiweapon fighting feat)
Conclusions:
(A) So, based on premise 1, designer intent is against Ael.
(B) Based on premise 2, designer intent is in accordance with RAW.
(C) Based on conclusion (A) and (B), Skip William's interpretation of RAW is the correct one.
(D) Any View which contradicts Skip William's interpretation is therefore incorrect.
(E) Ael's view contradicts Skip William's interpretation.
Final Conclusion:
(F) By Conclusions (D) and (E), Ael's view is incorrect.
Did I miss anything? Can we stop beating the dead horse now, and get to productive things, like ignoring the inane ramblings of people who would argue against water being wet?
2) Won't know until it's posted. It's fun how you're defending the sage, and if he was against your position, you'd be ripping him down. Since when do BG guys give respect to the Sage?
3) a) You suffer a -6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand.....reposted from above.
That would include a natural weapon, if you're using Nat Weapon as your main/regular attack.
b) off-hand and secondary are debateable, but a non-issue. They are a tertiary point...the real issue is Primary Attack.
c) This is strictly part of the TWF rules. Since there is no 'armor spike' slot for attacks, it's either primary hand or off-hand. And just because you have armor spikes and two daggers, doesn't mean you get THREE ATTACKS...its TWO WEAPON FIGHTING. So you can hold that dagger...you just can't do anything with it. Main hand, off hand. That's it. You want more, go buy a feat.
4) Your misinterpretions in 3) rely on at least 3 assumptions directly contradicted in the rules
a) There is no 3 weapon Fighting when using TWO WEAPON FIGHTING is completely within the rules set. Adding Multiweapon Fighting or Multiweapon attack is outside the scope of the argument, and just exactly the kind of nonsense that keeps getting heaped up to obscure the issue.
4) So your view is wrong.
a) Designer intent is completely with me...when fighting with TWF, you fight with two weapons!
b) Based on premise 1, designer intent is in accordance with RAW. Primary attack, off hand.
C) Skip's interpretation hasn't been posted, but I'm sure it will work in one manner or another.
d) Since it hasn't been posted, I've no clue what you are talking about....so why don't you post it? It's probably once again a completely different argument then my talking point.
e) No idea if it contradicts it or not, because everything you are talking about has nothing to do with my arguments.
f) you missed everything. Are we even talking about the same subject? so, you're wrong. If you'd like to address the real issues and actually answer the questions posted properly, we might actually make some progress. How about applying some actual reason instead of throwing up some word count that means nothing? (like, oh, quoting the same rules again and again, when you're not looking at what they say.)
Skip's ruling should be quoted, or you shouldn't even be posting it. And I'm going to smirk with a BG and an optimizer using it as a defense of whatever position they are holding.
Here's another question for you. Kindly restrict it to TWF.
1) Where does it say you can assign a weapon attack to a kick?
And don't even point at the monk. There's no language in the monk ability that defends the ability to assign damage to any limb. They don't have 'kicks' as an attack, they don't have 'punch, elbow, or head-butt' as an attack. The feat 'Snap Kick' does not have 'kick' as an attack...you can use it if you have NO LEGS.
All they have are unarmed strikes, which are treated just like any other weapon...main hand, off-hand.
The rules do not care about breaking it down...UA is UA, nothing more, nothing less. It's not a 'kick attack', and you can't MAKE it one. It is, and will always be, just an unarmed strike, and it will follow the rules for unarmed strikes.
If you find a place where you can assign a light weapon in the TWF rules to other then main hand or off-hand, I'm good. I'm really not seeing any mention of other locations up there, tho.
Then, 2) kindly cite your rule where you can use a Natural Attack and a Weapon attack assigned to the same limb.
Which is what you've been trying to do all along with your free Three-weapon fighting shtick. If you can assign UA to just legs, I can assign daggers there, or maybe jo sticks.
3) Then, when you attempt to assign UA to an off-hand attack, tell me how you're going to justify that with the very clear language in the monk rules that there are no off-hand attacks with UA. (This one is just because I'm interested in how you're going to talk around it, it doesn't actually mean anything for my arguments).
Cheers!
==Aelryinth
Skip's ruling on the subject has been posted several times. You even commented on it. So don't act like you haven't seen it.
You are the one that is changing the argument to something it never was. This whole thing is about if you can get full attack iterations with UA as well as your natural attacks. It has NOTHING to do with 2 weapon fighting, you are the one that brought that crap into this argument as "proof" that you are correct.
You are not correct on this matter. Apparently you are trying to argue something completely different (by way of changing your arguments every couple of posts because you have no real basis are are pulling at threads trying to get the last word in) so please leave this thread alone. You have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have no idea what you are talking about. Give up. Surrender. Yield. Bow out. Do something, but for heaven's sake, please stop posting in this thread.
How would the abilities stack with bear warrior and frost rager? (cold template, rend ability, nat. ac bonus, etc)
Which damage value would I use for unarmed strikes while in bear form?
How do the speed bonuses from fist of the forest and barbarian stack with the base speed of the bear?
Now please I would like CITED RAW for this and not just conjecture. Thank you.
c) This is strictly part of the TWF rules. Since there is no 'armor spike' slot for attacks, it's either primary hand or off-hand. And just because you have armor spikes and two daggers, doesn't mean you get THREE ATTACKS...its TWO WEAPON FIGHTING. So you can hold that dagger...you just can't do anything with it. Main hand, off hand. That's it. You want more, go buy a feat.
I skimmed most of your post, but this part is blatently wrong. If you have a BAB of +6 or more, you get 2 attacks. These 2 attacks can be both with one weapon, or one each with 2 weapons, so long as one is at +6 and one is at +1. If you have a +6 BAB and the TWFing feat, you can attack with a dagger in your left hand "mainhand" as your +6 attack, a dagger with your right hand "mainhand" as your +1 attack, and your armor spikes as your "offhand". Its not 3 weapon fighting...its prefectly legal under the rules. The only thing you CAN'T do is attack with your armor spikes as both a mainhand and an offhand. This is explicitly disallowed in the TWFing rules. If a weapon is an offhand, it can ONLY be used as that offhand.
Your problem, Ael, is that you are thinking of a D&D character as an RPG video game paper doll inventory screen. On that screen, you have a slot for you helm, a slot for your chest armor, a slot for your boots, a slot for your cloak, etc. And YOU are thinking that there is a slot for your "mainhand" and a slot for your "offhand". D&D doesn't work like that. Some weapons don't occupy slots. They just don't. Now, thats not saying that you can get infinite attacks by wielding infinite weapons. Nobody's said that. We are just saying that not all weapons occupy body slots like you are imagining. UASs are a weapon that doesn't take a body slot. You always have it available, even if you aren't using it. Even if your hands are full, its still there. Armor spikes are similar, but not the same. Non-handed weapons are similar, but not the same. Since these weapons don't occupy hand slots, they wouldn't interfere with something like a Claw or Slam attack associated with that hand. Thats the simplest way I can explain it.
LordPhrofet:
The abilities would stack. The bonuses given aren't typed, and untyped bonuses always stack. Thus, you'd becomes a bear AND gain the [Cold] subtype and your spikey ice spikes. The natural Armor is untyped and thus always stacks. Your Frostrager Rend ability is based off explicitly off your UASs, so a claw attacks you get from Bear Warrior wouldn't trigger it. If you were surrounded by 4 foes and you hit the first with 2 UASs, the 2nd with 1 UAS, and the 3rd with both claw attacks, and the last with an UAS and a bite attack, you'd only get rend against the first, since its the only one that was hit by 2 UASs. You can still use One-Two Punch in bear form, since you can use UASs in bear form. The -2 you get from One-Two Punch would apply to your natural weapon attacks though, since One-Two Punch is worded similarly to Flurry and the penalty applies to all other attacks in the round.
As far as actually calculating your UAS damage, that would be tough. FotF says:
Unarmed Damage (Ex): Your unarmed attacks deal more damage than usual. At 1st level, you deal ld8 points of damage with each unarmed strike. When you attain 3rd level, this damage increases to 1d10 points. See the monk class feature (PH 41). If your unarmed attack already deals this amount of damage, increase the base damage to the next step indicated on the monk class table.
Frostrager says:
Improved Frostrage (Su): At 4th level while raging, the frostrager’s natural armor bonus increases to +6. His unarmed attacks deal 1d8 points of damage plus 1d6 points of cold damage on a successful hit. If the frostrager is Small, his unarmed attack deals 1d6 points of damage, and if the frostrager is Large, his unarmed attack deals 2d6 points of damage.
So, looking at this, and given that you apply effects in the most beneficial order (according to the FAQ), you'd get your 1d8 base UAS damage from Improved Frostrage, and since its already equal to or greater than awhat FotF gives you, FotF would give straight size increases. 1d8 increases to 2d6 at FotF1, and 2d6 increases to 3d6 at FotF3. If you have Improved Natural Attack, or enough Bear Warrior to turn into a Brown Bear (large sized), your UAS damage would increase another step to 4d6. If you had both, it would increase 2 steps from 3d6 up to 6d6.
If you had Superior Unarmed Strike, it would depend on what level your SUAS is. FotF has a clause that increases your UAS damage if you already have higher UAS damage. Frostrager doesn't. It simply sets your UAS damage to a fixed value. Thus, they wouldn't stack. You'd take whatever's higher, your SUAS damage or your Frostrager damage, and apply your FotF and other size bonuses to that.
As far as movement speed, that one is easy. A quick reference of FotF reveals:
Fast Movement (Ex Your base land speed is faster than the norm fori your race. See the barbarian class feature (PH 25). | If you already have fas| movement from another class, the bonuses to your speed stack.
As you can see, they stack just fine. A quick look over Bear Warrior and the Bear Warrior errata shows that you gain the bear's land speed. Black, Brown, and Dire Bears all have a base movement speed of 40. If you have both Barbarian and FotF levels, you're base land speed would be 60, and Hasted you'd have a speed of 90.
The only thing I think you can't do is make 2 bite attacks. FotF's Feral Trance gives you a bite attack. Bear Warrior gives you a bite attack. Since you only have one mouth, you'd only be able to make one bite attack, using whichever bite's damage is higher. Don't forget to apply any relevant size modifiers to your bite attacks! Both Feral Trance and Black Bear have 1d6 damage bites, so they are the same. As a Brown Bear, you'd have a 2d6 bite from bear form, and since you are large size, your Feral Trance bite damage would go from 1d6 to 1d8. Since 2d6 is more than 1d8, you'd use the Brown Bear bite damage unless there are other size mods I'm missing somewhere...
If you have a d10 then it would go up to 2d6 since that is next on the table.
Thats debatable since FotF eventually gives you a base damage of 1d10 which is better than the d8 from frostrager so perhaps no bonus.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH! Wyvernhand. That was exactly what I wanted and how I wanted it. BTW I sent you a pm about using iterative attacks with two weapons and was still hoping I could get your help on that...my DM argues like Ael and makes my life dificult.
If your DM doesn't like it, and doesn't seem open to reason or arguements to the counter, it might be easier for you in the long run to simply use his house rules. It cheats you out of a few attacks, but it will save you a lot of headaches. Plus lots of DMs who don't know the rules get really worked up when you explain them to them, no matter how nicely.
(F)Ael,
Skip's ruling on the subject has been posted several times. You even commented on it. So don't act like you haven't seen it.
You are the one that is changing the argument to something it never was. This whole thing is about if you can get full attack iterations with UA as well as your natural attacks. It has NOTHING to do with 2 weapon fighting, you are the one that brought that crap into this argument as "proof" that you are correct.
You are not correct on this matter. Apparently you are trying to argue something completely different (by way of changing your arguments every couple of posts because you have no real basis are are pulling at threads trying to get the last word in) so please leave this thread alone. You have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have no idea what you are talking about. Give up. Surrender. Yield. Bow out. Do something, but for heaven's sake, please stop posting in this thread.
oh god another BG goon.
Sorry, pal, I've been arguing the same point all along, and it's been creatively misinterpreted again and again, each time, particularly by WH, in new and impressively irrelevant ways.
If Skip got posted, I don't remember it here. You keep telling me to post the rules, I did, now I'm turning it back on you.
Your points all seem to come down to being able to name Unarmed Strikes as 'kick attacks' so you can get around the TWF rules. Unfortunately, kick attacks are natural weapons, not unarmed strikes, so that doesn't work. TWF rules also only allow two weapons. If you have more then that, you need multi weapon fighting. Unarmed strikes are just another weapon, and need primary hand to be assigned.
there's nothing in the rules that is even debateable, so I don't know where your problems are all coming from.
When pairing UA with natural weapons, it's going to be a primary attack, and the naturals secondary. Because it's a weapon, it's going to require main hand or off-hand...not some 'kick attack' which doesn't exist. technically, it can't even BE off-hand at all, let alone with nat weapons.
And because it's using a primary limb, the claw attack for that limb cannot be used.
Simple, elegant, internally consistent, obeys ALL the RAW (unlike the Three-Weapon Fighting arguments being consistently used here for TWF), and doesn't rely on creative interpretation of flavor text into contradictory rulings.
==Aelryinth
You did react to it by dismissing the article. You decided that it was against the rules.
(F)Ael,
Skip's ruling on the subject has been posted several times. You even commented on it. So don't act like you haven't seen it.
You are the one that is changing the argument to something it never was. This whole thing is about if you can get full attack iterations with UA as well as your natural attacks. It has NOTHING to do with 2 weapon fighting, you are the one that brought that crap into this argument as "proof" that you are correct.
You are not correct on this matter. Apparently you are trying to argue something completely different (by way of changing your arguments every couple of posts because you have no real basis are are pulling at threads trying to get the last word in) so please leave this thread alone. You have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have no idea what you are talking about. Give up. Surrender. Yield. Bow out. Do something, but for heaven's sake, please stop posting in this thread.
oh god another BG goon.
Sorry, pal, I've been arguing the same point all along, and it's been creatively misinterpreted again and again, each time, particularly by WH, in new and impressively irrelevant ways.
If Skip got posted, I don't remember it here. You keep telling me to post the rules, I did, now I'm turning it back on you.
Your points all seem to come down to being able to name Unarmed Strikes as 'kick attacks' so you can get around the TWF rules. Unfortunately, kick attacks are natural weapons, not unarmed strikes, so that doesn't work. TWF rules also only allow two weapons. If you have more then that, you need multi weapon fighting. Unarmed strikes are just another weapon, and need primary hand to be assigned.
there's nothing in the rules that is even debateable, so I don't know where your problems are all coming from.
When pairing UA with natural weapons, it's going to be a primary attack, and the naturals secondary. Because it's a weapon, it's going to require main hand or off-hand...not some 'kick attack' which doesn't exist. technically, it can't even BE off-hand at all, let alone with nat weapons.
And because it's using a primary limb, the claw attack for that limb cannot be used.
Simple, elegant, internally consistent, obeys ALL the RAW (unlike the Three-Weapon Fighting arguments being consistently used here for TWF), and doesn't rely on creative interpretation of flavor text into contradictory rulings.
==Aelryinth
Aelryinh....it is really easy to make the fael nickname up....I thought of it too but didn't want to be a complete as***le so therefore did not use it....and I have never been to the BG forums.
You have changed what you have said...AGAIN. Now you are saying that a kick attack is a natural weapon.
YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE WHO IS ARGUING ABOUT TWO WEAPON FIGHTING!!!!!!!!!!! Every one else is only talking about it because you keep on thinking it is relevant when it is not.
Also no one is arguing about using more then two weapons! Again this is ANOTHER instance of you bringing something up that no one is talking about
NO ONE is arguing that the natural weapons become secondary attacks.... we all know that.
UA can be kicks. I am sorry but that it is clearly stated and the rules where it is stated have been posted more then once but you keep on wanting to think that the RAW is merely fluff. You need to accept that because if you do not you are not following RAW.
First you say a kick attack is a natural weapon then, in the same post, say that kick attacks do not exist. Again MAKE UP YOUR MIND.
"Simple, elegant, internally consistent" Please stop using drugs before posting on the thread.
I apologize to the moderators if I am flaming but this is getting annoying.
Oh and Ael...have you noticed your posts have been edited several times by the moderators? Maybe there is a reason for this?
And last I would like to remind you of an old saying:
If one person says you have a tail punch him in the face.
If two people say you have a tail ignore them.
If three people say you have tail you should turn around and check to see if you have a blooming tail!
If you can not understand the relevancy of this saying I really do pity you.
About the closest thing I could find to the answer to your PM is:
FAQ pg 44
Can a character with Quick Draw and a base attack bonus of +6 or better make a melee attack with one weapon and a ranged attack with another weapon in the same round? What if the melee weapon requires two hands to
wield?
Yes. There’s nothing inherent in the full attack action that requires all the attacks to be made as the same kind of attack or with the same kind of weapon.
A character with a base attack bonus of +6 or better holding a longsword, for example, could make a melee attack with the longsword (using his full base attack bonus), drop the longsword (a free action), use Quick Draw to draw a dagger (another free action), then throw the dagger (using his base
attack bonus –5). If the character had both hands free (for instance, if he didn’t carry a light or heavy shield in his off hand), he could even use Quick Draw to draw a bow (free action), draw and nock an arrow (free action) and then shoot the bow (using his base attack bonus –5).
This situation is actually improved if the melee weapon is a two-handed weapon. A character can hold a two-handed weapon in one hand; he just can’t attack with it while it’s held like that. Thus, he wouldn’t even have to drop the weapon in order to draw and throw the dagger. If Krusk the 6th-level barbarian had Quick Draw, he could swing his greataxe (using
his full base attack bonus), then leave the axe in his off-hand while drawing a javelin with his primary hand (free action), and finally throw the javelin (using his base attack bonus –5). If Krusk were drawing a ranged weapon that required two hands to use (such as a bow), he’d have to drop his greataxe.
So, according to the bolded text, you can use different weapons in the same full attack. If you are wielding multiple weapons (like a weapon in your main hand and one in your offhand), you should be able to attack with them interchangably, as long as you don't claim more attacks in a round than your BAB otherwise allows you to.
It is the FAQ, for what it's worth, but its better than nothing!
You can't name a UA attack a kick attack. A kick attack is a natural weapon...go look it up. Calling a UA strike a 'kick' means that it is still a UA strike and obeys all the rules for UA strikes, including requiring main or off-hand as just another light weapon.
What is being argued here is that people can use UA, assign the attack to something other then primary or off-hand using the monk text that damage can be inflicted by multiple sources, AND then the character can go ahead and use his Claw/Claw natural attacks on top of his UA.
And I'm saying No, he can't.
Everything else and anything else is a smokescreen. The rules do not allow you to reassign an Unarmed strike to a specific limb. "primary hand" just means that hand is involved in some combination of moves as the strike is executed. UA using the primary hand can and will end up being dealt by any limb you want to name, but the primary hand is still part of the combo. You can't 'save it' for another attack. Even if the hands are full and damage is being done by the legs, it's still part of the combo...primary hand has never meant 'fist attack'. It means 'involved in the UA strike."
That's it.
If you're thinking I'm arguing something else, you're mistaken and you've been misled by other posters.
And I'll go check out 164, since they weren't kind enough to repost it.
And I'll paraphrase your quote:
If a person says you are talking about a tail and you aren't, correct them.
If two people say you are talking about a tail and you aren't, correct them in very simple terms.
If three people say you are talking about a tail, horns, and wings, wonder if they even know the English language, and try to ignore the person feeding the cycle of misinformation.
Which is about where I'm standing, wondering how you're getting everything so misinterpreted, and arguing over something I really have no interest in, but it's all getting roped in to obfuscate matters with great enthusiasm.
===Aelryinth
And I'll paraphrase your quote:
If a person says you are talking about a tail and you aren't, correct them.
If two people say you are talking about a tail and you aren't, correct them in very simple terms.
If three people say you are talking about a tail, horns, and wings, wonder if they even know the English language, and try to ignore the person feeding the cycle of misinformation.
Now that is rather amusing. Because it is grammatically incorrect in itself. Do not comment on such things when you have made your own errors in English as well. everybody does, due to colloquialisms and dialect.
As for the obfuscation of the topic, reading from top to bottom I have noticed that you are the only one attempting to conceal the matter at hand.
Regardless. I fail to see how anybody else is misinterpreting the rules. It is quite clear that you have taken it upon yourself to try and 'correct' everybody as you have been made to look a fool, and you do not like it. You have been shown to be incorrect, and not given any back up on your so called 'rules'. Want a prime example?
You can't name a UA attack a kick attack. A kick attack is a natural weapon...go look it up.
If this is the case... QUOTE it... don't say 'go look it up' because YOU cannot find it.
I should now note, unarmed strikes count as both manufactured and natural weapons. So a kick attack that is an unarmed strike IS indeed a natural weapon in the loosest sense of the word. But not for the reason you are arguing. Not by your houseruling, but by the real rules.
If you want to prove this otherwise then give us some rules quotes. You have only ever paraphrased, I cannot remember a direct rules quotation.
It should be noted that both sides of this have been using argumentum ad hominem as a way of trying to on up the other side (Read quote about english above to prove point for Aelryinth). So this has weakened standing for both sides.
But it is quite clear that the general consensus is you CAN use unarmed strikes combined with natural attacks and that Aelryinth is getting it wrong.
Also
and arguing over something I really have no interest in
Don't bother replying again if you've no interest. Solves this whole case.
Some highlights from the article
"Unarmed Attack/Unarmed Strike: These two terms are used interchangeably to describe an attack with an appendage that is not a natural weapon, such as a human's fist. An unarmed attack usually deals nonlethal damage and provokes an attack of opportunity from the creature being attacked."
So unarmed attacks are not natural attacks
" You usually make an unarmed attack with a free hand.
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. This means you don't need a free hand to make an unarmed attack."
So a kick is a valid choice of unarmed attack.
Second article is here www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/200...
Highlights from this article are
"Monks and Natural Weapons
As we saw in Part Two, a creature with natural weapons can use them for secondary attacks when using the full attack action. A monk character with natural weaponry has the same option.
For example, an 8th-level lizardfolk monk with a Strength score of 17 has a base attack bonus of +7 (+1 for its 2 humanoid Hit Dice and +6 for its monk levels). The character has three natural weapons: two claws (1d4) and one bite (1d4). For this example, we'll assume the character also has the Multiattack feat.
With the full attack action, our example monk can make two unarmed attacks thanks to its +7 base attack bonus. After adding in the +3 bonus from the monk's Strength score of 17, our example character's unarmed attacks have the following attack bonuses: +10/+5. Thanks to the monk's class level and Strength score, damage for the unarmed strikes is 1d10+3.
The example monk also can attack with its claws and bite as secondary natural attacks at a -2 penalty (thanks to the character's Multiattack feat). Each natural weapon uses the character's +7 base attack bonus and +3 Strength modifier, except that the Strength bonus on damage is halved because these are secondary attacks: 2 claws +8 (1d4+1) and bite +8 (1d4+1).
As noted last week, there are no two-weapon or off-hand penalties for these attacks.
The example monk cannot use a flurry of blows because a flurry doesn't work with natural weaponry."
So you can use unarmed attacks with your natural attacks (all of them). These attacks take the penalties for secondary natural attacks not two weapon fighting. I think that is everything the article covers. Whether you like it or not (or accept it) well that up to you.
Here is the first article www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/200...
Some highlights from the article
"Unarmed Attack/Unarmed Strike: These two terms are used interchangeably to describe an attack with an appendage that is not a natural weapon, such as a human's fist. An unarmed attack usually deals nonlethal damage and provokes an attack of opportunity from the creature being attacked."
So unarmed attacks are not natural attacks
" You usually make an unarmed attack with a free hand.
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. This means you don't need a free hand to make an unarmed attack."
So a kick is a valid choice of unarmed attack.
Second article is here www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/200...
Highlights from this article are"Monks and Natural Weapons
As we saw in Part Two, a creature with natural weapons can use them for secondary attacks when using the full attack action. A monk character with natural weaponry has the same option.
For example, an 8th-level lizardfolk monk with a Strength score of 17 has a base attack bonus of +7 (+1 for its 2 humanoid Hit Dice and +6 for its monk levels). The character has three natural weapons: two claws (1d4) and one bite (1d4). For this example, we'll assume the character also has the Multiattack feat.
With the full attack action, our example monk can make two unarmed attacks thanks to its +7 base attack bonus. After adding in the +3 bonus from the monk's Strength score of 17, our example character's unarmed attacks have the following attack bonuses: +10/+5. Thanks to the monk's class level and Strength score, damage for the unarmed strikes is 1d10+3.
The example monk also can attack with its claws and bite as secondary natural attacks at a -2 penalty (thanks to the character's Multiattack feat). Each natural weapon uses the character's +7 base attack bonus and +3 Strength modifier, except that the Strength bonus on damage is halved because these are secondary attacks: 2 claws +8 (1d4+1) and bite +8 (1d4+1).
As noted last week, there are no two-weapon or off-hand penalties for these attacks.
The example monk cannot use a flurry of blows because a flurry doesn't work with natural weaponry."
So you can use unarmed attacks with your natural attacks (all of them). These attacks take the penalties for secondary natural attacks not two weapon fighting. I think that is everything the article covers. Whether you like it or not (or accept it) well that up to you.
I think that pretty much sums it all up.
You can't name a UA attack a kick attack. A kick attack is a natural weapon...go look it up. Calling a UA strike a 'kick' means that it is still a UA strike and obeys all the rules for UA strikes, including requiring main or off-hand as just another light weapon.
Um...
www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#...Natural Weapons
Natural weapons are weapons that are physically a part of a creature. A creature making a melee attack with a natural weapon is considered armed and does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Likewise, it threatens any space it can reach. Creatures do not receive additional attacks from a high base attack bonus when using natural weapons. The number of attacks a creature can make with its natural weapons depends on the type of the attack—generally, a creature can make one bite attack, one attack per claw or tentacle, one gore attack, one sting attack, or one slam attack (although Large creatures with arms or arm-like limbs can make a slam attack with each arm). Refer to the individual monster descriptions.
Unless otherwise noted, a natural weapon threatens a critical hit on a natural attack roll of 20.
When a creature has more than one natural weapon, one of them (or sometimes a pair or set of them) is the primary weapon. All the creature’s remaining natural weapons are secondary.
The primary weapon is given in the creature’s Attack entry, and the primary weapon or weapons is given first in the creature’s Full Attack entry. A creature’s primary natural weapon is its most effective natural attack, usually by virtue of the creature’s physiology, training, or innate talent with the weapon. An attack with a primary natural weapon uses the creature’s full attack bonus. Attacks with secondary natural weapons are less effective and are made with a -5 penalty on the attack roll, no matter how many there are. (Creatures with the Multiattack feat take only a -2 penalty on secondary attacks.) This penalty applies even when the creature makes a single attack with the secondary weapon as part of the attack action or as an attack of opportunity.
Natural weapons have types just as other weapons do. The most common are summarized below.
Bite
The creature attacks with its mouth, dealing piercing, slashing, and bludgeoning damage.
Claw or Talon
The creature rips with a sharp appendage, dealing piercing and slashing damage.
Gore
The creature spears the opponent with an antler, horn, or similar appendage, dealing piercing damage.
Slap or Slam
The creature batters opponents with an appendage, dealing bludgeoning damage.
Sting
The creature stabs with a stinger, dealing piercing damage. Sting attacks usually deal damage from poison in addition to hit point damage.
Tentacle
The creature flails at opponents with a powerful tentacle, dealing bludgeoning (and sometimes slashing) damage.
Kick is not a natural weapon. It falls under part of the Unarmed Strike, which, per the combat rules for Unarmed Attacks, can be "Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon"
And I'm saying No, he can't.
And everyone else...EVERYONE else is saying yes you can.
UASs follow almost all of the rules as manufactured weapons, except for a few. They are not manufactured weapons and thus can't be enchanted or affected by spells as one (unless you are a monk, see exceptions). They can be affected by feats that affect natural weapons, such as Improved Natural Attack.
Again, your problem is that you are looking at D&D like a video game with various body slots and rigid, video game logic. D&D isn't like that. D&D doesn't have a right hand weapon slot, and an offhand weapon slot. It doesn't. You keep arguing like it does. Unarmed Strikes don't take up weapon slots BECAUSE THERE ARE NO WEAPON SLOTS.
Yes, it can be your mainhand attack. It can also be your offhand attack. It can NEVER be your secondary natural attack because its treated as a manufactured weapon rather than a natural one. Offhand DOES NOT MEAN secondary natural attack.
You are allowed to attack with ALL of your natural weapons in a round, so long as they aren't physically blocked by holding a weapon. Since you aren't "holding" your UAS, it doesn't block anything. Thus, according to the rules in manufactured weapons: "When they do so, the manufactured weapon attack is considered the primary attack unless the creature’s description indicates otherwise and any natural weapons the creature also uses are considered secondary natural attacks. These secondary attacks do not interfere with the primary attack as attacking with an off-hand weapon does, but they take the usual -5 penalty (or -2 with the Multiattack feat) for such attacks, even if the natural weapon used is normally the creature’s primary natural weapon."
The thing you don't get, is there is NO limit to the number of secondary natural attacks you can make in a round. If you have 4 claws, a bite, 2 wing buffets, 16 tentacles, and a slam, you can make ALL of them. Thats the way natural weapons work. Period. If you wield a manufactured weapon, ALL of those attacks are automatically secondary, and you can still make ALL of them, so long as you aren't holding a weapon in the limb that the natural weapon is attached to, IE, no clawing if you hold a sword, no biting if you wield a mouthpick weapon (Lords of Madness). Since you aren't holding your UAS in any limb, because it isn't a physical weapon, attacking with it in no way inhibits your use of natural weapons. Period.
No, you're creatively misinterpreting again.
You can't name a UA attack a kick attack. A kick attack is a natural weapon...go look it up. Calling a UA strike a 'kick' means that it is still a UA strike and obeys all the rules for UA strikes, including requiring main or off-hand as just another light weapon.
What is being argued here is that people can use UA, assign the attack to something other then primary or off-hand using the monk text that damage can be inflicted by multiple sources, AND then the character can go ahead and use his Claw/Claw natural attacks on top of his UA.
And I'm saying No, he can't.
Everything else and anything else is a smokescreen. The rules do not allow you to reassign an Unarmed strike to a specific limb. "primary hand" just means that hand is involved in some combination of moves as the strike is executed. UA using the primary hand can and will end up being dealt by any limb you want to name, but the primary hand is still part of the combo. You can't 'save it' for another attack. Even if the hands are full and damage is being done by the legs, it's still part of the combo...primary hand has never meant 'fist attack'. It means 'involved in the UA strike."
That's it.
If you're thinking I'm arguing something else, you're mistaken and you've been misled by other posters.
And I'll go check out 164, since they weren't kind enough to repost it.
And I'll paraphrase your quote:
If a person says you are talking about a tail and you aren't, correct them.
If two people say you are talking about a tail and you aren't, correct them in very simple terms.
If three people say you are talking about a tail, horns, and wings, wonder if they even know the English language, and try to ignore the person feeding the cycle of misinformation.
Which is about where I'm standing, wondering how you're getting everything so misinterpreted, and arguing over something I really have no interest in, but it's all getting roped in to obfuscate matters with great enthusiasm.
===Aelryinth
I do not know why I am even quoting this....wow just wow. OK now that I have gotten over the...lack of sanity...from this post I will try to argue the points as you presented them. Since you did not argue any of the points I made, or that other people made, in any sensible fashion I will just have to do my best.
1. You are insulting me again for no reason besides your lack of argument.
2. I, among other people, have looked up kick in the natural weapon section. I am sorry to inform you it is not there. Natural weapons are the following: Bite, Claw or Talon, Gore, Slap or Slam, Sting and Tentacle. No where is kick on this list. If YOU can find kick please post it by quoting and not paraphrasing.
3. Yes we are in partial agreement that this argument is concerning using a full range of claw attacks after using UA. But we are not talking about going against a primary limb...the only argument we have is that the primary limb does not need to be your arm and hand.
4. YOU are the one that kept bringing everything else, that is not relevant, into this. YOU are the one that brought in the two weapon fighting rules. WE are the ones that quoted Skip's rules about using UA and natural attacks since it is RELEVANT. YOU are the one that kept bringing up Three weapon fighting. WE are the ones that brought up monster examples to correlate with our arguments because it is RELEVANT.
5. You keep going on about primary hand. You still have not come up with an argument about boot knives. Actually you said something ridiculous about them having to use UA in order to use them or something weird like that. For your benefit I choose to ignore that complete lack of knowledge and stupidity in order to maybe still give you some credibility and give you a chance to redeem yourself. By the way you brough up something irrelevant and that no one has argued by stating that UA does not mean first attack. Just another example for the statements from clause #4 of this post.
6. That's it.
7. I always knew what you were arguing about but the arguments you used made no sense. The other posters are not misleading me since we are all in agreement against you.
8. They were kind enough to tell you exactly where the post is and make you remember talking against Skip's ruling. Plus the rules of the game archive is not very hard to find or navigate so hopefully you could figure it out for yourself.
9. The only person who is FEEDING the misinformation is you. Stop trying to make yourself seem like a victim to the "BG goons" and make it look like Wyvernhand and others are attacking you. MAN UP. STATE THE RULES TO DEFEND YOUR ARGUMENT. AND STOP WHINING.
10. If multiple people are arguing against your interpretation, including Skip, maybe you are wrong. Have you stopped to think that maybe we are wondering how YOU are misinterpreting everything faced with such an extreme backing of facts against you? Also if you have no interest in this topic go away and go feel smug to yourself of how you are letting the fools think they have won.
To everyone else. As the OP I would like to thank you for all your help and consideration. That is all.
1) you quote Skip, then quote Skip, just don't say 'he said.'
2) Won't know until it's posted. It's fun how you're defending the sage, and if he was against your position, you'd be ripping him down. Since when do BG guys give respect to the Sage?
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
I DID. YOU REPLIED TO IT.
Also, don't lump me in with "BG" guys. I do not own a Brilliant Gameologist account. Stereotyping and over generalization are indicators of a person who is trying to obscure information, distract, or mislead.
3) a) You suffer a -6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand.....reposted from above.
That would include a natural weapon, if you're using Nat Weapon as your main/regular attack.
b) off-hand and secondary are debateable, but a non-issue. They are a tertiary point...the real issue is Primary Attack.
And the rules for manufactured weapons state that if you use manufactured weapons and natural weapons together? Then your natural weapons are ALWAYS secondary. It can't be a non-issue, if that's the way it is, and your "natural weapons as a primary when TWFing" nonsense is directly against the rules!
www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#... (source for the rules that show that)
c) This is strictly part of the TWF rules. Since there is no 'armor spike' slot for attacks, it's either primary hand or off-hand. And just because you have armor spikes and two daggers, doesn't mean you get THREE ATTACKS...its TWO WEAPON FIGHTING. So you can hold that dagger...you just can't do anything with it. Main hand, off hand. That's it. You want more, go buy a feat.
Right. You may only use one off hand attack with armor spikes.
www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/armor.htm#a...
That is exactly what they say. Luckily, you're also wrong.
Because natural weapon attacks are not main hand and off hand. They are primary and secondary, and (according to rules cited earlier this post), they never interfere with manufactured weapon attacks, and carry their own listed penalties for being secondary (note, they are not off hand, and as such, cannot carry off hand penalties with two weapon fighting).
So I can use a main hand and an off hand attack... let's say, Knee blade and armor spikes. I can then also use 2 claw attacks and a bite, if I have them. All natural weapons are then considered secondary, and take penalties as such. But they are neither main hand nor off hand. They are secondary natural attacks.
4) Your misinterpretions in 3) rely on at least 3 assumptions directly contradicted in the rules
a) There is no 3 weapon Fighting when using TWO WEAPON FIGHTING is completely within the rules set. Adding Multiweapon Fighting or Multiweapon attack is outside the scope of the argument, and just exactly the kind of nonsense that keeps getting heaped up to obscure the issue.
There is no "Multiweapon Attack" feat. However, Multiweapon fighting explicitly states that it replaces two weapon fighting in cases where it applies. So, for creatures with 3 hands, Multiweapon Fighting IS Two weapon fighting.
Once again, your argument of "the rules say I'm right as long as we ignore the inconvenient ones" shows the traits of a misleading and deceitful post.
4) So your view is wrong.
a) Designer intent is completely with me...when fighting with TWF, you fight with two weapons!
b) Based on premise 1, designer intent is in accordance with RAW. Primary attack, off hand.
INCORRECT. You are STILL confusing Main Hand with Primary attack. Primary attacks are ONLY natural weapons, and if you are using TWF, you are also using iterative weapons. When using weapons that benefit from iteratives, the natural weapons are secondary. Therefore, two weapon fighting combined with natural weapon rules?
Allow for a main hand, an off hand, and as many secondary natural attacks as you have listed in your entry. The first two are two weapon fighting. The natural attacks are explicitly stated to not affect the two weapon fighting attacks in ANY way.
C) Skip's interpretation hasn't been posted, but I'm sure it will work in one manner or another.
As linked earlier. It was linked to, and you replied to it. It was posted, and you did see it. This is dishonesty, and is a trait of misleading and deceptive posts.
d) Since it hasn't been posted, I've no clue what you are talking about....so why don't you post it? It's probably once again a completely different argument then my talking point.
Once again, it was posted. And you did see it. If you have no clue what I'm talking about, then that says something about your ability to follow the topic adequately.
So which is it? Are you lying, or just unable to keep up? Both show poorly on your credibility.
e) No idea if it contradicts it or not, because everything you are talking about has nothing to do with my arguments.
Yes. What I speak of has to do with rules. Rules have nothing to do with your arguments. Therefore, you are right. The things I speak of bear no resemblance to your points.
Skip's ruling should be quoted, or you shouldn't even be posting it. And I'm going to smirk with a BG and an optimizer using it as a defense of whatever position they are holding.
Skip's words were posted. AGAIN, you are hanging an awful lot of your argument on something that is shown to either be deliberate deception or inability to keep up.
Here's another question for you. Kindly restrict it to TWF.
1) Where does it say you can assign a weapon attack to a kick?
Kick is not a weapon attack. However, it does not require a hand, although it is designated as a main hand or off hand attack.
And don't even point at the monk. There's no language in the monk ability that defends the ability to assign damage to any limb. They don't have 'kicks' as an attack, they don't have 'punch, elbow, or head-butt' as an attack. The feat 'Snap Kick' does not have 'kick' as an attack...you can use it if you have NO LEGS.
Correct. However, the monk, and the possessor of Snap Kick can also use those attacks if they have no ARMS. Hands are not needed.
All they have are unarmed strikes, which are treated just like any other weapon...main hand, off-hand.
Really? Tell me, what type of action is it to draw an unarmed strike so that you wield it in one hand. Tell me, what type of action is it to move your unarmed strike from one hand to another?
Tell me again that they are treated exactly as any other weapon.
The rules do not care about breaking it down...UA is UA, nothing more, nothing less. It's not a 'kick attack', and you can't MAKE it one. It is, and will always be, just an unarmed strike, and it will follow the rules for unarmed strikes.
Exactly.
It's just fortunate that the rules for unarmed strikes are not precisely in line with what you say.
If you find a place where you can assign a light weapon in the TWF rules to other then main hand or off-hand, I'm good. I'm really not seeing any mention of other locations up there, tho.
You cannot. However, the rules also state that light weapons must be wielded in one hand. Armor spikes implicitly contradict this, and when you wish to tell me how one "wields an unarmed strike in one hand", I'm all ears. It can't be done.
And since the rules don't require it be held in a hand, it can be used even when a hand is not available. You still may only make one off hand attack with Two Weapon fighting, but you don't need an actual hand to do it.
Then, 2) kindly cite your rule where you can use a Natural Attack and a Weapon attack assigned to the same limb.
No rule prohibits it. Individual creature entries make such prohibitions. Such restrictions are laid out in individual creature entries.
www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#...
This is the area which covers that, and it outlines no such restrictions. Further, manufactured weapons are wielded in HANDS, not limbs.... If we're sticking to the rules.
www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#...
And natural weapons are not. Any appendage qualifies. Claws can be on elbows. In that case, they would not interfere with weapons in hands. That is why such restrictions are listed individually in creature entries, as they apply.
Which is what you've been trying to do all along with your free Three-weapon fighting shtick. If you can assign UA to just legs, I can assign daggers there, or maybe jo sticks.
You're not assigning it to legs. You're assigning it to off-hand, and not using your actual hand to deliver it, much as you don't take off your boot dagger and carry it around to stab someone, or you don't remove your armor to bash someone with your armor spikes. "Off-hand" does not always mean "with a weapon that is in your hand". Usually, yes. However, certain weapons cannot be held in a hand and used. In such cases, they are not.
3) Then, when you attempt to assign UA to an off-hand attack, tell me how you're going to justify that with the very clear language in the monk rules that there are no off-hand attacks with UA. (This one is just because I'm interested in how you're going to talk around it, it doesn't actually mean anything for my arguments).
Your interpretation seems to be: "no off hand attacks with UA as a monk" = "monks cannot make off hand attacks".
Skip's is: "monks do not receive any off hand penalties for making unarmed strikes."
It is, admittedly, ambiguous. It could, in theory, go either way. So now I ask...
When trying to figure out the interpretation that was intended, am I going to trust the person who wrote it, or some random internet person's rant? Especially when that random internet person is constantly quoting very short sections of the rules out of context as well as conveniently "forgetting" when others do cite designer text, and claim falsely that they didn't, on top of overgeneralizing and stereotyping of others...
Well, I'll let the bona fides speak for themselves, faelryinth.
Really, is it your goal to destroy every shred of your credibility? Cause you're doing a bang up job.
Did you even realize you went and subbed 'wield' for 'assigned' and then used that to justify your entire argument? The TWF rules say nothing about 'wield'. They say 'assign', and that's the language I used. I stopped reading further the instant you altered my argument once again to your own interpretation of it.
"Kick" cannot be assigned as an attack, by the TWF rules. Main hand and off hand are the only choices they give...and the specifically intermix primary/regular/main hand terminology. They are the same exact thing.
==============
You are also completely mistaken that I'd read Skip's post before. I had not, nor had I replied to it. It was probably buried in a Wyvernhand post. So, hey, stop putting words in my mouth and saying I'm a liar. The last time I read that was probably the day after it came out.
I will absolutely agree that Skip thinks in that article you can use full UA and natural attacks. I will also point out that Skip also ignores all the TWF rules in his judgement call, and Skip has been known to be wrong on more then one occasion. By ignoring the limb-assignment role of TWF, he's doing the same here. UA, like any weapon, has to be assigned to a main hand, or off hand. With natural weapons, this has to be a main hand.
In other words, I will have to defer to the official errata, because Skip's argument makes no sense. He's basically saying that UA strikes don't have a main hand or off hand, and so you can use your hands as claw attacks while also using them for UA strikes. That's totally against all the logic of weapon attacks, in addition to everything else. I'll lump this post of his in with his Arcane Thesis ruling, that was later reversed because it also didn't hold water.
There is no alternative to this. It's just not there.
A kick/foot attack is going to be a hoof or a claw...a natural weapon. A UA strike is a UA strike...it is never a 'kick attack'. And a kick is never a 'primary hand.' Kindly note that if you have no arms, you're not going to be using the claw attacks on those arms either, are you? Yet you still can declare main hand and off hand, because the rules say you must. It's all one to UA. You can't 'wield' a weapon, but UA is about assigning the hand, not wielding a weapon or claw in it.
=====================
(yawn) You want to get snarky, I'll get snarky back. And if you aren't a BG person, your tone fits right in with them. If you aren't one of them, your language is perfect for them, and that's not a compliment.
=============
You aren't going to get me to concede the argument with the examples given. The Sage has been known to be wrong, and I will have to say he's wrong here...he's not considering any limbs being used in UA, even though such are specifically called for.
IN a concession to your positions, if you want to follow the Sage's ruling, you are in the clear barring errata to the contrary. But the Sage makes no defense of his position by citing rules or resolving conflicts between them. Thus, I can't say that post is RAW...it's the Sage's position.
Which leads the only possible followup...is there Errata dealing with the issue? My errata-fu has always been horrible. I've had to find The Arcane Thesis arguments and later corrections several times over the years and never been able to locate them without help.
I will note over in Pathfinder there are specific rules that you cannot use Natural Attacks with a limb that is devoted to UA attacks. I.e. they are specifically calling out the rule that you must assign a UA strike to an attacking limb, you don't get it 'for free', which is what the Sage seems to be attempting to say here...and all of you as well. You're still trying to make a free Three Weapon Fighting Argument, and I will not agree. Just because you get UA doesn't mean you get an extra attack out of nowhere. Anywhere such comes up in the rules it comes as part of a feat...and you're not paying a feat cost here.
==Aelryinth
You are also completely mistaken that I'd read Skip's post before. I had not, nor had I replied to it. It was probably buried in a Wyvernhand post. So, hey, stop putting words in my mouth and saying I'm a liar. The last time I read that was probably the day after it came out.
Right you arrogant, obnoxious excuse for a life form. I HATE people accusing others of lying when they're trying to cover up their own ineptitude.
Below is your quote in reply to the Skip Williams post by Maharai, AND his reply... quoting you (the above post to his) and showing you up to have replied to Skip's ruling.
What makes you think he has to be holding something in his hand to render it unusable for UA? I don't see that stated anywhere in the rules at all.
He's using UA for his primary attack, he's NOT using his claw. It takes a limb. You can't do the same thing with the same limb...UA is treated EXACTLY like any other weapon.
If his argument is valid, then any person could argue that a limb isn't actually holding anything, and start conjuring free attacks, hence my ten weapon example. If he can get a claw attack with the limb using UA, then he can get a claw attack with the limb while using a spear or sword. The rules are absolutely the same.
His logic does not follow, and does not follow the rules.
==Aelryinth
Hahahahahahaha.... Let me get this straight. You're telling me that when a game designer disagrees with your interpretation of the rules that he, himself made... That he's wrong?
You're saying that he breaks the rules? Really? REALLY? Without even citing a single rule, in 17 pages, to support your cause?
Dude, I'm DONE. You keep thinking what you want. Those of us that live in the real world are going to do something else with our time now.
Hahahahahaha... Skip Williams is delusional. I love it! SOMEONE'S delusional, all right.
Now then, since you have been repeatedly shown up. I think it's time you dropped it don't you?
A kick/foot attack is going to be a hoof or a claw...a natural weapon. A UA strike is a UA strike...it is never a 'kick attack'. And a kick is never a 'primary hand.' Kindly note that if you have no arms, you're not going to be using the claw attacks on those arms either, are you? Yet you still can declare main hand and off hand, because the rules say you must. It's all one to UA. You can't 'wield' a weapon, but UA is about assigning the hand, not wielding a weapon or claw in it.[/c]
So are you saying that you must have a claw or hoof to kick? Because I certainly don't, and I've studied martial arts for 14 years.
You are just a ridiculous person, who's arguments make no sense, and contradict the rules and rulings.
I will note over in Pathfinder there are specific rules that you cannot use Natural Attacks with a limb that is devoted to UA attacks. I.e. they are specifically calling out the rule that you must assign a UA strike to an attacking limb, you don't get it 'for free', which is what the Sage seems to be attempting to say here...and all of you as well. You're still trying to make a free Three Weapon Fighting Argument, and I will not agree. Just because you get UA doesn't mean you get an extra attack out of nowhere.
Then go and play Pathfinder if you're having trouble understanding the rules. Yet again, this was not an argument for two weapon fighting to begin with. It wasn't even an argument, since everyone else is in agreement, as are the designers.
So ultimately, your input is not, and never has been, conducive to this arguement
ah, the continuous misinterpretations continued.
Did you even realize you went and subbed 'wield' for 'assigned' and then used that to justify your entire argument? The TWF rules say nothing about 'wield'. They say 'assign', and that's the language I used. I stopped reading further the instant you altered my argument once again to your own interpretation of it.
"Kick" cannot be assigned as an attack, by the TWF rules. Main hand and off hand are the only choices they give...and the specifically intermix primary/regular/main hand terminology. They are the same exact thing.
==============
You are also completely mistaken that I'd read Skip's post before. I had not, nor had I replied to it. It was probably buried in a Wyvernhand post. So, hey, stop putting words in my mouth and saying I'm a liar. The last time I read that was probably the day after it came out.
I will absolutely agree that Skip thinks in that article you can use full UA and natural attacks. I will also point out that Skip also ignores all the TWF rules in his judgement call, and Skip has been known to be wrong on more then one occasion. By ignoring the limb-assignment role of TWF, he's doing the same here. UA, like any weapon, has to be assigned to a main hand, or off hand. With natural weapons, this has to be a main hand.
In other words, I will have to defer to the official errata, because Skip's argument makes no sense. He's basically saying that UA strikes don't have a main hand or off hand, and so you can use your hands as claw attacks while also using them for UA strikes. That's totally against all the logic of weapon attacks, in addition to everything else. I'll lump this post of his in with his Arcane Thesis ruling, that was later reversed because it also didn't hold water.
There is no alternative to this. It's just not there.
A kick/foot attack is going to be a hoof or a claw...a natural weapon. A UA strike is a UA strike...it is never a 'kick attack'. And a kick is never a 'primary hand.' Kindly note that if you have no arms, you're not going to be using the claw attacks on those arms either, are you? Yet you still can declare main hand and off hand, because the rules say you must. It's all one to UA. You can't 'wield' a weapon, but UA is about assigning the hand, not wielding a weapon or claw in it.
=====================
(yawn) You want to get snarky, I'll get snarky back. And if you aren't a BG person, your tone fits right in with them. If you aren't one of them, your language is perfect for them, and that's not a compliment.
=============
You aren't going to get me to concede the argument with the examples given. The Sage has been known to be wrong, and I will have to say he's wrong here...he's not considering any limbs being used in UA, even though such are specifically called for.
IN a concession to your positions, if you want to follow the Sage's ruling, you are in the clear barring errata to the contrary. But the Sage makes no defense of his position by citing rules or resolving conflicts between them. Thus, I can't say that post is RAW...it's the Sage's position.
Which leads the only possible followup...is there Errata dealing with the issue? My errata-fu has always been horrible. I've had to find The Arcane Thesis arguments and later corrections several times over the years and never been able to locate them without help.
I will note over in Pathfinder there are specific rules that you cannot use Natural Attacks with a limb that is devoted to UA attacks. I.e. they are specifically calling out the rule that you must assign a UA strike to an attacking limb, you don't get it 'for free', which is what the Sage seems to be attempting to say here...and all of you as well. You're still trying to make a free Three Weapon Fighting Argument, and I will not agree. Just because you get UA doesn't mean you get an extra attack out of nowhere. Anywhere such comes up in the rules it comes as part of a feat...and you're not paying a feat cost here.
==Aelryinth
DID you even bother to read my last post? Because if you did you really are not making sense and again are taking things out of context and if you did not we I should just delete this tread because you being anoying. Before you rage reply to this post do US ALL a favor and read my post before this and actually take the time to answer the issues presneted. If not you are not winning any arguments.
Also, YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE WHO KEEPS BRINGING UP TWF!!!! NO ONE else is trying to implement two weapon fighting here. If you bothered to read my last post and make actual arguments against the diferent points there instead of just ranting maybe people would actually listen to you!
ah, the continuous misinterpretations continued.
Did you even realize you went and subbed 'wield' for 'assigned' and then used that to justify your entire argument? The TWF rules say nothing about 'wield'. They say 'assign', and that's the language I used. I stopped reading further the instant you altered my argument once again to your own interpretation of it.
Well, perhaps if you would stop the "I stopped reading", you'd actually LEARN something.
www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#lightonehandedandtwohandedmeleeweapons
You know why you can't assign a sword to your feet? Because, per the rules of the game, weapons must be WIELDED to be assigned. Yes, wielded. It's how you use weapons in any way, whether by fighting with one weapon or two.
So, if you want to assign a longsword, you must wield it in one hand. It's a physical object. That can be done.
If you want to assign a shortsword, you must wield it in one hand. It's a physical object. That can be done.
If you want to assign a greatsword, you must wield it in two hands. It's a physical object. That can be done.
If, however, you want to assign armor spikes, they must be worn. They cannot be employed by holding them in one hand. Therefore, they are exempt from that rule.
If, however, you want to assign Unarmed Strike, it is not a physical object. It cannot be held in a hand. Therefore, it is exempt from this rule.
The only reason an object must prevent the use of a hand is in this rule here. And unarmed strikes, armor spikes, and other weapons which are stated to be used from an location other than the hand.... cannot apply that rule to themselves.
"Main hand attack" does not mean that the object must be held in a hand. Unarmed strikes are such an example. So are armor spikes. Typically, a weapon must be held in a hand to be used, but there are exceptions, and they don't prevent the hand from being used for other things. There is a limit to the iterative attacks you may gain from two weapon fighting, but that has absolutely nothing to do with natural weapons. A Troglodyte wearing armor spikes can make an armor spike attack, AND claw/claw/bite (all as secondary natural attacks). This isn't three or four weapon fighting. This is the proper application of the rules for combining natural and iterative attacks. That same troglodyte, with a couple feats, can easily make armor spike/Unarmed strike attacks, and then claw/claw/bite. Because the normal rule that a weapon must be wielded in a hand to be used cannot apply to any weapon which cannot be wielded in a hand. So yes, it's an off hand attack that doesn't even come from a hand.
Because, you know, the rules don't require that anywhere, other than the place I just cited. And that rule cannot apply to weapons which cannot be held in a hand, or who list their method of use as not being held in a hand.
This is attacking 101. It's basic.
So yes, all iterative weapons, when two weapon fighting, must be assigned to main hand or off hand. Only one weapon may be assigned to main hand, and only one may be assigned to off hand. Nowhere in the rules does this preclude the use of hands for other things, except on a case-by-case basis for specific creatures. Many weapons cannot be used in hands, and for those weapons, even though they are assigned to "main hand" or "off hand", they use neither hand, and don't prevent the hand from being used for other things which are not main hand/off hand attacks.
Natural attacks are neither main hand nor off hand attacks. They are allowed to be combined with iterative attacks (manufactured weapons/unarmed strikes), per the rules in the SRD for manufactured weapons. In some cases, the natural attacks that may be added are restricted (troglodyte, Magic of Incarnum soulmelds for claw attacks), and, if a weapon is wielded in the hand that is restricted by that specific exception, then for those cases, they cannot use that natural attack. That does not limit attacks which, though they are assigned to an off hand, aren't wielded in a hand. Why? Because the rules do not state that limitation.
This is simple. This is straightforward. If you cannot see this, I have no choice but to assume that you're willfully ignorant, intentionally trolling, or so closed-minded that no argument could possibly convince you of the truth that lies before you. In any of the above cases, there is no point in continuing. So, if you are going to disagree, just do me a favor.
Just post "I disagree with your view" and leave it at that. I really have no desire to waste any more of my time with the drivel that has consistently accompanied the posts you've made here.
As for your other comments, Obsidian directly quoted your response in this thread, commenting on the validity of Skip's arguments. That makes your claim to have not replied to it a LIE. Especially when it wasn't buried before your reply. That post was directly quoted by you, and you were the very next reply. Another LIE. Since you commented on the validity of Skip's argument, I can only assume your claim to have not read it to also be a LIE. Three lies, in one paragraph. Quite an achievement there.
As for deferring to official errata? What errata? There's none that I can see, and none that you've cited. SRD RAW is what governs it.
Also, the only person using primary/main hand and secondary/off hand interchangeably is you. Not the rules. Not me. Not anyone else. Just cause you like doing it doesn't mean anyone else does, nor does it make it the proper way to do it.
In other words, when it comes to interpreting the rules as written, and logical reasoning, it is my most professional opinion that you could not locate your posterior with both hands, lighting, telemetry, and approach radar.
Here's the deal, to clear this up:
The DM is the best interpreter in this case! There is no use fighting when LP's DM can sort this out.
If you want to argue, text each other or something. This is a forum, not flame war ground.
Aelryinth, it's your fault you started this, so stop fighting with the others. Give the OP some actual advice, instead of grounds to get you sent to a mental reconstitution project.
Alright guys, this has gotten out of hand. Don't you see what's happening? The OP wanted help with a bear man, not a fan war over an attack interpretation. You took the thread from its purpose, therefore you all are failing at what you set out to do.
Here's the deal, to clear this up:
The DM is the best interpreter in this case! There is no use fighting when LP's DM can sort this out.
If you want to argue, text each other or something. This is a forum, not flame war ground.
The OP has been answered, brought up a new queston, and been answered again. That topic is over, and a new one has begun. The OP isn't the king of what is said in a thread. This thread was originally about helping him with a bear warrior, now it is about explaining how basic melee combat works.
The use of fighting when LPs DM can sort this out- Next time someone comes along and says "Hey I want to use a fist and a kick" we can unanimously say "thats totally fine, you should expect to be allowed to use that in your game". Instead of some people saying yes, and one person saying no.
If we just said "Your DM knows the rules" evertime a rules question comes up this entire forum would be useless. "Hey guys how does this rule work?" "Oh just ask your DM they know". Super helpful.
Yes, DM's have the final say on rules. They can Rule 0 anything they don't like. That doesn't change what the base rules are.
And that's what I'm explaining. Remember, these threads are read by DM's too. Those people may not have a perfect grasp of the rules, and it's a good idea to lay out what the rules are, and WHY the rules are that way, so that each DM can make the decision on whether or not to Rule 0 it as an informed decision.
That is why Faelryinth's comments are not to be tolerated. The dissemination of disinformation inspires a spreading of ignorance.
Aelryinth, when he states that he hasn't replied in reference to Skip's post, he lied. When he states that it got buried before he saw it, he lied. Both of these can be easily proven simply by clicking on my above link. The very next response is his, and it addresses Skip's post.
Based on that, one of two things is true. Either his response, which asserts a knowledge of Skip's stance, was made without reading the stance... or he did read it, and is lying now.
So either he's not even reading the points he argues against, or he fabricates his arguments out of bubble gum and Unicorn Farts. Either demonstrate a level of ignorance that is unacceptable in any text that is to be seen as credible.
Based on this, I can only conclude that Aelryinth is as unreliable and untrustworthy any you could possibly find. Either his views are based on a lack of research and study that is almost criminal, or they are based on deliberate disinformation.
Either way, his arguments in this thread should be afforded no weight or consideration.
Putting words in my mouth again.
I said I hadn't read his post...I was replying to a different post, specifically one that dealt with the original troglodyte example of UA and claw strike, as I recall. If I skimmed it in between, I honestly don't remember it, or I would have acknowledged it. Name-calling isn't going to change that, although it certainly seems to make a lot of your arguments lose all merit.
I read Skip's post probably the day or day after it first came out. As I recall, it got laughed off the OP boards here. I don't recall it ever making it into the official errata. It's been a LONG time since I looked at that, and it's as WTF? now as it was back then. He gets stuff wrong occasionally, and this was one of the big ones that had people shaking their heads.
=======
Your entire wield/assign argument is a smokescreen. Assigning is assigning, and UA is treated just like any other light weapon. It doesn't get special priviliges because it's a part of you. It still has to obey the fundamental rules.
And I really don't care that you're ignoring the TWF rules and claiming you are right. That's the weakness in your argument...you're ignoring the rules. The rules say you are NOT right. The Sage, much as I respect him, is an Opinion, and one that has been proven wrong. If you want to slam me with the rules that this ridiculous notion of being able to employ no limbs, get full UA, and then full Nat Attacks on top of it is kosher, you're going to have to bring up Errata.
I quote Pathfinder as a demonstration of Designer Intent since, you know, most of the WoTC crew that loves 3.5 has moved over to that venue.
A kick and a Kick Attack are two different things...something you seem to have difficulty comprehending. Monks cannot do Kick Attacks...they can do Unarmed strikes, which might be be visualized as a kick. A Kick Attack would be an attack which can only manifest as a kick...and such things do not exist except as natural weapons, where they are renamed 'claw' or 'hoof' Attacks. There is absolutely no mechanical support ANYWHERE for a UA attack sequence to be named 'Kick Attacks.' You cannot assign UA strikes to a particular limb to avoid the existence of other limbs...which is what you are attempting to do. UA is any/all, not 'I name all my attacks kicks!'.
==Aelryinth
Due to complaints received about this thread, I've closed it. The thread will be reviewed to determine if it should be permanently closed, re-opened, and/or a new thread or threads created in its place.