On Unarmed Strikes (A Discussion)

[Hazren]

I think I was responding when it got split, could someone be so kind as to move that post over here?

[Shadowhunter]

For what it's worth, I'm with Caelic here, on a RAW basis.
It doesn't make sense, I'll grant you that, but why not just take Snap Kick from ToB and be done with it?

[Negative Zero]

The reason I responded by quoting the dictionary is because you were interpreting the word interchangeable to mean something that is at odds with the definition of the word. The word interchangeable contains the word change. When you change something, or when something is interchangeable, you replace one with another. You don't add one to another. You can replace your single fist unarmed strike with a foot unarmed strike, but you can't do both.

And for what I believe to be the third time, I don't care about what is balanced, more fun, or what is actually used for the purposes of this discussion. I would let a Monk TWF with unarmed strikes, but that doesn't bear into the discussion of RAW.

[SixthDeclension]

Since two-weapon fighting necessarily involves off-hand attacks, and since there is no such thing as an off-hand attack with an unarmed strike, it follows that you cannot engage in two-weapon fighting as defined in 3.5 with an unarmed strike.

I believe that clause about no off-hand attacks is referring to things like the effect of 3.0s Ambidexterity and the purpose of strength to damage.

[dman11235]

Actually 6th, it's referring to the fact that you take no additional penalty when attacking with your foot rather than your fist.  It's what the FAQ was clarifying.  With possible crossover there too (from just leaving it), but the FAQ clarified that it was only talking about using your...entire body as one weapon (hey, the FAQ supports MY position, not yours!  Isn't that something...), rather than taking penalties for attacking with different types of limbs.

[Caelic]

Going back to the original source of this debate: the current rules on unarmed strike plus natural weapon are broken, but not THAT broken.  You can make your normal iterative attacks with your primary limb and then make a secondary attack with each natural weapon--using that natural weapon's normal damage.

Still overpowered; still fairly silly; as I said, the whole natural attacks/unarmed attacks/weapon attacks mess is second only to Polymorph in terms of badly-written rules.

[Squirrelloid]

I can look up definitions too.  I have interchangeable items to attack with. I can attack with either hand, or either foot, or either knee or either elbow. Your reading of the rules says that to do so I can only use one of these. This is somewhat of a quantum puzzle at best as the others disappear, are rendered useless or are taken away somehow.

Interchangeable in the context of the sentence in question, to me at least, means the use of different parts of a characters anatomy to accomplish an action. I submit that as written the rules allow for the use of multiple potential actions of weapons to use the two weapon fighting rules. Now you can try and say that hubcaps somehow relate to unarmed strikes but I submit to you that the cat isn't dead till we look in the box. 

As to the one who dissected my posts I've not the time to do your assertions justice by returning the favor. I'll leave it with this - according to RAW, show me where this sentence is by book and page number. "Unarmed strike cannot use two weapon fighting or the two weapon fighting feat."

I've shown page number and book as to how I arrived at my conclusion and we have differed on interpretation. As Wotc haven't published a direct answer to the question at hand this is the best that can be done, interpret RAW. Because we are different people from different backgrounds, we have taken the vague rules that are in front of us and arrived at a different conclusion. In my campaign a monk can use two weapon attack, a character who takes the feats can also do the same. I suspect in your campaign things are different. I respect that, can happily live with that.

As for the purpose of the thread originally, I'm still waiting on a response by Dic to the question I had earlier.

So wait, are you saying a monk could take *multiweapon fighting* because he has... 2 fists, 2 feet, 1 head, 2 knees, 2 elbows, a bodyslam... 10 different weapons?  That's where  your logic is leading.  At what level do each of the monk's fingers become lethal weapons in their own right?

I'm with the 'you can't TWF as a monk with unarmed attacks' - the whole purpose of that section is telling you 'you have no offhand weapon' and therefore can't make an offhand attack.  TWF permits offhand attacks.  You have none.  QED.

[Brainpiercing]

Look, how is it it different to be able to make "off-hand" unarmed strikes or to be able to make MORE attacks with your available multiple appendages and take a penalty for it?
I see it that to make a main-hand unarmed strike you need to use your main hand - monks excluded.

So you could two-weapon fight with your main hand unarmed, and a dagger in your left.
You could fight with the dagger in your main hand and unarmed in your left.

That obviously means that "hands" are capable of both main-hand and off-hand fighting, and each time only using ONE appendage.
Following the logic chain a little further this obviously means you can use both your  main and your off-hand as unarmed - taking the appropriate penalties.
Quoting the SRD 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'm too lazy to look into the PHB, but the SRD gives no indication as to how many unarmed strikes a character gets. Monks excluded unarmed strikes are supposed to be made with hands, I suppose. This is of course interpretation, but it figures since if it counts as a weapon then it can take the Main-hand or the Off-hand slot. So it figures that you always have as many unarmed strikes as you have hands if you take the appropriate penalties for two-weapon fighting or multiweapon fighting. The key issue here being, of course, BAB and the number of attacks you can make.

Now only for Monks is this complicated, since they have the iffy paragraphs about using all appendages and also not having an Off-hand. So monks, by strictest RAW, cannot TWF with unarmed strikes, because they cannot use the Off-hand to make unarmed strikes.

This is, of course, total bullshit, and any DM with a scrap of common sense should simply ignore the bit about not getting Off-hand attacks, as long as they DO them as off-hand attacks, meaning, in the chain of priorities for attacks:

Flurry
Main-hand iteratives,
off-hand iteratives with TWF, ITWF, GTWF, PTWF
Natural weapons at -5 or -2 with Multiattack

For monks now it clearly doesn't matter what appendages they use for either main OR off-hand attacks, as long as they take the appropriate PENALTIES that balance out the ability to do off-hand attacks. Also, any unarmed strike taken as an off-hand attack should also only do 1/2Str, since we are already ignoring the bit about "they get no off-hand".

I wouldn't even count this as a house-rule, it's simply a common sense clarification.

If you were to make a house-ruled errata it should read like this, replacing the blurb about not having an off-hand:

A monk can use any appendage to do unarmed strikes. While using her MAIN iterative attacks or Flurry of Blows a monk always adds her full Str-bonus to her damage rolls for all attacks, no matter which appendage she really used. When doing off-hand attacks in addition to her main iteratives she adds 1/2 her Str bonus to her damage rolls for those attacks.

Of course if you want to re-balance you could just still let her add full Str bonus. Now that I would call a house-rule.

Now as to taking Multiweapon fighting: This feat has a clear prerequisite: Three or more ARMS! That should clear things up. Which also clearly means this works perfectly well for Thri-keen.

[GawainBS]

To be honest, I just go with the inclination that you can have an Unarmed Strike in your mainhand and one in (each of) your offhand (s), so to speak. Then use iteritave attacks, or add two attacks with Flurry of Blows.
If you want to nitpick about it, it's not RAW, but for me clearly RAI.

[dman11235]

Do you guys realize that "off-hand weapon" doesn't mean "hand"?  It is an arbitrary designation for the purposes of TWF (or MWF).  The only place "off-hand" is addressed in in the rules for TWF (and MWF).  It is not defined as the hand with which you are less proficient, but the non-primary attack form that utilizes weapon mechanics.  Otherwise: armor spikes.  Can you not TWF with them, since they aren't in a hand?

Also, don't go down the MWF path with monks.  Since any part of their body deals the damage (yes, it says that in the description) they'll have infinite (well, arbitrarily high) attacks.  Each hair does that damage, after all.

Also...

Now only for Monks is this complicated, since they have the iffy paragraphs about using all appendages and also not having an Off-hand. So monks, by strictest RAW, cannot TWF with unarmed strikes, because they cannot use the Off-hand to make unarmed strikes.

That's NOT what that passage was saying.  It is referring to the fact that a kick is the same as a punch is the same as an elbow is the same as a pelvic thrust.  It's what the FAQ clarified.

Now I'm too lazy to look into the PHB, but the SRD gives no indication as to how many unarmed strikes a character gets.

So...how many do you have?  it doesn't say you have more than one, and yet you obviously have more than 0, so the simplest explanation is that you have one.  This is supported by the fact that every other weapon states whether or not it is a double weapon, and since the body is the weapon, you'd have to have something state that you have more than one.  This is not done.  Therefore: only one unarmed strike.  In addition, the rule is that unless otherwise stated (currently this is stated no where), you need TWO WEAPONS to utilize TWF.  Therefore: you cannot TWF using only unarmed strikes.

[Hazren]

 In context to the sentence the reverence of "off_hand" means that the monk is ambidextrous, not one hand short of TWF.

To say that off-hand only refers to TWF and that the monk since there is no off hand penally can't do it flies in the face of reason.

However I see that short of WoTC coming out with something official there will be those that will see it differently and nothing will change that so I think I'll bow out now as some are taking things posted to absurd extremes that have nothing to do with what was posted and I feel that I'm running in circles.

[Brainpiercing]

So...how many do you have?  it doesn't say you have more than one, and yet you obviously have more than 0, so the simplest explanation is that you have one.  This is supported by the fact that every other weapon states whether or not it is a double weapon, and since the body is the weapon, you'd have to have something state that you have more than one.  This is not done.  Therefore: only one unarmed strike.  In addition, the rule is that unless otherwise stated (currently this is stated no where), you need TWO WEAPONS to utilize TWF.  Therefore: you cannot TWF using only unarmed strikes.

Ok, so I take IUS, then my unarmed strike counts as a weapon. I put one unarmed strike weapon in my main-hand slot, and another in my off-hand slot. Then I have two weapons. What's the problem? I see no RAW argument to deny me my second unarmed strike.

I really don't get why this is even such a big deal, but there were people discussing this for three pages. Amazing.

[dman11235]

How do you have more than one US?  That's the problem.  Where are you getting that second one to put in your off-hand?

[EjoThims]

Gods... Not this again.

Anyone have a link to the in-depth, multi-email conversation I had with Cust Serv about this? I can't dig it up in the archives any more...

For those that don't remember, the only time a straight answer was given was them saying "Unarmed Strikes can be used as both mainhand and offhand attacks in the same round."

I know you remember, Dman. You were in all the threads I posted it to at the time (since there were like 18 different threads about this subject at the time).

What it boils down to is that both ways have support in RaW and in RaI, but the only official and direct response on the topic comes down in favor of being able to TWF/MWF with unarmed strikes.

And Dman... Your 'only one' unarmed strikes logic was shot down ages ago by the double weapon analogy anyway.

 

[Chemus]

And Dman... Your 'only one' unarmed strikes logic was shot down ages ago by the double weapon analogy anyway.

 

Ummm...HUH?

A double weapon, which has specific rules calling out that it is usable as if

[EjoThims]

Ummm...HUH?

A double weapon, which has specific rules calling out that it is usable as if

And you missed the point entirely. One of the arguments made by many against being able to use unarmed strikes as both attack progressions for TWF was the whole 'you only have one unarmed strike' line of reasoning. But that is clearly faulty and no basis for such a ruling, since, like a double weapon, even if it is one weapon, it has multiple points from which to make attacks and could thusly be used with TWF/MWF regardless.

Neither the FAQ nor the RAW supported the contention that you could make more than one unarmed strike per round without having more attacks per round from another source (iterative attacks, other weapons, flurry of blows, etc.).

In fact RaW and FAQ both support that unarmed strikes can be either mainhand or offhand, and neither one supports limiting the potential to use unarmed strikes as both progressions with TWF. It's even listed on the weapon table with a cost (0), meaning that, per RAW, any creature interested could buy, possess, and carry an infinite number of unarmed strikes.

Your unarmed strike has nothing to do with how many hands, feet or heads you have; it is a basic, non-lethal, slam attack.

Right. But the number of attack progressions you have has very much to do with the number of arms you possess, and there is nothing anywhere in the game that prevents you from treating unarmed strikes like any other weapon and using them for each of your attack progressions.

Monks, for example, may gain full Str bonus with any unarmed attack, even when having attacked with another weapon as primary.

Wrong. That clause is a holdover from the 3.0 main/off hand rules and is (and has been interpreted officially) meant to explain that monks can make main-hand attacks with what would normally be their offhand as long as it's part of their main hand attack progression.

This confusion is why having a main/off hand in 3.0 was dropped from the 3.5 TWF rules. There's no more physicality to it, there's just the attack progressions. You can switch which is which from round to round.

But a monk making an offhand attack progression with unarmed strikes suffers all the penalties for doing so.

[Chemus]

<snip>...A double weapon, which has specific rules calling out that it is usable as if fighting two weapons...<snip>

And you missed the point entirely. One of the arguments made by many against being able to use unarmed strikes as both attack progressions for TWF was the whole 'you only have one unarmed strike' line of reasoning. But that is clearly faulty and no basis for such a ruling, since, like a double weapon, even if it is one weapon, it has multiple points from which to make attacks and could thusly be used with TWF/MWF regardless.

I bolded the bit that I think refutes your argument. By the way I read what you're saying, I can attack with the butt of a sword as a separate weapon, if I take the -4 to hit non-lethally. Is that TWF fodder too? Greatsword THF+TWF here I come!

Neither the FAQ nor the RAW supported the contention that you could make more than one unarmed strike per round without having more attacks per round from another source (iterative attacks, other weapons, flurry of blows, etc.).

In fact RaW and FAQ both support that unarmed strikes can be either mainhand or offhand, and neither one supports limiting the potential to use unarmed strikes as both progressions with TWF. It's even listed on the weapon table with a cost (0), meaning that, per RAW, any creature interested could buy, possess, and carry an infinite number of unarmed strikes.

So, unless the rules say we can't do a thing, it's permissible? That's what RAW means?

<snip>...the number of attack progressions you have has very much to do with the number of arms you possess, and there is nothing anywhere in the game that prevents you from treating unarmed strikes like any other weapon and using them for each of your attack progressions.

Are you talking about Multi-Weapon fighting, or iterative attacks? I know that you can use any weapon you're wielding for iterative attacks at no additional penalty.

Unarmed strike's ability to be from any part of your body just means that even if you're carrying a shield and a potion in your hands, and your feet are glued to the floor, you get to headbutt anyone within 5' of you. Once per attack you have that round. TWF doesn't allow you to attack again with your pelvic thrust, because unarmed strike is not each of those, it's all of them in one.

Monks, for example, may gain full Str bonus with any unarmed attack, even when having attacked with another weapon as primary.

Wrong. That clause is a holdover from the 3.0 main/off hand rules and is (and has been interpreted officially) meant to explain that monks can make main-hand attacks with what would normally be their offhand as long as it's part of their main hand attack progression.

This confusion is why having a main/off hand in 3.0 was dropped from the 3.5 TWF rules. There's no more physicality to it, there's just the attack progressions. You can switch which is which from round to round.

But a monk making an offhand attack progression with unarmed strikes suffers all the penalties for doing so.

Ok, I misinterpreted that bit, considering the FAQ again. I see now that it's meant to show, as you say, that as long as the US is the primary attack, the monk gets full Str bonus, no matter what body part he hits with.

Also, re-reading the FAQ, I'm still convinced that US is one weapon. You may use it as a primary attack, or offhand attack for TWF, but I see nothing that says that it is usable for both simultaneously.

However, the CustServ ruling is sensible, and I will probably use it. CustServ isn't quite RAW IMO, though, more like RAI, or RAR (Rules As Ruled)

Good Arguments!

[EjoThims]

I bolded the bit that I think refutes your argument. By the way I read what you're saying, I can attack with the butt of a sword as a separate weapon, if I take the -4 to hit non-lethally. Is that TWF fodder too? Greatsword THF+TWF here I come!

It would be incredibly ineffective, but if that's what you wanna do, more power to ya. Besides, I'm not trying to make a claim that Uanrmed Strikes are specifically double weapons, just that since they are otherwise uncategorized, you can either go by the RaW that you can buy, own, possess, and use multiple unarmed strikes, or you can go by the RaInterpretted. Some would think that this lets them limit it, but if you're interpreting anyway, the most logical connection is that of your body serving the same purpose as a double weapon (one weapon with many points of attack). Both of these ideals allow for TWF, which was my point to Dman.

So, unless the rules say we can't do a thing, it's permissible? That's what RAW means?

If something is given in the rules, then it can be used without limits unless otherwise defined. Unarmed strikes (and the ability to buy, own, possess, and use multiples) are given in the RaW. TWF is given in the RAW. Nothing is given to limit their interaction, so there are no limits to their interaction.

It's like this:

RaW says we can do A when we X.

RaW says we can do B when we X.

So unless the RaW specifically says we can't do A and B at once when X, where's the idea that we can't come from?

Are you talking about Multi-Weapon fighting, or iterative attacks? I know that you can use any weapon you're wielding for iterative attacks at no additional penalty.

I mean MWF. When you fight with TWF you have two attack progressions. Two sets of iterative attacks. When you fight with MWF, it is limited to the number of hands you have (virtual or real). A Thri-keen has 4 attack progressions with full MWF. A Thri-keen with a mouthpick weapon has 5 attack progressions, and one must be with the mouthpick weapon. For both only one is the main-hand, all others are the off-hands. A Thri-keen can make 4 sets of unarmed strikes.

Unarmed strike's ability to be from any part of your body just means that even if you're carrying a shield and a potion in your hands, and your feet are glued to the floor, you get to headbutt anyone within 5' of you. Once per attack you have that round. TWF doesn't allow you to attack again with your pelvic thrust, because unarmed strike is not each of those, it's all of them in one.

You are both right and wrong. The unarmed strike's ability to be from any part of the body has no bearing on the ability to make multiple attack progressions. It's simply just irrelevant to the discussion. That's my point; even if you were limited to just using fists, it wouldn't change how it interacts with TWF.

Ok, I misinterpreted that bit, considering the FAQ again. I see now that it's meant to show, as you say, that as long as the US is the primary attack, the monk gets full Str bonus, no matter what body part he hits with.

Also, re-reading the FAQ, I'm still convinced that US is one weapon. You may use it as a primary attack, or offhand attack for TWF, but I see nothing that says that it is usable for both simultaneously.

There's also nothing saying the two can't interact, and we know we can use them separately.

Remember, without a basis for limits, "It doesn't say you can" is just as bad an argument as "It doesn't say you can't."

However, the CustServ ruling is sensible, and I will probably use it. CustServ isn't quite RAW IMO, though, more like RAI, or RAR (Rules As Ruled)

Good Arguments!

Like I said before, I've had this discussion, many, many times. I've actually got Skill Mastery for Craft (Debates About Monks and TWF). 

[dman11235]

Ejo...since when can you buy multiple USs?

How's this for limits?  Your body is one object.  Since the precedent is that double weapons specifically states that they can be used as such (don't believe me?  Go read one), your body is not a double weapon.  Therefore: one weapon.  Also, TWF specifically needs more than one weapon to function.  This is evident that your off-hand cannot also be your on-hand, and since you need a weapon to fill a "hand" in order to TWF: you need two weapons.  So, with USs, you have one weapon, and in order to TWF you need two weapons.  It would have to be an exception to the rule to allow a single weapon to be used for TWF, and since this is not stated, you cannot TWF using only unarmed strikes.

Also, you're logic is flawed here:

RaW says we can do A when we X.

RaW says we can do B when we X.

So unless the RaW specifically says we can't do A and B at once when X, where's the idea that we can't come from?

If X is TWF, and A is wield a short sword in on-hand, and B is wielding the same short sword in off-hand (only changing the one variable), your logic says that I can TWF now using the short sword.  This is false.

I mean MWF. When you fight with TWF you have two attack progressions. Two sets of iterative attacks. When you fight with MWF, it is limited to the number of hands you have (virtual or real). A Thri-keen has 4 attack progressions with full MWF. A Thri-keen with a mouthpick weapon has 5 attack progressions, and one must be with the mouthpick weapon. For both only one is the main-hand, all others are the off-hands. A Thri-keen can make 4 sets of unarmed strikes.

And your reason for stating this is......?  Where does it say that MWF follows the number of hands you have for the purposes of how many attacks you can make?  You are making up rules to cover your arguments.

There's also nothing saying the two can't interact, and we know we can use them separately.

Remember, without a basis for limits, "It doesn't say you can" is just as bad an argument as "It doesn't say you can't."

Then stop using the argument that "it doesn't say I can't".  Just because it doesn't say that the two cannot interact doesn't mean that they do.  This argument is invalid.

Like I said before, I've had this discussion, many, many times. I've actually got Skill Mastery for Craft (Debates About Monks and TWF).

As do I, but unlike you mine is the more general "Craft (debates about monks)", which also covers FoB, TWF, and USs.

[Chemus]

My point was that number of hands has nothing to do with number of unarmed strikes, RAW. The CustServ ruling notwithstanding.

wow...I shouldn't wander off while posting, I'm likely to get ninja'd....we need a ninja smiley. Like this thing I just made, but with alpha blending stuff or sumthin.