Author Topic: On Unarmed Strikes (A Discussion)  (Read 22113 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

EjoThims

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1945
  • The Ferret
    • Email
Re: On Unarmed Strikes (A Discussion)
« Reply #120 on: May 16, 2009, 04:22:50 AM »
punches, kicks, and head butts come from individual parts of the body.

Right, but it's the punch itself, not the fist it's made with, that is an unarmed strike by the rules.

nothing states that there's any kind of limit on the number of unarmed attacks you can make in a round, except for the hard limit of your BAB.

And there is also no limit stated on the number of unarmed strikes you can posses.

your main hand is still your main hand, and the other hand(s) are still off hand(s).

Except that which is which no longer matters and can be changed, where as in 3.0, they were set and unchangeable, hence the need for the Ambidexterity feat.

Quote
I say it is outdated because it is a copy/paste of the 3.0 ability text...
No it's not.

My mistake. Someone put my spare copy of my 3.5 PHB in with my 3.0 books. It actually took three times rechecking what I thought was my 3.0 version before I caught the mistake.  :embarrassed :blush

Strangely enough, the 3.0 PHB is actually far more explicit, including a direct reference to interaction with TWF.

This also causes the 3.5 version to make less sense, as there is absolutely no need for that text under the 3.5 rules unless their intent was to call out interaction with TWF, which they entirely did not do.  ???


2) If a monk is using a non-monkish weapon in her off hand, she ... cannot flurry at the same time.

That is already known, and it covers the more specific case as well.

I don't know about that... I think most people would regard that as "fighting with two weapons".

Right, but "fighting with two weapons" is not how the rules define "two weapon fighting" despite apparent similarities in form and name.


Eh... that's a pretty fine interpretation of the rules.

It's the most literal interpretation. The rule says a specific thing, so the rule applies when that thing happens.


I'm lost. Can you explain that a bit?

Specific rules override general rules in cases of contradiction.

We can either determine that the Monk entry is the one exception that assumes TWF without mentioning that it does, making them a more specific example, or we can determine that the TWF rules are the more specific and override the rules presented by Monks, meaning that Monks' off-hand unarmed strikes would still only receive half strength bonuses (per the TWF rules).

I believe that assuming an unstated assumption is entirely unreasonable and that we should determine TWF to be the more specific ruleset.

Solo

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2684
  • Solo the Sorcelator, at your service
Re: On Unarmed Strikes (A Discussion)
« Reply #121 on: May 16, 2009, 07:41:49 AM »
Read the FAQ. You can TWF with unarmed strikes. MWF is the TWF for creatures with multiple arms.

Next you'll be saying that a Ranger can dual wield his dual wield...

"I am the Black Mage! I cast the spells that makes the peoples fall down!"

The Legend RPG, which I worked on and encourage you to read.

EjoThims

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1945
  • The Ferret
    • Email
Re: On Unarmed Strikes (A Discussion)
« Reply #122 on: May 16, 2009, 08:07:32 AM »
Next you'll be saying that a Ranger can dual wield his dual wield...

No silly. Because Dual Wield is not a weapon.

BowenSilverclaw

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 5337
  • Walking that fine line between genius and insanity
    • Email
Re: On Unarmed Strikes (A Discussion)
« Reply #123 on: May 16, 2009, 08:10:35 AM »
Next you'll be saying that a Ranger can dual wield his dual wield...

No silly. Because Dual Wield is not a weapon.
Just dual wield a pair of Thri-Kreen with MWF and IUS already :P

"Weakness? Come test thy mettle against me, hairless ape, and we shall know who is weak!"

Quote from: J0lt
You caught a fish.  It was awesome.   :lol

EjoThims

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1945
  • The Ferret
    • Email
Re: On Unarmed Strikes (A Discussion)
« Reply #124 on: May 16, 2009, 08:19:17 AM »
Just dual wield a pair of Thri-Kreen with MWF and IUS already :P

Thri-Keen are also not statted anywhere as weapons. You'd have to use improvised weapon rules, and their damage would then be capped.

Solo

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2684
  • Solo the Sorcelator, at your service
Re: On Unarmed Strikes (A Discussion)
« Reply #125 on: May 16, 2009, 09:09:02 PM »
Next you'll be saying that a Ranger can dual wield his dual wield...

No silly. Because Dual Wield is not a weapon.
I have some pretty convincing evidence to the contrary

"I am the Black Mage! I cast the spells that makes the peoples fall down!"

The Legend RPG, which I worked on and encourage you to read.

Optimator

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 495
  • Made Man
Re: On Unarmed Strikes (A Discussion)
« Reply #126 on: May 16, 2009, 10:02:50 PM »
I am firmly in the "no TWF with US" camp. 

A quick question: Let's say a character is holding two knives and has a BAB of 14.  He can make three attacks.  Can't he attack with the knife in his left hand once, the knife in his right hand once, and then on his third attack use his left knife again, and this wouldn't trigger the minuses from dual-wielding?  If I am mistaken or this has been brought up, please forgive me and ignore this post. 

If I am correct, would this example be similar to a monk who punches someone, knees someone, then headbutts someone?  It doesn't mean the monk just dual-wielded or multi-weapon fought.  Furthermore, isn't a monk's flurry of blows supposed to represent fast martial-arts ass-beating?  Seems to me like a replacement due to the fact that you can't dual-wield the same weapon (a body).   

EjoThims

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1945
  • The Ferret
    • Email
Re: On Unarmed Strikes (A Discussion)
« Reply #127 on: May 17, 2009, 03:20:04 AM »
A quick question: Let's say a character is holding two knives and has a BAB of 14.  He can make three attacks.  Can't he attack with the knife in his left hand once, the knife in his right hand once, and then on his third attack use his left knife again, and this wouldn't trigger the minuses from dual-wielding?

This is correct.

But he can still choose to use TWF and a number of extra attacks (depending on feats).

If I am correct, would this example be similar to a monk who punches someone, knees someone, then headbutts someone?  It doesn't mean the monk just dual-wielded or multi-weapon fought.

Indeed. But as above, he still has the option to incur those TWF penalties and gain extra attacks as a result.

you can't dual-wield the same weapon (a body).

A body is not a weapon. An unarmed strike is, but an unarmed strike is not the same thing as your body. Nor is it the same thing as any particular part of your body.

Kerrick

  • Domesticated Capuchin Monkey
  • **
  • Posts: 116
    • Project Phoenix wiki
Re: On Unarmed Strikes (A Discussion)
« Reply #128 on: May 17, 2009, 04:11:35 AM »
Right, but it's the punch itself, not the fist it's made with, that is an unarmed strike by the rules.
Ah, now I see where you're getting the "no limit on the number of unarmed strikes you can have" thing.

Quote
Except that which is which no longer matters and can be changed, where as in 3.0, they were set and unchangeable, hence the need for the Ambidexterity feat.
You're right, but I don't really agree with it (the ruling, I mean). I mean, I can see WHY they did it (to eliminate the need for a largely useless feat), but still. *shrug*

Quote
My mistake. Someone put my spare copy of my 3.5 PHB in with my 3.0 books. It actually took three times rechecking what I thought was my 3.0 version before I caught the mistake.  :embarrassed :blush
:lol

Quote
Strangely enough, the 3.0 PHB is actually far more explicit, including a direct reference to interaction with TWF.

This also causes the 3.5 version to make less sense, as there is absolutely no need for that text under the 3.5 rules unless their intent was to call out interaction with TWF, which they entirely did not do.  ???
I know. If I had my druthers (and, in fact, I do, since I'm making a new set of rules), I'd go with this version simply because it IS more explicit.

Quote
Right, but "fighting with two weapons" is not how the rules define "two weapon fighting" despite apparent similarities in form and name.
Mm... it's close.

Quote
It's the most literal interpretation. The rule says a specific thing, so the rule applies when that thing happens.
It also says "you can fight with a weapon in each hand". If you want to be that literal, then you can't do what you're suggesting above without the TWF feat.

Quote
Specific rules override general rules in cases of contradiction.
With you so far.

Quote
We can either determine that the Monk entry is the one exception that assumes TWF without mentioning that it does, making them a more specific example
Assumes TWF for what?

Quote
...or we can determine that the TWF rules are the more specific and override the rules presented by Monks, meaning that Monks' off-hand unarmed strikes would still only receive half strength bonuses (per the TWF rules).
We already know that all unarmed strikes gain the full Strength bonus, so this can't be the case.

Quote
Thri-Keen are also not statted anywhere as weapons. You'd have to use improvised weapon rules, and their damage would then be capped.
EWP: Humanoid. :P And where does it say that improvised weapon damage is capped?
Project Phoenix. 4E the way it should have been done.

EjoThims

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1945
  • The Ferret
    • Email
Re: On Unarmed Strikes (A Discussion)
« Reply #129 on: May 17, 2009, 08:44:19 PM »
Mm... it's close.

So are dogs and wolves, but they have different rules. ;)

It also says "you can fight with a weapon in each hand". If you want to be that literal, then you can't do what you're suggesting above without the TWF feat.

That's part of the flavor text of the feat, not he mechanics described under "Benefit." We've already discussed how the section "Two-Weapon Fighting" makes it explicitly clear that you don't need the feat to begin gaining extra attacks.

Quote
Specific rules override general rules in cases of contradiction.
With you so far.

Assumes TWF for what?

For being more specific. If it assumes in the Unarmed Strikes entry of the Monk that you are using TWF (which it never states and goes counter to all other examples), then it can be seen as the more specific rule.

Otherwise, the rules for off-hands presented under the TWF rules are more specific, and thus overrides the rules presented in the Monk entry, making Monks only gain half their Str bonus to off-hand unarmed strikes.

I believe that, when using TWF, seeing the TWF rules as more specific than an entry that never mentions TWF is vastly more reasonable. This is why I believe that it is incorrect that Monks gain full Str bonus on off-hand unarmed strikes.

Also, Improvised Weapon rules are given in Complete Warrior, and there damage is based on their weight.

Kerrick

  • Domesticated Capuchin Monkey
  • **
  • Posts: 116
    • Project Phoenix wiki
Re: On Unarmed Strikes (A Discussion)
« Reply #130 on: May 19, 2009, 12:02:39 AM »
Quote
That's part of the flavor text of the feat, not he mechanics described under "Benefit." We've already discussed how the section "Two-Weapon Fighting" makes it explicitly clear that you don't need the feat to begin gaining extra attacks.
Flavor text contradicting mechanics? Never!  :p

But seriously... I was thinking about this earlier, and I finally - finally - see what you're saying. 3.5 assumes that all PCs are ambidextrous, absurd as it may be (because only a small fraction of the population is actually ambidextrous, but it's easier to assume such for the sake of gameplay). Thus, they can fight with a weapon in either hand. The TWF feat grants extra attacks over and above what you gain from your BAB. Since there's no rule that states "all attacks MUST be made with the main hand", you could reasonably (assuming the DM allows it) make attacks with both hands in a round. I would still apply a penalty for doing so, though; maybe -2.

Quote
For being more specific. If it assumes in the Unarmed Strikes entry of the Monk that you are using TWF (which it never states and goes counter to all other examples), then it can be seen as the more specific rule.

Otherwise, the rules for off-hands presented under the TWF rules are more specific, and thus overrides the rules presented in the Monk entry, making Monks only gain half their Str bonus to off-hand unarmed strikes.

I believe that, when using TWF, seeing the TWF rules as more specific than an entry that never mentions TWF is vastly more reasonable. This is why I believe that it is incorrect that Monks gain full Str bonus on off-hand unarmed strikes.
Ah, I see what you're saying.

Quote
Also, Improvised Weapon rules are given in Complete Warrior, and there damage is based on their weight.
That's handy - the rule, I mean. :) I only own the core books and Arms & Equipment Guide (which I just bought for half-price).
Project Phoenix. 4E the way it should have been done.

EjoThims

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1945
  • The Ferret
    • Email
Re: On Unarmed Strikes (A Discussion)
« Reply #131 on: May 19, 2009, 03:45:20 AM »
Flavor text contradicting mechanics? Never!

One of the reasons I (and many others) make such great pains to show the difference between the two, for even when the mechanics are intended to be based off the flavor, they really have no direct correlation. Any mechanical entity can be bent to any desired flavor. :D

But seriously... I was thinking about this earlier, and I finally - finally - see what you're saying.

You sum it up very nicely, and a houserule to still apply a penalty is by no means unreasonable. It actually is kind of absurd, logically, that it's possible as a baseline, but from a mechanics point of view (once you grasp such an unintuitive concept) it really helps streamline any kind of handedness situation - by simply ignoring their potential to be a problem.

That's handy

That's either the most humorous unintentional pun in the thread, or one of the worst intentional ones I've seen in a while. ;)

I only own the core books and Arms & Equipment Guide (which I just bought for half-price).

Sadly they introduce a lot of handy side rules in non-OGL material, including everything in the RC. This is why I refuse to ever even illegally acquire the RC, they intentionally released a revision and clarification of their most confusing basic OGL rules without making it OGL.  :fo

EjoThims

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1945
  • The Ferret
    • Email
Re: On Unarmed Strikes (A Discussion)
« Reply #132 on: October 09, 2009, 12:34:12 AM »
Firstly bump to get this debate out of the FAQ thread.

Secondly, I sadl broke my promise:
This is why I refuse to ever even illegally acquire the RC

I was able to buy it second hand on amazon for like 6 dollars, so I did.