PDA

View Full Version : Does two-weapon fighting work with fists?



Stormthorn
2009-06-09, 11:20 AM
It says that for monks fists are manufactured weapons, so it seems to me two-weapon fighting and weapon focus would apply.

So it seems to me that if we make a world in which you need a BaB of X to take fighter feats (rather than be a fighter level X) you could end up with a level 20 monk that could make a full round attack while hasted like this:

Weapon Focus and Improved Weapon Focus in fists, Two Weapon fighting + its upgraded forms + Haste + Flurry

+15/+15/+15/+15/+10/+5/+0/-3/-8

Telonius
2009-06-09, 11:27 AM
This (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a)should cover it.


Can a monk fight with two weapons? Can she combine
a two-weapon attack with a flurry of blows? What are her
penalties on attack rolls?
A monk can fight with two weapons just like any other
character, but she must accept the normal penalties on her
attack rolls to do so. She can use an unarmed strike as an offhand
weapon. She can even combine two-weapon fighting with
a flurry of blows to gain an extra attack with her off hand (but
remember that she can use only unarmed strikes or special
monk weapons as part of the flurry). The penalties for twoweapon
fighting stack with the penalties for flurry of blows.
For example, at 6th level, the monk Ember can normally
make one attack per round at a +4 bonus. When using flurry of
blows, she can make two attacks (using unarmed strikes or any
special monk weapons she holds), each at a +3 bonus. If she
wants to make an extra attack with her off hand, she has to
accept a –4 penalty on her primary hand attacks and a –8
penalty on her off-hand attacks (assuming she wields a light
weapon in her off hand).
If Ember has Two-Weapon Fighting, she has to accept only
a –2 penalty on all attacks to make an extra attack with her off
hand. Thus, when wielding a light weapon in her off hand
during a flurry of blows, she can make a total of three attacks,
each at a total bonus of +1. At least one of these attacks has to
be with her off-hand weapon.
A 20th-level monk with Greater Two-Weapon Fighting can
make eight attacks per round during a flurry of blows.
Assuming she wields a light weapon in her off hand, her three
off-hand weapon attacks are at +13/+8/+3, and she has five
attacks (at +13/+13/+13/+8/+3) with unarmed strikes or any
weapons she carries in her primary hand. If the same monk also
has Rapid Shot and throws at least one shuriken as part of her
flurry of blows (since Rapid Shot can be used only with ranged
attacks), she can throw one additional shuriken with her
primary hand, but all of her attacks (even melee attacks) suffer
a –2 penalty. Thus, her full attack array looks like this:
+11/+11/+11/+11/+6/+1 primary hand (two must be with
shuriken) and +11/+6/+1 off hand.

So yes, if you allowed Monks to take Greater Weapon Focus, you could have them attacking in the manner you described, almost.

Eldariel
2009-06-09, 11:28 AM
It's often debated, but I'd personally allow TWF with unarmed strikes. Rules as written don't go into in depth on this, CustServ supports this IIRC but their ruling are so erratic it means nothing, while the opposition generally brings up the "Monk is already using his whole body on Unarmed Strikes (as per ability description), there's nothing left to TWF with."

Monk can TWF with a weapon and unarmed strike as the off-hand weapon for sure, but using unarmed strike as both weapons is debated. Also, your attacks should be:
+15/+15/+15/+15/+15/+10/+10/+5/+5 (remember Greater Flurry + TWF + Haste for 5 attacks at full BAB)

I don't get where you get the -3 and -8 from. Improved and Greater TWF simply add additional attacks at -5 BAB and -10 BAB, they don't reduce attack bonuses for other attacks.

If you were Monk 16/Fighter 4 with BAB 16, you'd have attacks:
+16/+16/+16/+16/+16/+11/+11/+6/+6/+1


EDIT: Scr00 the ninjaz

Telonius
2009-06-09, 11:37 AM
Yep. Standard would be +15/15/15/10/5. Greater TWF to 13/13/13/13/8/8/3/3. Add 2 from weapon focus, that sets it to 15/15/15/15/10/10/5/5. Add in a Haste, and that makes it 16/16/16/16/16/11/11/6/6 (remember to add in that +1 bonus to attack rolls).

Add in Thri-keen, and make a reflex save vs. flying rulebook.

Yuki Akuma
2009-06-09, 11:39 AM
The official stance of the rules is a unanimous "maybe".

Personally I'd allow it.

Yora
2009-06-09, 11:55 AM
Me, too.

Just to show further support of this view.

Matthew
2009-06-09, 12:15 PM
I would allow it, and I will also add that our resident Beholder Lord also takes the view that the rules as written endorse that interpretation. The confusion arises in some of the editing between 3.0 and 3.5, if I recall correctly. There was a good thread about this a while back where somebody vehemently defended the stance that it was impossible to be a two fisted fighter.

potatocubed
2009-06-09, 12:20 PM
I would say yes on the grounds that an unarmed strike is a weapon, you can TWF with weapons, therefore you can TWF with unarmed strikes. QED.

So here's a further thought: as I remember from the PHB, monks are described as making unarmed strikes with any part of their body - fists, feet, knees, elbows, etc.

That said, can a human monk take multiweapon fighting or some variant designed for creatures with multiple limbs, on the grounds that he has at least five fighting appendages?

Mark Hall
2009-06-09, 12:26 PM
I'm not sure about multiweapon fighting (though one could make a good argument for it, there's an equally good argument against it), but I would have no problem with a TWF Monk who didn't use a weapon in his routine.

Curmudgeon
2009-06-09, 12:33 PM
It says that for monks fists are manufactured weapons, so it seems to me two-weapon fighting and weapon focus would apply. Fists? The rules say no such thing.
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.
Unarmed Attacks

Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon The thing is, either Monks have many weapons (fists, feet, head, elbows, knees, hips, and so on), or they have just one weapon: their unarmed strike. Do note the singular in the Monk class description: "a manufactured weapon". So two-weapon fighting is problematic from a rules text perspective.

From a mechanical perspective, there's nothing wrong with it. You take the feat, reap the benefit: one extra attack, and pay the penalty: -2 to all attacks. All perfectly reasonable.

Using fists (which come two per Monk, usually) in your question is an inaccurate statement of the issue, in an attempt at arriving at the answer you want regarding two-weapon fighting. Not so reasonable, or honest. :smallfrown:

wadledo
2009-06-09, 12:40 PM
I'm not sure about multiweapon fighting (though one could make a good argument for it, there's an equally good argument against it), but I would have no problem with a TWF Monk who didn't use a weapon in his routine.

Hehe.:smallamused:
One of my favorite characters was an Ethereal Filcher Monk//Unarmed Swordsage named Black.
At 12th level he could make 27 attacks per round, each at 2d8+14+5d6+1d6+1d6.
At 18th, he could have made 49 attacks per round, and do 1 con/str damage with each hit.

Demons_eye
2009-06-09, 12:45 PM
Take City Bralwer variant for the Barbarian for it. First level get its.

Telonius
2009-06-09, 01:21 PM
I would say yes on the grounds that an unarmed strike is a weapon, you can TWF with weapons, therefore you can TWF with unarmed strikes. QED.

So here's a further thought: as I remember from the PHB, monks are described as making unarmed strikes with any part of their body - fists, feet, knees, elbows, etc.

That said, can a human monk take multiweapon fighting or some variant designed for creatures with multiple limbs, on the grounds that he has at least five fighting appendages?

No. Multiweapon Fighting requires three or more hands - specifically hands, not limbs/appendages.

Multiattack, however, requires three or more natural attacks. I can see how you might make an argument about that one - a Monk can, after all, make attacks with three separate natural weapons (punch/kick/elbow). But - leaving aside flurry for the moment - each iterative attack goes down by 5, making it work more like a sword than like a standard claw/claw/bite where secondary attacks only go down by 5 total. That suggests to me that Monk, as such, isn't intended to work with multiattack. (It might work if the particular Monk character gains additional natural attacks independent of Monk - Shifter, grafts, dragonwrought kobold feats, etc).

EDIT: Think of it this way: just because a fighter owns five different swords, doesn't mean he can take Multiweapon Fighting. Just because a Monk has five (plus) natural attacks, doesn't mean he can take Multiattack. They have to be able to use them in a particular way during the combat round.

Stormthorn
2009-06-09, 03:48 PM
I don't get where you get the -3 and -8 from. Improved and Greater TWF simply add additional attacks at -5 BAB and -10 BAB, they don't reduce attack bonuses for other attacks.

Ok, so those attacks are to -10 (-10 for third attack -2 for two weapons +2 for weapon focus') and -5 (-5-2+2) to the +15 (-2+2) that is the monks base?


One of my favorite characters was an Ethereal Filcher Monk//Unarmed Swordsage named Black.

Except that Ethereal Filtchers dont advance by class level or have language skills or have level adjustments. Probably to avoid abuse coming from their many limbs, not that they attack with them. All they get is a single bite attack.


Using fists (which come two per Monk, usually) in your question is an inaccurate statement of the issue, in an attempt at arriving at the answer you want regarding two-weapon fighting. Not so reasonable, or honest.
No its not. Monks have two fists. Fists are weapons. Two-weapon fighting is for two weapons.
The fact that you could consider them a pair of weapons or one weapon isnt that odd if you consider the concept of double weapons which are wielded the same way.
If the problem is with the word fists specificly then you need to lighten up. I was just trying to avoid complication by dragging all sorts of extra limbs that are treated the exact same into the equation. I could just have readily asked if my monk could take the feat using a headbutt and his right knee with his weapon focus being "Unarmed".

BTW, i dont have a monk and never have. This is hypothetical.

Flickerdart
2009-06-09, 03:55 PM
Except that Ethereal Filtchers dont advance by class level or have language skills or have level adjustments.
They have RHD, and their LA can be derived by numerous methods.

Stormthorn
2009-06-09, 04:03 PM
Hmm...then even better than a Filcher would be a Rast Monk.

Rasts have 10-15 limbs apiece and can blood drain and fly.
They do have less racial HD than the Filcher though.

Curmudgeon
2009-06-09, 04:40 PM
Monks have two fists. Usually, yes.
Fists are weapons. In D&D? No.
Unarmed Attacks

Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon All of these things (punches, kicks, head butts) are merely ways of striking with your unarmed attack. You'll note that they refer to "punches" rather than fists, and "kicks" rather than feet, because fists and feet aren't D&D weapons.

Two-weapon fighting is for two weapons.
The fact that you could consider them a pair of weapons or one weapon isnt that odd if you consider the concept of double weapons which are wielded the same way. While perhaps you could consider Monk fists "a pair of weapons" or "one weapon", the rules do not. The rules consider Monk fists merely a part of a single weapon -- their unarmed attack -- and thus not eligible for two-weapon fighting any more than the point and edge of a dagger are.

Claudius Maximus
2009-06-09, 04:49 PM
If you want to get really crazy, how about an Odopi monk? The thing is literally all arms.

GreatWyrmGold
2009-06-09, 05:15 PM
Hehe.:smallamused:
One of my favorite characters was an Ethereal Filcher Monk//Unarmed Swordsage named Black.
At 12th level he could make 27 attacks per round, each at 2d8+14+5d6+1d6+1d6.
At 18th, he could have made 49 attacks per round, and do 1 con/str damage with each hit.

Mind explaining how? Seems like a lot to me...

Matthew
2009-06-09, 06:12 PM
While perhaps you could consider Monk fists "a pair of weapons" or "one weapon", the rules do not. The rules consider Monk fists merely a part of a single weapon -- their unarmed attack -- and thus not eligible for two-weapon fighting any more than the point and edge of a dagger are.

Actually, the rules consider an unarmed strike a light weapon for the purposes of striking with the off hand. If an unarmed attack can specifically be made with the off hand and making an off hand attack requires a character to wield a weapon in his off hand (which it does), then it follows that an unarmed attack is wielded. If an unarmed attack is wielded, then the question is "where is it?" The bottom line is that the rules as written do not specifically address the possibility of two fisted fighting.

Indeed, more confusingly, they distinguish between Unarmed Attacks and Unarmed Strikes:



Unarmed Attack: A melee attack made with no weapon in hand.

Unarmed Strike: A successful blow, typically dealing nonlethal damage, from a character attacking without weapons. A monk can deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike, but others deal nonlethal damage.

Unarmed Strikes are wielded, that much is clear from feats such as Two Weapon Defence, even if the glossary contradicts that by its definition. The question is only what constitutes an unarmed strike? The definition that proponents of the "no two weapon fighting" camp use is "it is a person's body", but there is nothing in the rule book to that effect.

Curmudgeon
2009-06-09, 06:24 PM
Actually, the rules consider an unarmed strike a light weapon for the purposes of striking with the off hand. If an unarmed attack can specifically be made with the off hand and making an off hand attack requires a character to wield a weapon in his off hand (which it does), then it follows that an unarmed attack is wielded. Perhaps, but not by Monks:
There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. Since you need an off-hand attack for two-weapon fighting, a Monk can't qualify.

Matthew
2009-06-09, 06:39 PM
Perhaps, but not by Monks: Since you need an off-hand attack for two-weapon fighting, a Monk can't qualify.

Not quite. You need an "off hand" for two weapon fighting, and monks do have those. An off hand attack is what happens as a result of wielding a weapon in your off hand. Monks do have an off hand, but 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."

One literal reading of the text, therefore, is that they can qualify for two weapon fighting, but gain no benefit from it. The other reading, which seems to me the one intended, is that their off hand attack would not be subject to off hand strength penalties. That would seem to be the view supported by the FAQ, since the former interpretation would mean that no off hand attacks could be made if an unarmed strike was employed, regardless of whether the off hand held a weapon or not.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-06-09, 06:54 PM
One literal reading of the text, therefore, is that they can qualify for two weapon fighting, but gain no benefit from it. The other reading, which seems to me the one intended, is that their off hand attack would not be subject to off hand strength penalties. That would seem to be the view supported by the FAQ, since the former interpretation would mean that no off hand attacks could be made if an unarmed strike was employed, regardless of whether the off hand held a weapon or not.I subscribe to the former as a result of the (IMHO) RAI. The problem is one brought up earlier. A Monk, in order to get his full BAB+Flurry unarmed, strikes with both hands, both feet, headbutts, bites on occasion, and tail sweeps if he can. That(IMHO) is designed to replicate TWF, and requires the entire body. His off-hand is already employed. What's left to strike with?

Matthew
2009-06-09, 07:37 PM
I subscribe to the former as a result of the (IMHO) RAI. The problem is one brought up earlier. A Monk, in order to get his full BAB+Flurry unarmed, strikes with both hands, both feet, headbutts, bites on occasion, and tail sweeps if he can. That(IMHO) is designed to replicate TWF, and requires the entire body. His off-hand is already employed. What's left to strike with?

Technically, the monk could do all that with his hands full or with one hand, so it cannot be a matter of what is left to strike with but a result of speed of action. I do understand what you are saying, however. The fact is, the rules as intended made a lot more sense in 3.0 when two weapon fighting was harder to come by and a good deal more powerful. It is purely an editing issue in 3.5, and I strongly doubt whether the consequences of the changes were given more than a cursory examination.

Coidzor
2009-06-09, 07:45 PM
I subscribe to the former as a result of the (IMHO) RAI. The problem is one brought up earlier. A Monk, in order to get his full BAB+Flurry unarmed, strikes with both hands, both feet, headbutts, bites on occasion, and tail sweeps if he can. That(IMHO) is designed to replicate TWF, and requires the entire body. His off-hand is already employed. What's left to strike with?

Where does it say that the monk is using the entire body in the attack routine exactly? :smallconfused: I can see it argued that a flurry would have to make use of at least both hands realistically, but I have encountered nothing in the rules or mechanics that states a monk can't flurry with only her right fist or only her headbutt.

Rather, where are you getting this Implied bit from?

KillianHawkeye
2009-06-09, 07:48 PM
A Monk, in order to get his full BAB+Flurry unarmed, strikes with both hands, both feet, headbutts, bites on occasion, and tail sweeps if he can.

You just made this up. There is no such requirement or even an assumption to this affect anywhere in the book. :smallannoyed:

Each player is free to describe their unarmed attacks as they wish.

Curmudgeon
2009-06-09, 09:36 PM
Each player is free to describe their unarmed attacks as they wish. Yes, indeed. Personally, I like to describe Monks as making all their trip attempts with head butts. :smallbiggrin:

Mark Hall
2009-06-09, 10:19 PM
Yes, indeed. Personally, I like to describe Monks as making all their trip attempts with head butts. :smallbiggrin:

In our Pathfinder game, our paladin beat a hobgoblin unconscious with head butts.

Stormthorn
2009-06-09, 11:15 PM
While perhaps you could consider Monk fists "a pair of weapons" or "one weapon", the rules do not. The rules consider Monk fists merely a part of a single weapon -- their unarmed attack -- and thus not eligible for two-weapon fighting any more than the point and edge of a dagger are.

I see. That violates common sense (when was the last time you threw your entire body at a person rather than using a single fist or foot) but i guess its for balance reasons.

Wait...could you hold a monk weapon in your off hand and use your entire body as your main?

"I body slam him, i body slam him, i body slam him, i heabutt him, i strike with my kama...and so on."

Baron Malkar
2009-06-09, 11:22 PM
I personally don't allow two unarmed strike fighting but have required my players to use unarmed strike/other monk weapons combinations. Of course it makes the scorpion Kama far more desirable.:smalltongue:

Curmudgeon
2009-06-10, 02:38 AM
Wait...could you hold a monk weapon in your off hand and use your entire body as your main? Yes, you can do exactly that. In fact you can hold kamas in each hand and boot daggers on both feet, then do a full attack of hip checks, followed by an "off hand" attack with any one of those weapons.

Jothki
2009-06-10, 02:56 AM
Not quite. You need an "off hand" for two weapon fighting, and monks do have those. An off hand attack is what happens as a result of wielding a weapon in your off hand. Monks do have an off hand, but 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."

One literal reading of the text, therefore, is that they can qualify for two weapon fighting, but gain no benefit from it. The other reading, which seems to me the one intended, is that their off hand attack would not be subject to off hand strength penalties. That would seem to be the view supported by the FAQ, since the former interpretation would mean that no off hand attacks could be made if an unarmed strike was employed, regardless of whether the off hand held a weapon or not.

By your interpretation, does that mean that without any feats, a monk would wield both fists at -4 since they're both main hand weapons?

Edit: Does that even work? Would you need an off-hand attack to dual wield?

Matthew
2009-06-10, 03:46 AM
By your interpretation, does that mean that without any feats, a monk would wield both fists at -4 since they're both main hand weapons?

Edit: Does that even work? Would you need an off-hand attack to dual wield?

Under the second interpretation the monk still has an off hand, just not an off hand attack (whatever that means). The PHB seems to be of the opinion that the monk's off hand would not suffer the usual −4 to hit or half strength damage.



Off Hand: A character’s weaker or less dexterous hand (usually the left). An attack made with the off hand incurs a –4 penalty on the attack roll. In addition, only one-half of a character’s Strength bonus may be added to the damage dealt with a weapon held in the off hand.

So, ordinarily a 6th level fighter armed with a long sword could attack with it and also make an unarmed strike with his off hand without using two weapon fighting [i.e. Primary Attack at BAB 6, Off Hand Attack at BAB 1], but his unarmed strike "wielded" in his "off hand" would be at a –4 penalty to hit and half strength bonus to damage.

An 8th level monk, on the other hand (no pun intended), can strike with either hand interchangeably and without any penalty. If he chose to use two weapon fighting, then it would be as you say: –4/–4, no penalty to strength bonus.

Kaiyanwang
2009-06-10, 04:36 AM
I would go this way: Curmdgeon made a good point, but Telonius posted a Sage answer of the FAQs.

The two things are in conflict, I'd suggest to do what I do in my campaings: allow the Sage's answer as a suggested houserule, like the "tower shield gives +4 to trip attempts" in the Archives or the ones about the sorcerer in UA.

So, yes, TWF, maybe add snapkick, and maybe try to optimize attack rolls :smallwink:

Talic
2009-06-10, 04:41 AM
@OP: No. Unarmed strikes may not be used as both primary and offhand, by RAW.

Monk unarmed strikes only count as manufactured and natural weapons for purposes of what can affect them (example: Magic Fang and Magic weapon both work).

But, If we allow them to use primary/offhand, then we run into another problem.

Unarmed strikes can be made with just about any part of the body. Why use two weapon fighting when we can multiweapon fight?

Fist/Fist/Head/Elbow/Elbow/Forearm/Forearm/Foot/Foot/Knee/Knee/Shin/Shin/Shoulder/Shoulder

Let's go with 15 seperate attack methods.

This is why unarmed strike is a single attack form, and cannot be split by which hand is hitting.

Pie Guy
2009-06-10, 06:50 AM
Let's be honest, it's a game. A monk with TWF isn't much more powerful than a monk without it. It's not gamebreaking, there's no real point in argueing about it.

Matthew
2009-06-10, 06:51 AM
But, If we allow them to use primary/offhand, then we run into another problem.

Unarmed strikes can be made with just about any part of the body. Why use two weapon fighting when we can multiweapon fight?

Fist/Fist/Head/Elbow/Elbow/Forearm/Forearm/Foot/Foot/Knee/Knee/Shin/Shin/Shoulder/Shoulder

Let's go with 15 separate attack methods.

This is why unarmed strike is a single attack form, and cannot be split by which hand is hitting.

As already pointed out (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6252823&postcount=13), the Multi Weapon Fighting (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsterFeats.htm) feat (Monster Manual, p. 304) requires three or more hands as one of its prerequisites, and the action itself requires multiple "off hands".



MULTI WEAPON 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.

Mark Hall
2009-06-10, 10:05 AM
Here's my simple argument as to why it should be allowed. It may be horribly simulationist of me, which I know isn't in vogue with WD&D, but I simply ask "Can a human throw two effective punches, or a punch and a kick, in six seconds, with different limbs?"

I'm not talking about highly trained UFC fighters... I'm talking about people with a couple weeks or months of training. Can I throw a one-two punch? Or grab someone's head and force it into my knee? If so, we're talking about effective two-weapon fighting with unarmed strikes.

Stormthorn
2009-06-10, 10:38 AM
"Can a human throw two effective punches, or a punch and a kick, in six seconds, with different limbs?"

I'm not talking about highly trained UFC fighters... I'm talking about people with a couple weeks or months of training. Can I throw a one-two punch? Or grab someone's head and force it into my knee? If so, we're talking about effective two-weapon fighting with unarmed strikes

We are talking about highly trained martial artists tho, not ordinary people. Three to five feats represents a massive amount of training and combat experiance.

But yes, i can throw a one-two with almost no training. Im not very strong or fast, but thats due to poor ability rolls.

Mark Hall
2009-06-10, 12:52 PM
We are talking about highly trained martial artists tho, not ordinary people. Three to five feats represents a massive amount of training and combat experiance.

But yes, i can throw a one-two with almost no training. Im not very strong or fast, but thats due to poor ability rolls.

So... if incredibly out of shape people like ourselves can do it, why can't a highly trained martial artist?

woodenbandman
2009-06-10, 12:55 PM
I'd allow it if it weren't for the silly people who made the god of smack, the unholy abomination that deals 128d8 damage per hit.

Curmudgeon
2009-06-10, 01:01 PM
But yes, i can throw a one-two with almost no training. Im not very strong or fast, but thats due to poor ability rolls.

So... if incredibly out of shape people like ourselves can do it, why can't a highly trained martial artist? But a one-two is what 1st-level Monks can do without an extra attack from two-weapon fighting; that's flurry of blows. And they do that while dodging incoming attacks (their AC bonus class feature). That's not something "incredibly out of shape people" can do, repeated every 6 seconds.

deuxhero
2009-06-10, 01:08 PM
I'd allow it, seeing as how if someone is playing a monk, you might as well take pity on them.

darkblust
2009-06-10, 02:45 PM
There is a feat in phb2,or complete adventurer that lets a monk use 2weapon fighting with his unarmed strike,but they have to have 2weapon fighting to get it.I'm not sure if it is actually there,but i might have seen it.

Curmudgeon
2009-06-10, 05:23 PM
I'd allow it, seeing as how if someone is playing a monk, you might as well take pity on them. I don't think that's the point. There's nothing at all unreasonable about allowing it; after all, it's a straight tradeoff to get one more attack but with a penalty to all attacks. That seems pretty fair to me. The issue is whether it's actually against the rules.

John Campbell
2009-06-11, 02:34 AM
In our Pathfinder game, our paladin beat a hobgoblin unconscious with head butts.

My fighter/rogue once killed a wyvern with a head-butt. While it was thirty feet off the ground with me in its claws.

Thespianus
2009-06-11, 02:55 AM
Yes, indeed. Personally, I like to describe Monks as making all their trip attempts with head butts. :smallbiggrin:

Or as Sean Connery did in The Presidio:
- "Now, are you sure you want to have a fight? Because I'm only gonna use my thumb. ".
- "Thumb?"
- "My right thumb. Left one's much too powerful for you. "
:smallsmile:

pjackson
2009-06-11, 08:11 AM
"Can a human throw two effective punches, or a punch and a kick, in six seconds, with different limbs?"


I have seem film of a boxer (world title contender at a middling weight) making 5 jabs in less than one second, though those were all with the same hand. The bag he was punching was being knocked back by each one.

pjackson
2009-06-11, 08:21 AM
My fighter/rogue once killed a wyvern with a head-butt. While it was thirty feet off the ground with me in its claws.

May favourite wyvern story. One dives on the party (aiming to grab one of the horses I think) My rogue 1/wizard 2 had readied a Daze cantrip for when it got within range - 30'. It failed it's save. SPLAT.

quick_comment
2009-06-11, 08:43 AM
As already pointed out (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6252823&postcount=13), the Multi Weapon Fighting (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsterFeats.htm) feat (Monster Manual, p. 304) requires three or more hands as one of its prerequisites, and the action itself requires multiple "off hands".

Thats why you go insectile thri-keen monk with permanent girallion's blessing. Is that enough hands for you?

Matthew
2009-06-11, 08:48 AM
That's why you go insectile thri-keen monk with permanent girallion's blessing. Is that enough hands for you?

That, of course, is entirely within the rules (Multi Weapon Fighting being designed for such creatures). And why not? The point is only that the monk cannot take Multi Weapon Fighting as a result of an interpretation by which he may wield an unarmed strike in each hand, given that he only has one off hand.

Lyndworm
2009-06-11, 06:33 PM
Thats why you go insectile thri-keen monk with permanent girallion's blessing. Is that enough hands for you?

Actually, the entry for the Insectile template specifically states that the arms added can't be used to make extra attacks. They can, however, be used to add x0.5 Str for each hand added to a weapon. (Like a one-handed weapon does x1.5 Str when wielded in two hands?)

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-06-11, 11:31 PM
Actually, the entry for the Insectile template specifically states that the arms added can't be used to make extra attacks. They can, however, be used to add x0.5 Str for each hand added to a weapon. (Like a one-handed weapon does x1.5 Str when wielded in two hands?)Doesn't matter. We're talking about a feat that requires '3 or more hands', not that you be able to attack with 3 or more hands.