Two weapon fighting with unarmed attacks

[ShadowChemosh]

The problem is that, since it's not equipped, the attack and damage bonuses aren't tabulating correctly.

I am not seeing this issue. The values appear to be correct for a Diminutive bat. You are using the Bat Shape to become a Diminutive bat. Not using your Race ability to simply "Gain" a bit attack leaving yourself at size medium.

The plan is, while in bat form, to attack with two unarmed strikes (as primary attacks with two weapon fighting penalties) along with a bite which becomes a secondary attack (with a -5 to attack and half ability score damage).

Um as stated several times YOU HAVE NO HANDS. How can you attack with something you don't have. As a Diminutive bat you have NO HANDS so you can NOT attack with them. Only your bite attack.

Let me use a picture:

No hands!

Unfortunately HL doesn't present the full list of style feats in their bonus feat list, so I wasn't able to select Snake Fang as my bonus MoMF feat. I submitted a bug report about that. To make up for it I added in an extra feat as an adjustment. Unfortunately, doing so causes an erroneous prerequisites error cause HL sees it as a regular feat selection. *sigh*

Because MoMS does NOT work with an Unchained Monk. Unchained Monks currently have NO working Archetypes because they don't meet the requirements anymore. Sorry!

 

[AndrewD2]

Also until its fixed, there might be an adjustment specifically for adding a bonus feat to the class list of the selected class ... and if not, Shadow there's an idea for an adjustment for ya ;-)

 

[ShadowChemosh]

Also until its fixed, there might be an adjustment specifically for adding a bonus feat to the class list of the selected class ... and if not, Shadow there's an idea for an adjustment for ya ;-)

Oh sure assigning out work now!

Actually it's not a bad idea. I have added to the to-do list.

So is the MoMS also on that list to get converted. Just fixing stuff in UP right now.... The list never ends....

 

[Ambrus]

I am not seeing this issue. The values appear to be correct for a Diminutive bat.

it's that it's a secondary attack and should have a -5 to attack and 1/2 ability score to damage.

Um as stated several times YOU HAVE NO HANDS. How can you attack with something you don't have. As a Diminutive bat you have NO HANDS so you can NOT attack with them. Only your bite attack.

Thanks for the biology lesson. But since when are hands necessary for unarmed attacks? "A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed."

Because MoMS does NOT work with an Unchained Monk. Unchained Monks currently have NO working Archetypes because they don't meet the requirements anymore. Sorry!

You just said yourself that converting it wouldn't be hard since a lot about it already lines up, and there already is a 3P version. The only issue seems to be within HL while trying to use their existing version of the archetype. I'm looking for a way to fix it as you seem intent on doing.

 

[ShadowChemosh]

Sorry if my posts where coming across as bad or mean. It was NOT my intent in anyway.

it's that it's a secondary attack and should have a -5 to attack and 1/2 ability score to damage.

When in bat form you only have a Bite so it can't be secondary by the rules (hence why HL is not making it secondary). That is standard Bestiary rules. Monsters use natural attacks not unarmed strikes.

Thanks for the biology lesson. But since when are hands necessary for unarmed attacks? "A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed."

First I was trying to be funny and cute not mean. I know that comes across as bad in the forums. But I thought it was funny.

This would be rule argument with your DM. Because as a MoMS you have NO FoB meaning you must use Unarmed Strikes (ie Fists) to make attacks. HL is following those rules to the letter (ie only with Flurry of Blows can you make Unarmed Strikes with the rest of your body). If you and your DM agree on "house-rules" that is outside of HL.

But without Flurry of Blows you need "hands" to do your unarmed strikes. I am just trying to explain why HL is doing what it is doing. Anything else would get into the area of making house-rules which you can do with special scripts in HL.

If with all this you disagree on I have no horse in the race I am just trying to explain "why" HL is doing what it is doing. To change it you would need to find an official FAQ or cause one to happen on the paizo Boards. Then you could get LW to change HL scripts to allow this to work.

Or simply feel free to put in a BUG report and talk to LW directly about the issue. Even if I agreed I couldn't change the CORE software.

You just said yourself that converting it wouldn't be hard since a lot about it already lines up, and there already is a 3P version. The only issue seems to be within HL while trying to use their existing version of the archetype. I'm looking for a way to fix it as you seem intent on doing.

Correct. But until scripted/created the archetype does not work with the Unchained Monk currently. I am talking pure programming here NOT pathfinder rules. It would be like adding a paladin archetype and saying it is not changing the Unchained Monk class abilities. HL treats Monk and Unchained Monk as two totally different 'Things' so the Unique ID of class abilities (like Flurry of Blows) don't line up and the scripts don't work.

This is what I mean by not working. As you saw already as the Style feats are not showing up as Bonus feats. Because when the script fires it can't find the 'Monk' class to make the changes to which it does by a Unique ID.

Hopefully that clears stuff up.

 

[ShadowChemosh]

P.S. For now you can use the adjustment "Natural Attack: Secondary" to force the Bite attack to be a secondary weapon. Just thought of that sense you have the Basic Pack installed.

 

[Ambrus]

Sorry if my posts where coming across as bad or mean. It was NOT my intent in anyway.

Fair enough. I do appreciate your help, even if it does come with some snark. You spend more time on these boards helping us noobs more than most, so you're allowed some leeway.

When in bat form you only have a Bite so it can't be secondary by the rules (hence why HL is not making it secondary).

I get that, though natural attacks do become secondary when combined with weapon or unarmed strikes. The rules cover that possibility; it just seems that HL doesn't recognize it as a viable option the same way it doesn't allow two weapon fighting with unarmed attacks.

This would be rule argument with your DM. Because as a MoMS you have NO FoB meaning you must use Unarmed Strikes (ie Fists) to make attacks. HL is following those rules to the letter (ie only with Flurry of Blows can you make Unarmed Strikes with the rest of your body). If you and your DM agree on "house-rules" that is outside of HL. But without Flurry of Blows you need "hands" to do your unarmed strikes. I am just trying to explain why HL is doing what it is doing. Anything else would get into the area of making house-rules which you can do with special scripts in HL.

The section I quoted earlier isn't from the Flurry of Blows description; it's from the monk's Unarmed Strike description. But it isn't even a monk thing; the general weapon description for unarmed strikes is: "An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon. Therefore, you can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with an unarmed strike. Unarmed strikes do not count as natural weapons (see Combat). The damage from an unarmed strike is considered weapon damage for the purposes of effects that give you a bonus on weapon damage rolls. Again, there's no mention or even an implication that hands are required. Now, a GM could decide unarmed strikes without fists is dumb and disallow them in his game, and that would be fine, but THAT would be the house rule.

I'll admit I may be wrong, and I'll apologize if there's some hidden hand-centric clause for unarmed strikes I've missed somewhere, but if there is it'll be news to me. ATM I'm just trying to build my character with the RAW.

If with all this you disagree on I have no horse in the race I am just trying to explain "why" HL is doing what it is doing.

I get that and I promise I won't hold you accountable for HL's failings. I'm seeing now more and more that they way LW has setup HL is in accordance with their own interpretation of the rules (or perhaps what they perceive to be the RAI) but not necessarily in keeping with the RAW. That seems a shame to me since it limits the product and requires users to apply an increasing number of band-aid adjustments to get it to work.

HL treats Monk and Unchained Monk as two totally different 'Things' so the Unique ID of class abilities (like Flurry of Blows) don't line up and the scripts don't work.

Yeah, I imagined that's where the problem lay. A new 'thing' was created for the Unchained Monk's FoB. So I'd have to create a copy of the MoMS archetype and switch it over to the new 'thing' designation to get it to recognize what it's supposed to replace. Doable, just more work.

Unfortunately I seem to be putting more time and effort into building this character in HL, logging bug reports, corresponding with LW and troubleshooting than I am in playing the character. I may just switch back to pen & paper; it may not be as elegant and dynamic as HL, but it's certainly easier to put together.

P.S. For now you can use the adjustment "Natural Attack: Secondary" to force the Bite attack to be a secondary weapon. Just thought of that sense you have the Basic Pack installed.

Yeah, that works to apply a -5 to attacks, but it doesn't change the damage bonus unfortunately; that'd require another adjustment I guess.

Please don't get me wrong; I appreciate your suggestions and the background reasoning you've offered. And I'm not trying to argue the rules with you. I'm just growing disillusioned with a piece of software that's cost me a fair chunk of time and money which I can't yet make use of for this character.

 

[Portilis]

I get that, though natural attacks do become secondary when combined with weapon or unarmed strikes. The rules cover that possibility; it just seems that HL doesn't recognize it as a viable option the same way it doesn't allow two weapon fighting with unarmed attacks.

From the Unarmed Strike entry in monk (core & unchained):

"There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed."

Would to me remove the viability of 2WF from unarmed attacks.

However, a quick internet search shows that there is no definitive agreed definition of the matter, so HL have gone with what RAW says - you can't do off-hand attacks when striking unarmed.

Similarly, to quote the same text:

"A monk’s attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet."

Whilst a bat technically has feet, I would be somewhat dubious about their ability to kick with them...


To be fair though, the bite should be becoming a secondary weapon BAB when unarmed is selected.

I'm seeing now more and more that they way LW has setup HL is in accordance with their own interpretation of the rules (or perhaps what they perceive to be the RAI) but not necessarily in keeping with the RAW.[\QUOTE]

Actually, most of the time the issue is exactly the opposite. They have to stick so closely to the RAW that some things can't be implemented as desired because the RAW doesn't provide enough information to actually implement it - a lot of the shapechanging has hit this issue, as have cohorts.

In this case, you are playing with a lot of house rules and unclear rules. The 2WF/unarmed debate has been going for years with no clear outcome (though as noted above, RAW does say you can't). Flurry is actually supposed to be the monk equivalent of the ability...

Equally, the unchained classes are not written to be able to take the archetypes - some of them still could, but applying rules written for the non-unchained classes to the unchained versions is very much not RAW, quite the opposite.

Finally, whilst the bite attack does appear to be a bug, it is something of an obscure case - monks who can turn into bats are not exactly common!

 

[ShadowChemosh]

Fair enough. I do appreciate your help, even if it does come with some snark. You spend more time on these boards helping us noobs more than most, so you're allowed some leeway.

I do apologize again as I do have a smart ass attitude in the real world but it comes with a really big smile that helps everyone know I am kidding. That just does not come through over text.

Really unless I use a swear word I am really trying to be funny....

Yeah, that works to apply a -5 to attacks, but it doesn't change the damage bonus unfortunately; that'd require another adjustment I guess.

So on the character sheet I am looking at in Bat form its +5H 1d2-3. Well you can't half-damage of a penalty so the Str 5 gives the -3 so half of that is still -3. So that is why I am saying it looks right to me.

 

[ShadowChemosh]

So also FYI I just took a look at the MoMS and yikes that was easy to input as it really didn't require any Pathfinder Rule changes. It will be in this months release of Pathfinder Unchained Pack.

 

[Ambrus]

"There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed." Would to me remove the viability of 2WF from unarmed attacks.

That particular interpretation is new to me; having assumed it merely referred to off-hand penalties rather than a blanket inability to perform 2WF. I suppose it could be read that way though. Unfortunately splitting hairs with the RAW is a rabbit hole down which you could fall for ever. For instance, as written that phrase only applies to monks; so while monks would be theoretically prohibited from performing off-hand attacks, any other class would be good to go with unarmed 2WF. Seems odd that monk's would suffer a hindrance to fighting that sorcerers (for example) don't, but there it is. Perhaps monks could get around the limitation by multiclassing however.

Actually, most of the time the issue is exactly the opposite. They have to stick so closely to the RAW that some things can't be implemented as desired because the RAW doesn't provide enough information to actually implement it

I see what you mean. It does seem that using the strictest possible interpretation is LW's design philosophy. But, as I showed above, it's possible to split hairs further and further to the point of senselessness.

Seems to me that HL would be more useful if more basic flexibility were built in; trusting more to the user's ability to judge how the rules should be implemented. Otherwise it requires add-ons to be built and installed to operate properly; which is were Shadow's fine work comes into the picture. Creating add-ons is clearly easier as well as a pleasure for him, so more power to him. But for those less savvy at coding like me, at some point the additional work required to make HL work outweighs its benefits.

I do apologize again

Don't worry about it.

So on the character sheet I am looking at in Bat form its +5H 1d2-3. Well you can't half-damage of a penalty so the Str 5 gives the -3 so half of that is still -3. So that is why I am saying it looks right to me.

There are several issues with the bite. First, I re-created the Agile weapon property and combined it with an amulet of mighty fists; switching damage from light weapons from STR to DEX. It seems to be working fine for the unarmed attacks, but the bite remains stuck with STR to damage for some reason. I don't know whether it's an error with the weapon property I created or with the bite itself. So I used an adjustment to force the bite's damage to switch to DEX, but then the damage bonus goes to 1.5 DEX rather than the 0.5 it should have from being secondary.

 

[Portilis]

I suppose it could be read that way though. Unfortunately splitting hairs with the RAW is a rabbit hole down which you could fall for ever... I see what you mean. It does seem that using the strictest possible interpretation is LW's design philosophy. But, as I showed above, it's possible to split hairs further and further to the point of senselessness.

That is kinda the entire problem though. LW have to go with the official rulings made by Paizo wherever possible, which are usually on the less liberal end of the scale (as, realistically, most attempts to push the rules in a particular direction will always be players trying to blag things). In the case of 2WF and unarmed, every thread I can find seems to peter out with no real decision having been made (and no dev involvement).

Seems to me that HL would be more useful if more basic flexibility were built in; trusting more to the user's ability to judge how the rules should be implemented.

Unfortunately, much of the strength of the software is in the fact it can manage everything for you, and code doesn't have that flexibility. Something either is or is not (and no grumbles about quantum tri-state computing at the back there, that's far beyond the scope here), there's no room for that malleability.


I do agree that it is easier for groups like mine who have coder(s) in them who are interested and willing to do custom work, otherwise house rules and variations from the norm can be tricky. Things like the bite secondary weapon issue, which are bugs, I've usually found get fixed pretty quickly, but it can be annoying.

However, as someone who runs and plays full weekend sessions on a regular basis, the sheer difference in time taken during play makes it hugely worthwhile to use. I don't mind if it takes a bit more admin time out of game so that the game itself runs more smoothly - same reason I was an early adopter for Realm Works.


Anyway, have fun

 

[ShadowChemosh]

There are several issues with the bite. First, I re-created the Agile weapon property and combined it with an amulet of mighty fists; switching damage from light weapons from STR to DEX. It seems to be working fine for the unarmed attacks, but the bite remains stuck with STR to damage for some reason. I don't know whether it's an error with the weapon property I created or with the bite itself.

Are you saying you created the Agile Item Property in the editor? Cause your .por file does open with lots of missing Things. I mean that can be causing all sorts of issues and why I see totally different values than you.

Without the .user file you created your character does not open the same on my system as it does yours. Plus you can't be reporting bugs with the CORE system when you have custom scripts firing and making changes.

 

[ShadowChemosh]

Seems to me that HL would be more useful if more basic flexibility were built in; trusting more to the user's ability to judge how the rules should be implemented. Otherwise it requires add-ons to be built and installed to operate properly; which is were Shadow's fine work comes into the picture. Creating add-ons is clearly easier as well as a pleasure for him, so more power to him. But for those less savvy at coding like me, at some point the additional work required to make HL work outweighs its benefits.

Having the software be flexible enough to support every interpretation of the Pathfinder rules is not possible. If LW had infinite time, resources, and money then yes this can be done. But as that is not the real world then they have to set a way "X" works.

The other side is that using the editor you can make HL do pretty much anything you wish. In my case as you got right I create many "adjustments" to allow people to make custom changes to characters without using the editor. So that their groups interpretation of the rules or straight up house-rule can be used without opening the editor.

If you are within 60 days of buying HL and find it to be a bad purchase LW will give you 100% of your money back. Contact them using support@wolflair.com.

When you get to areas of Pathfinder rules that are "gray" you may not agree with HL reading of that rule.

 

[Ambrus]

I do agree that it is easier for groups like mine who have coder(s) in them who are interested and willing to do custom work, otherwise house rules and variations from the norm can be tricky. However, as someone who runs and plays full weekend sessions on a regular basis, the sheer difference in time taken during play makes it hugely worthwhile to use.

You have two coders and you play full weekend sessions?! Damn!!! You're living in some kind of dream world I can barely relate to. Lol

Are you saying you created the Agile Item Property in the editor? Cause your .por file does open with lots of missing Things. I mean that can be causing all sorts of issues and why I see totally different values than you. Without the .user file you created your character does not open the same on my system as it does yours.

I can post my .hl file if you'd care to review the material.

Having the software be flexible enough to support every interpretation of the Pathfinder rules is not possible.

I'm not talking about every interpretation, just more than the single narrow interpretation that LW adheres to. Your own add-ons are a perfect example. You saw a need for the ability to add an extra unarmed off-hand attack and coded it in; something that HL was setup up to preclude for whatever reason. As far as I can see, that adjustment is in keeping with the RAW and something that should have been included with HL; at worst as an option that could be turned off if a group chooses to disallow it for their own reasons.

Anyhow, I'm taking one last shot at getting this character to function on HL before switching to paper and pencil. I created an Unchained friendly Master of Many Styles archetype which seems to be working correctly and which eliminates a bonus feat conflict along with the Flurry of Blows issue.

My attack and damage bonuses for the two unarmed strikes is coming up correctly now, though selecting two unarmed strikes in the '1st' and '2nd' hand boxes continues to generate a "Too many weapons equipped in off-hand(s)" error message.

The bite attack remains wonky though. Unless I apply some adjustments to the bite, HL continues to consider it a primary attack, doesn't apply the -5 to attacks and doesn't apply the Agile quality to DEX damage. If I apply a Weapon Melee Attack Attribute Overide adjustment, it applies DEX, but increases the bonus to 1.5 DEX instead of the 0.5 DEX for a secondary attack. I suppose a band-aid solution would be an adjustment inflicting a -7 to damage, though that's rather clunky since it'll have to be changed every time my Dex changes.

Any suggestions?

 

[Portilis]

You have two coders and you play full weekend sessions?! Damn!!! You're living in some kind of dream world I can barely relate to. Lol

Heh... two of us who are regulars in the group work in the industry, as does one of our irregulars, and my wife can do some as well as she had to learn some coding practice as part of her degree. As for the weekends, it's our only real way to do things as we have people travelling up to about 300 miles to come to the games...

I can post my .hl file if you'd care to review the material.

You'll probably need to include any userfiles you have as well, but there's usually a few of us willing to take a look.

I'm not talking about every interpretation, just more than the single narrow interpretation that LW adheres to. Your own add-ons are a perfect example. You saw a need for the ability to add an extra unarmed off-hand attack and coded it in; something that HL was setup up to preclude for whatever reason. As far as I can see, that adjustment is in keeping with the RAW and something that should have been included with HL; at worst as an option that could be turned off if a group chooses to disallow it for their own reasons.

The problem with it is that there are a lot of rules with alternate interpretations, many of which, like this one, have never had an official paizo ruling.

It's worth noting that a large quantity of the in-built adjustments were submitted to LWD by community contributors - they are one of those things that I think the devs would love to do more on, but tends not to get done because other things are often more important (and they are often one of the easiest things for the community to write as well).