RAW, Is the “Finesse” trait incompatible with unarmed attacks?What is the fallout of unarmed strikes no longer being weapons?Monks, natural and unarmed attacks, and Feral Combat TrainingCan I Trip or Disarm with the extra attack provided by the Snap Kick feat?How much damage does a weaponless skeleton do?Could a Monk holding two weapons still allow for the bonus Unarmed action?Do Natural Attacks count as Unarmed?For a basic unarmed strike, is only the proficiency bonus included in the attack roll, or is the Strength modifier also added?Should my fighter really punch that werewolf?
How do I delete cookies from a specific site?
Was Rosie the Riveter sourced from a Michelangelo painting?
'This one' as a pronoun
Mute single speaker?
A Meal fit for a King
How do I stop making people jump at home and at work?
Is it risky to move from broad geographical diversification into investing mostly in less developed markets?
How do German speakers decide what should be on the left side of the verb?
RAW, Is the "Finesse" trait incompatible with unarmed attacks?
What's this constructed number's starter?
Travel to USA with a stuffed puppet
Why does the seven segment display have decimal point at the right?
If I have an accident, should I file a claim with my car insurance company?
Why don't they build airplanes from 3D printer plastic?
Is the Levitate spell supposed to basically disable a melee-based enemy?
Undefined Hamiltonian for this particular Lagrangian
Why is a pressure canner needed when canning?
Vimscript - Surround word under cursor with quotes
Is it possible to observe space debris with Binoculars?
What are some countries where you can be imprisoned for reading or owning a Bible?
Life post thesis submission is terrifying - Help!
'Hard work never hurt anyone' Why not 'hurts'?
Low quality postdoc application and deadline extension
Identifying the following distribution
RAW, Is the “Finesse” trait incompatible with unarmed attacks?
What is the fallout of unarmed strikes no longer being weapons?Monks, natural and unarmed attacks, and Feral Combat TrainingCan I Trip or Disarm with the extra attack provided by the Snap Kick feat?How much damage does a weaponless skeleton do?Could a Monk holding two weapons still allow for the bonus Unarmed action?Do Natural Attacks count as Unarmed?For a basic unarmed strike, is only the proficiency bonus included in the attack roll, or is the Strength modifier also added?Should my fighter really punch that werewolf?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
$begingroup$
Pathfinder draws a strict distinction between unarmed attacks and weapons. Does this distinction invalidate the benefits of the "Finesse" trait, when applied to unarmed attacks?
Almost all characters start out trained in unarmed attacks. You can Strike with your fist or another body part, calculating your attack and damage rolls in the same way you would with a weapon. Unarmed attacks can belong to a weapon group (page 280), and they might have weapon traits (page 282). However, unarmed attacks aren’t weapons, and effects and abilities that work with weapons never work with unarmed attacks unless they specifically say so. p.278
This rule says that weapon traits can apply to unarmed attacks, but that only things which explicitly say they work with unarmed attacks can apply. Now, look at the text of the Finesse trait:
Finesse: You can use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls using this melee weapon. You still use your Strength modifier when calculating damage. p.282
So on one hand, we can apply the Finesse trait to unarmed attacks, but when we apply it, we find that its mechanical benefits apply only to melee weapons, and not to unarmed attacks.
So from my reading, this means that any additional rules which apply to the Finesse trait, would also apply to unarmed attacks. However, unarmed attacks would not be able to substitute Dexterity for Strength on attack rolls, because the Finesse trait explicitly says that only "melee weapons" gain this benefit, and not "unarmed attacks". Is this a correct reading, according to the rules as written?
unarmed-combat pathfinder-2e
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Pathfinder draws a strict distinction between unarmed attacks and weapons. Does this distinction invalidate the benefits of the "Finesse" trait, when applied to unarmed attacks?
Almost all characters start out trained in unarmed attacks. You can Strike with your fist or another body part, calculating your attack and damage rolls in the same way you would with a weapon. Unarmed attacks can belong to a weapon group (page 280), and they might have weapon traits (page 282). However, unarmed attacks aren’t weapons, and effects and abilities that work with weapons never work with unarmed attacks unless they specifically say so. p.278
This rule says that weapon traits can apply to unarmed attacks, but that only things which explicitly say they work with unarmed attacks can apply. Now, look at the text of the Finesse trait:
Finesse: You can use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls using this melee weapon. You still use your Strength modifier when calculating damage. p.282
So on one hand, we can apply the Finesse trait to unarmed attacks, but when we apply it, we find that its mechanical benefits apply only to melee weapons, and not to unarmed attacks.
So from my reading, this means that any additional rules which apply to the Finesse trait, would also apply to unarmed attacks. However, unarmed attacks would not be able to substitute Dexterity for Strength on attack rolls, because the Finesse trait explicitly says that only "melee weapons" gain this benefit, and not "unarmed attacks". Is this a correct reading, according to the rules as written?
unarmed-combat pathfinder-2e
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Up you and not going to edit back since you changed it yourself but usually I prefer to ask questions positively to avoid yes/no answer confusions. In this case, I think asking if things are compatible may make things easier to parse.
$endgroup$
– Sdjz
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
I was trying to make the title consistent with the body, in terms of what "yes" or "no" means. If you have a better phrasing, feel free to add it.
$endgroup$
– Strill
8 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Pathfinder draws a strict distinction between unarmed attacks and weapons. Does this distinction invalidate the benefits of the "Finesse" trait, when applied to unarmed attacks?
Almost all characters start out trained in unarmed attacks. You can Strike with your fist or another body part, calculating your attack and damage rolls in the same way you would with a weapon. Unarmed attacks can belong to a weapon group (page 280), and they might have weapon traits (page 282). However, unarmed attacks aren’t weapons, and effects and abilities that work with weapons never work with unarmed attacks unless they specifically say so. p.278
This rule says that weapon traits can apply to unarmed attacks, but that only things which explicitly say they work with unarmed attacks can apply. Now, look at the text of the Finesse trait:
Finesse: You can use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls using this melee weapon. You still use your Strength modifier when calculating damage. p.282
So on one hand, we can apply the Finesse trait to unarmed attacks, but when we apply it, we find that its mechanical benefits apply only to melee weapons, and not to unarmed attacks.
So from my reading, this means that any additional rules which apply to the Finesse trait, would also apply to unarmed attacks. However, unarmed attacks would not be able to substitute Dexterity for Strength on attack rolls, because the Finesse trait explicitly says that only "melee weapons" gain this benefit, and not "unarmed attacks". Is this a correct reading, according to the rules as written?
unarmed-combat pathfinder-2e
$endgroup$
Pathfinder draws a strict distinction between unarmed attacks and weapons. Does this distinction invalidate the benefits of the "Finesse" trait, when applied to unarmed attacks?
Almost all characters start out trained in unarmed attacks. You can Strike with your fist or another body part, calculating your attack and damage rolls in the same way you would with a weapon. Unarmed attacks can belong to a weapon group (page 280), and they might have weapon traits (page 282). However, unarmed attacks aren’t weapons, and effects and abilities that work with weapons never work with unarmed attacks unless they specifically say so. p.278
This rule says that weapon traits can apply to unarmed attacks, but that only things which explicitly say they work with unarmed attacks can apply. Now, look at the text of the Finesse trait:
Finesse: You can use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls using this melee weapon. You still use your Strength modifier when calculating damage. p.282
So on one hand, we can apply the Finesse trait to unarmed attacks, but when we apply it, we find that its mechanical benefits apply only to melee weapons, and not to unarmed attacks.
So from my reading, this means that any additional rules which apply to the Finesse trait, would also apply to unarmed attacks. However, unarmed attacks would not be able to substitute Dexterity for Strength on attack rolls, because the Finesse trait explicitly says that only "melee weapons" gain this benefit, and not "unarmed attacks". Is this a correct reading, according to the rules as written?
unarmed-combat pathfinder-2e
unarmed-combat pathfinder-2e
edited 4 hours ago
V2Blast♦
34.3k5 gold badges123 silver badges214 bronze badges
34.3k5 gold badges123 silver badges214 bronze badges
asked 8 hours ago
StrillStrill
5,6143 gold badges34 silver badges60 bronze badges
5,6143 gold badges34 silver badges60 bronze badges
$begingroup$
Up you and not going to edit back since you changed it yourself but usually I prefer to ask questions positively to avoid yes/no answer confusions. In this case, I think asking if things are compatible may make things easier to parse.
$endgroup$
– Sdjz
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
I was trying to make the title consistent with the body, in terms of what "yes" or "no" means. If you have a better phrasing, feel free to add it.
$endgroup$
– Strill
8 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Up you and not going to edit back since you changed it yourself but usually I prefer to ask questions positively to avoid yes/no answer confusions. In this case, I think asking if things are compatible may make things easier to parse.
$endgroup$
– Sdjz
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
I was trying to make the title consistent with the body, in terms of what "yes" or "no" means. If you have a better phrasing, feel free to add it.
$endgroup$
– Strill
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Up you and not going to edit back since you changed it yourself but usually I prefer to ask questions positively to avoid yes/no answer confusions. In this case, I think asking if things are compatible may make things easier to parse.
$endgroup$
– Sdjz
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Up you and not going to edit back since you changed it yourself but usually I prefer to ask questions positively to avoid yes/no answer confusions. In this case, I think asking if things are compatible may make things easier to parse.
$endgroup$
– Sdjz
8 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
I was trying to make the title consistent with the body, in terms of what "yes" or "no" means. If you have a better phrasing, feel free to add it.
$endgroup$
– Strill
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
I was trying to make the title consistent with the body, in terms of what "yes" or "no" means. If you have a better phrasing, feel free to add it.
$endgroup$
– Strill
8 hours ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
“Finesse” trait is compatible with unarmed attacks
Page 286 on the manual, under "weapon traits" says:
Any trait that refers to a “weapon” can also apply to an unarmed
attack that has that trait.
And unarmed attacks are listed as having the finesse trait in the table in the same page.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Well that's definitely more direct. Still going to leave my answer for context
$endgroup$
– Ifusaso
7 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
By the strictest of RAW, you might be right. Numerous places in the PHB refer to "weapon and unarmed strikes" but Finesse lacks that language...
More likely, this was an oversight based on the language in your quote being perceived as having covered the issue already.
Unarmed strikes can benefit from any applicable weapon trait.
Specifically, the line you quote is
Unarmed attacks ... might have weapon traits(page 282).
The "effects and abilities" is intended to cover other things, such as class abilities and Feats. For instance, the 10th level Cleric Feat Castigating Weapon explicitly works with unarmed strikes (as do most Barbarian abilities), but the Fighter ability Power Attack requires you to be wielding a weapon because it does not include an unarmed option.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "122"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f154723%2fraw-is-the-finesse-trait-incompatible-with-unarmed-attacks%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
“Finesse” trait is compatible with unarmed attacks
Page 286 on the manual, under "weapon traits" says:
Any trait that refers to a “weapon” can also apply to an unarmed
attack that has that trait.
And unarmed attacks are listed as having the finesse trait in the table in the same page.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Well that's definitely more direct. Still going to leave my answer for context
$endgroup$
– Ifusaso
7 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
“Finesse” trait is compatible with unarmed attacks
Page 286 on the manual, under "weapon traits" says:
Any trait that refers to a “weapon” can also apply to an unarmed
attack that has that trait.
And unarmed attacks are listed as having the finesse trait in the table in the same page.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Well that's definitely more direct. Still going to leave my answer for context
$endgroup$
– Ifusaso
7 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
“Finesse” trait is compatible with unarmed attacks
Page 286 on the manual, under "weapon traits" says:
Any trait that refers to a “weapon” can also apply to an unarmed
attack that has that trait.
And unarmed attacks are listed as having the finesse trait in the table in the same page.
$endgroup$
“Finesse” trait is compatible with unarmed attacks
Page 286 on the manual, under "weapon traits" says:
Any trait that refers to a “weapon” can also apply to an unarmed
attack that has that trait.
And unarmed attacks are listed as having the finesse trait in the table in the same page.
answered 7 hours ago
MACNMACN
5,2921 gold badge18 silver badges33 bronze badges
5,2921 gold badge18 silver badges33 bronze badges
$begingroup$
Well that's definitely more direct. Still going to leave my answer for context
$endgroup$
– Ifusaso
7 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Well that's definitely more direct. Still going to leave my answer for context
$endgroup$
– Ifusaso
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Well that's definitely more direct. Still going to leave my answer for context
$endgroup$
– Ifusaso
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Well that's definitely more direct. Still going to leave my answer for context
$endgroup$
– Ifusaso
7 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
By the strictest of RAW, you might be right. Numerous places in the PHB refer to "weapon and unarmed strikes" but Finesse lacks that language...
More likely, this was an oversight based on the language in your quote being perceived as having covered the issue already.
Unarmed strikes can benefit from any applicable weapon trait.
Specifically, the line you quote is
Unarmed attacks ... might have weapon traits(page 282).
The "effects and abilities" is intended to cover other things, such as class abilities and Feats. For instance, the 10th level Cleric Feat Castigating Weapon explicitly works with unarmed strikes (as do most Barbarian abilities), but the Fighter ability Power Attack requires you to be wielding a weapon because it does not include an unarmed option.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
By the strictest of RAW, you might be right. Numerous places in the PHB refer to "weapon and unarmed strikes" but Finesse lacks that language...
More likely, this was an oversight based on the language in your quote being perceived as having covered the issue already.
Unarmed strikes can benefit from any applicable weapon trait.
Specifically, the line you quote is
Unarmed attacks ... might have weapon traits(page 282).
The "effects and abilities" is intended to cover other things, such as class abilities and Feats. For instance, the 10th level Cleric Feat Castigating Weapon explicitly works with unarmed strikes (as do most Barbarian abilities), but the Fighter ability Power Attack requires you to be wielding a weapon because it does not include an unarmed option.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
By the strictest of RAW, you might be right. Numerous places in the PHB refer to "weapon and unarmed strikes" but Finesse lacks that language...
More likely, this was an oversight based on the language in your quote being perceived as having covered the issue already.
Unarmed strikes can benefit from any applicable weapon trait.
Specifically, the line you quote is
Unarmed attacks ... might have weapon traits(page 282).
The "effects and abilities" is intended to cover other things, such as class abilities and Feats. For instance, the 10th level Cleric Feat Castigating Weapon explicitly works with unarmed strikes (as do most Barbarian abilities), but the Fighter ability Power Attack requires you to be wielding a weapon because it does not include an unarmed option.
$endgroup$
By the strictest of RAW, you might be right. Numerous places in the PHB refer to "weapon and unarmed strikes" but Finesse lacks that language...
More likely, this was an oversight based on the language in your quote being perceived as having covered the issue already.
Unarmed strikes can benefit from any applicable weapon trait.
Specifically, the line you quote is
Unarmed attacks ... might have weapon traits(page 282).
The "effects and abilities" is intended to cover other things, such as class abilities and Feats. For instance, the 10th level Cleric Feat Castigating Weapon explicitly works with unarmed strikes (as do most Barbarian abilities), but the Fighter ability Power Attack requires you to be wielding a weapon because it does not include an unarmed option.
answered 7 hours ago
IfusasoIfusaso
13.3k25 silver badges77 bronze badges
13.3k25 silver badges77 bronze badges
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Role-playing Games Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f154723%2fraw-is-the-finesse-trait-incompatible-with-unarmed-attacks%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
Up you and not going to edit back since you changed it yourself but usually I prefer to ask questions positively to avoid yes/no answer confusions. In this case, I think asking if things are compatible may make things easier to parse.
$endgroup$
– Sdjz
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
I was trying to make the title consistent with the body, in terms of what "yes" or "no" means. If you have a better phrasing, feel free to add it.
$endgroup$
– Strill
8 hours ago