[3.P] An added houserule to Unarmed Strikes

[ImperatorK]

"Unarmed Strikes are treated as both a single weapon and multiple weapons, whichever is more beneficial at the moment."

Is this houserule any good? I see the benefits, but I'm sure there also will be potential problems. So please, point them out to me, if you see any.

[RobbyPants]

So, is the idea basically that you can TWF/MWF with them? If so, does this immediately qualify anyone for multi-weapon fighting? If so, how many limbs can they use at a time?

Other than that, I'm not sure where you are going with this. If I'm wrong, what's your intent?

[ImperatorK]

So, is the idea basically that you can TWF/MWF with them?

The idea is to make rules for them clear and simple.

If so, does this immediately qualify anyone for multi-weapon fighting?

Without having 3 or more hands? No.

[Jackinthegreen]

MWF might technically work since unarmed strikes can be done with any part of the body.  The SRD lists elbows, knees, feet, even headbutts if I recall correctly.

[ImperatorK]

MWF requires 3 or more hands.

[sirpercival]

I'm with Robby on this.  What does this houserule actually do?  How does it change your options in a combat round?  When is it beneficial to count as a single weapon vs multiple weapons?

[ImperatorK]

What does this houserule actually do?

I recall giving an answer to a similar question... Again, "the idea is to make rules for them clear and simple". If you'll have an ability that could possibly care about what US is (for example weapon enhancing or FoB) then instead of going into a RAW debate, you just refer to this houserule.

How does it change your options in a combat round?

Depends on what kind of abilities you have.

When is it beneficial to count as a single weapon vs multiple weapons?

FoB, enhancing, maybe some other things. I kinda made this thread in hope you guys would find more...

[sirpercival]

It doesn't change anything with flurry of blows, since you still have the same number of attacks.  It doesn't make any difference with enhancing because the only ways you have to enhance them affect them globally (amulet of mighty fists, greater mighty wallop, necklace of natural attacks).  It doesn't help to figure out how they interact with natural attacks, since the issues are the same whether you're wielding multiple weapons or a single weapon.

So I personally don't think that your houserule has the effect you want.  Sorry if that's not helpful...

[ImperatorK]

So you don't think this houserule makes it clear and simple how US works? Because that's all this houserule is supposed to do, as I stated two times already. Although It's more like a clarification of something that's not covered by rules.

It doesn't change anything with flurry of blows, since you still have the same number of attacks.

It's not the point to add more attacks, though.

It doesn't make any difference with enhancing because the only ways you have to enhance them affect them globally (amulet of mighty fists, greater mighty wallop, necklace of natural attacks).

Those were only examples, because I read that there were some kind of problems with USs counting/not counting as one/multiple weapons, but that was probably in PF. There's still Magic Fang or Magic Weapon spells.

It doesn't help to figure out how they interact with natural attacks, since the issues are the same whether you're wielding multiple weapons or a single weapon.

I never mentioned Natural Attacks...

This "houserule" only clarifies how US works in case there's an ability or feat (or something) that cares about whether US is treated as one or multiple weapons. That's all. And I'm asking what benefits and what problems do you see with it.

[sirpercival]

So you don't think this houserule makes it clear and simple how US works? Because that's all this houserule is supposed to do, as I stated two times already. Although It's more like a clarification of something that's not covered by rules.

I don't think it really does anything, honestly.  Since you've clarified that it doesn't change the number of attacks in any way, I can't think of a single situation where that houserule would come up.  I personally don't even think it makes anything clearer.

It doesn't change anything with flurry of blows, since you still have the same number of attacks.

It's not the point to add more attacks, though.

Understood. That's why it doesn't change anything with FoB or TWF/MWF.

It doesn't make any difference with enhancing because the only ways you have to enhance them affect them globally (amulet of mighty fists, greater mighty wallop, necklace of natural attacks).

Those were only examples, because I read that there were some kind of problems with USs counting/not counting as one/multiple weapons, but that was probably in PF. There's still Magic Fang or Magic Weapon spells.

Still works with unarmed strike.  US is only one type of attack, so you can still use MF/MW with it.

It doesn't help to figure out how they interact with natural attacks, since the issues are the same whether you're wielding multiple weapons or a single weapon.

I never mentioned Natural Attacks...

I brought it up since that's the most common question about US I see on the boards:  "How do unarmed strikes interact with natural attacks?"

This "houserule" only clarifies how US works in case there's an ability or feat (or something) that cares about whether US is treated as one or multiple weapons. That's all. And I'm asking what benefits and what problems do you see with it.

And my response is that I think it doesn't really do anything.

[Jackinthegreen]

As far as 3.5 goes, the rules are fairly clear in stating that US is functionally a single weapon even though multiple body parts can be used to do damage in most cases.  It's a bit verbose of course, but reading the rules a couple of times tends to get the point across.

I agree with Perce here, it really doesn't look like it does anything.  Perhaps a better way to go about things would be to start with the US rules and rewrite them to be clearer in the first place instead of adding more onto them?

[RobbyPants]

MWF requires 3 or more hands.

You're right. I meant Multiattack. My bad.

So, that being said, is it meant to qualify them for Multiattack?

[ImperatorK]

I didn't think of Multiattack, but yes, it does qualify them.

[RobbyPants]

I didn't think of Multiattack, but yes, it does qualify them.

Yeah, sorry about that. I said the wrong thing. Until you mentioned "three hands" I was trying to figure out why we weren't getting what the other is saying.

That being said, how many attacks do they get? It seems they'd get five at a minimum.

[ImperatorK]

What do you mean "How many"?

[Jackinthegreen]

I believe part of the possible interpretation with the new rule is that if an unarmed strike can be counted as multiple weapons then by extension you can make multiple attacks based on the natural weapon rules.  Five at minimum would be two hands, two feet, and one headbutt if I'm interpreting Robby correctly.

I'm quite sure that's not what you meant to do with this addition of course, but there is still the possibility of it being interpreted that way since there are times when it would be beneficial to have all those extra attacks.

[ImperatorK]

Maybe it's just because my rules-fu is lacking, but I don't think this houserule gives more attacks in any way. Yes, USs are natural weapons. But, IIRC, they're exceptions from the normal Natural Weapon rules. If anything, it could allow adding one natural attack to your normal full attack.
Also, am I blind or is Monk the only place that actually calls out US as a Natural Weapon? Isn't it that only a Monk's USs are considered Manufactured and Natural? If yes, then what are they if you're not a Monk? 

[dman11235]

The problem is that, according to RAW, you have either multiple or one US depending on your reading.  I read it as one, but a lot of people read it as one for each limb.  You obviously read it as one, and Robby reads it as one/limb.  Even though that's wrong I don't care Ejo you're wrong.  That would be more relevant if he was in this thread....

The Monk doesn't change what USs are, just what they do.  They are always a combination, RAW.

These things led me to my US houserule set, which attempts to fix the major problems.

First off, IUS now gives you proficiency, and a scaling damage like the Monk.

Second off, USs are manufactured weapons if you take IUS, and natural if you don't.  Period.  No combination status.  You have one US per body.  The mechanics are as per weapons, so iteratives, TWF/MWF, whatever.

[Jackinthegreen]

Maybe it's just because my rules-fu is lacking, but I don't think this houserule gives more attacks in any way. Yes, USs are natural weapons. But, IIRC, they're exceptions from the normal Natural Weapon rules. If anything, it could allow adding one natural attack to your normal full attack.
Also, am I blind or is Monk the only place that actually calls out US as a Natural Weapon? Isn't it that only a Monk's USs are considered Manufactured and Natural? If yes, then what are they if you're not a Monk? 

Technically the Monk's entry is the only one that explicitly calls out US as being natural.  There's the Natural Weapons entry that says "Natural weapons are weapons that are physically a part of a creature," but US is an exception to some of those rules in that it's mentioned that an unarmed strike without IUS (even if the character is proficient in unarmed strikes as a simple weapon) provokes an AoO, which true natural weapons do not.

So yeah, a rewrite would tend to be better than adding more stuff onto the clusterfuck that is US rules.

[RobbyPants]

What do you mean "How many"?

Nevermind. I reread the wording of your rule in the OP and it wouldn't work at all with multiattack in a way to grant you more attacks. You're just treated as having more than one without actually getting them.