Brawler Style, free hands, and having a target grabbed

[Radiating Gnome]

Oh Great minds, give me your thoughts . . . .


MP2: The Brawler Style class feature says "While you wield a weapon in your primary hand and your off hand is free (see the sidebar), you gain a +1 bonus to AC and a +2 bonus to fortitude. "

And the sidebar reads:
"Many fighter powers require a hand free. For your hand to be considered free, you can't be using it for anything else -- that means no off-hand weapons (except a spiked gauntlet), no two handed weapons, no shields, and no items, such as sunrods or lanterns.

Already grabbing: You can grab only one creature at a time unless both your hands are free, in which case you could grab two creatures at once. You must spend a minor action to sustain each grab, though. "

So . . .

My DM is arguing that when my Brawler has a target grabbed, his off hand is no longer free -- it's holding the target -- and therefore he no longer benefits from the Brawler Style class feature and related powers.

I don't agree . . . but I'm afraid that I'm not being sufficiently dispassionate. What do you guys think?

-rg

 

[Piratecat]

There's another thread like this floating around. No one is sure of the answer; by RAW I think your DM is right, but I also think that's lame and a pain in the butt to track.

 

[Mort_Q]

The other thread.

 

[Radiating Gnome]

Thanks guys.

Lame and a pain in the butt is right.

-j

 

[Chzbro]

I wouldn't say I'm arguing it, but I do think it merits consideration.

For the record, I don't like the "pain in the butt" aspect of it, but I can see it being an intentional balance between fighter builds.

Although it's not strictly better than sword and board fighting, it seems like it would usually be better to choose brawler style over sword and board if the bonus is "always on." In some ways, allowing the brawler bonus during a grapple feels like letting a sword and board fighter still have his shield bonus even if he doesn't have a shield.

However, I'm not convinced either way. After all, the book doesn't explicitly say that a hand isn't free during a grapple (although it does say that you can only grapple one creature per free hand which implies it).

Sorry if this is all discussed in the other thread, but the above link seems to be broken (edit: apparently it was my interwebs that were broken since the link now works fine for me).

 

[DracoSuave]

It depends entirely on your weapons:

Sword in one hand, grabbing hand is a gauntlet or unarmed--

No. You're wielding a weapon in your sword hand, but the other hand is doing something, grabbing, therefore you don't get the bonus.

Two unarmed--

No. You're not wielding a weapon.

Two gauntlets--

Yes. You grab with your main hand, as it is free. Now you have a weapon in your main hand (the gauntlet is still wielded) and your off-hand is free.

 

[Chzbro]

While I totally agree with Dracosuave's post, that's exactly the argument that makes me want to just go with the player and let the defense bonuses always be "on."

It bothers me that there's a way to "game the system" by using a particular weapon AND specifying with which hand you're performing the grab (a distinction which makes absolutely no other mechanical difference and would otherwise not be an issue at all).

This wouldn't be the case if the feature read, "While you wield a weapon in one hand and your other hand is free..." Maybe it should, but it doesn't.

So it seems to me that this interpretation encourages EVERY brawler fighter to wear two spiked gauntlets...and I really dislike doing that because it pushes players back toward the kind of system mastery that I'd be happy to not have to deal with again.

 

[Dr_Ruminahui]

Well, I guess it depends on how having a hand free gives the player added defence - if its because he's using it to push away the enemy's weapon arm or otherwise trip them up, it makes sense that he loses it when he no longer has a hand free to do it with.

That said, such a ruling does promote a certain way of arming brawling fighters, with all others being mechanically inferior.

Personally, I find the above reasoning convincing - from both a RAW and a fluff perspective, it makes sense to me that he would lose the bonus. That said, it does make what I think would be the coolest and most evocative builds inferior - the ones where you have a guy who grabs people and pulls them onto his blade. And it does so for one that I find conceptually kidn of "blah" - the two spiked gauntlets route strikes me as rather too "marvel super hero" for my liking.

So I don't know how I would rule on it.

 

[DracoSuave]

While I totally agree with Dracosuave's post, that's exactly the argument that makes me want to just go with the player and let the defense bonuses always be "on."

It bothers me that there's a way to "game the system" by using a particular weapon AND specifying with which hand you're performing the grab (a distinction which makes absolutely no other mechanical difference and would otherwise not be an issue at all).

This wouldn't be the case if the feature read, "While you wield a weapon in one hand and your other hand is free..." Maybe it should, but it doesn't.

So it seems to me that this interpretation encourages EVERY brawler fighter to wear two spiked gauntlets...and I really dislike doing that because it pushes players back toward the kind of system mastery that I'd be happy to not have to deal with again.

Well the difference is that such a grab does allow your other hand to do whatever it does that stops them from smacking you. I like to think of it as 'They go to swing at you, but suddenly you grab their neck and head butt them, causing their swing to be forgotten with a spread of pain'

 

[half-dragon dragon]

First, I agree that keeping track of the bonuses would be a pain if they turned on and off, BUT I think there is one more thing people are overlooking, the bonus to fortitude that the feature grants as well.

I can only imagine this bonus was given with the intention that it would make it harder to escape the fighter's grab. Obviously this aspect doesn't hold as much weight until you take that feat which forces the target to use the fighter's fortitude to escape, but I just don't think this bonus would be given if it would go away when the fighter actually grabbed someone.