Animated Shields

[Deset Gled]

I think you do actually.

TWO-WEAPON FIGHTING [GENERAL]
You can fight with a weapon in each hand. You can make one extra attack each round with the second weapon.
Prerequisite: Dex 15.
Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6.
Normal: If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. When fighting in this way you suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand. If your off-hand weapon is light the penalties are reduced by 2 each. (An unarmed strike is always considered light.)

There are two schools of though here. One that says anytime you want to count as "wielding" a weapon for AoOs, you must take the penalty, one that says you only take the penalty on the AoOs. It hinges on your interpretation of the bolded text above. Your example is pretty much the poster child of why so many people rule that you must take the penalties all the time. I also think that a changing to one ruling on the way weapon wielding is handled is a lot more reasonable than banning reach weapons entirely.

Other than that discussion, I am failing to see how you can threaten over a 50' area, even with Enlarge. I am also wondering how you have enough castings of Enlarge to last all day, how every character would have the Combat Reflexes feat (a must have if you're relying on AoOs), and why your opponents couldn't cast on the defensive, or move out of your range to pelt you with ranged weapons. Some more details about these tactics would be nice.

 

[mvincent]

Not at all, but since you have no desire to discuss the issue, I have no desire to force feed it to you.

To clarify, I have no desire to specifically discuss the merits of spiked chains (as that has been done to death, and I'm almost certain you haven't read those threads). I'm quite happy to debate the other points though.

you would not get away with half of what you describe in my campaigns and that's per the rules.

Bring on 'dem rules. I am anxious to be schooled.

 

[mvincent]

There are two schools of though here.

Yup. My group goes with the officially published interpretation though. Per the Rules of the Game, you do not take TWF'ing penatlies on AoO's.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Other than that discussion, I am failing to see how you can threaten over a 50' area, even with Enlarge.

Notice - not a 50 foot reach. Controlling an area 50 feet across.

You take up a ten foot space, and you have a raech of twenty feet in either direction. That's a diameter of 50 feet for your 'zone of control'.

-Hyp.

 

[mvincent]

I am failing to see how you can threaten over a 50' area

A large creatures occupies a 10'x10' area, and has reach out to 20' on either side, creating a 50' wide (i.e. 20'+10'+20') circle of death.

I am also wondering how you have enough castings of Enlarge to last all day

They don't need to last all day. A wizard with a 750 gp wand of enlarge just buffs the reach wielder on the first round.

how every character would have the Combat Reflexes feat (a must have if you're relying on AoOs)

Just the reach weapon weilders have it. A party doesn't need more than one or two. A fighter or barbarian can easily get it with an extra feat (and it's well worth it), while a monk gets it as one of it's class feats.

and why your opponents couldn't cast on the defensive

They certainly can, assuming they think to. However, they often don't even realize that you have 20' of reach, and even when they you do, it is a deceptively long distance. Also, all it takes is a readied action to disrupt them anyway.

or move out of your range to pelt you with ranged weapons.

As mentioned, that is often not an option except in wide open fields. Also, merely moving out of range will provoke (even with a withdraw), assuming the wielder has positioned himself well.

Some more details about these tactics would be nice.

I hope that helped. While I can't anticipate the questions ahead of time, I'm happy to answer when asked.

 

[Dracorat]

I don't but you can only make AoOs in to squares that you threaten.

By default, with a reach weapon you do not threaten the squares inside reach.

In order to use improved unarmed strike, you have to actually BE unarmed. Feat description:

Improved Unarmed Strike [General]
Benefit

You are considered to be armed even when unarmed —that is, you do not provoke attacks or opportunity from armed opponents when you attack them while unarmed. However, you still get an attack of opportunity against any opponent who makes an unarmed attack on you.

In addition, your unarmed strikes can deal lethal or nonlethal damage, at your option.
Normal

Without this feat, you are considered unarmed when attacking with an unarmed strike, and you can deal only nonlethal damage with such an attack.
Special

A monk automatically gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat at 1st level. She need not select it.

A fighter may select Improved Unarmed Strike as one of his fighter bonus feats.

And as for armor spikes, you have to choose to use them as a weapon or not. When you do, they are a weapon of their own and can be an onhand or offhand strike. However, you have to choose to make such an attack. When you do, they are considered to be a regular melee weapon as per their description, not an unarmed attack. In order to draw or sheathe a weapon requires a free action if you have Quick Draw or as part of movement or a move action if you do not.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I don't but you can only make AoOs in to squares that you threaten.

And you threaten squares into which you can make a melee attack.

And you can make a melee attack with an unarmed strike into an adjacent square.

Now, there's an exception: "If you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares and thus can’t make attacks of opportunity."

But this character isn't unarmed; he's wielding a glaive (or whatever). So this clause doesn't apply; he does threaten any squares into which he can make a melee attack, and he can make a melee attack into an adjacent square with an unarmed strike.

Now, there's a complication: "Without this feat, you are considered unarmed when attacking with an unarmed strike."

So without IUS, even though you're armed, as soon as you attack with an unarmed strike, you're considered unarmed, and therefore don't threaten any squares and can't make an AoO.

But with IUS, you're not considered unarmed, and so you do threaten squares and can make an AoO.

In order to use improved unarmed strike, you have to actually BE unarmed.

That's not what the feat says. It doesn't say you count as armed if you are unarmed; it says you count as armed even if you are unarmed.

So if you're armed, you count as armed, and also if you are unarmed, you count as armed. The feat doesn't stop working when you pick up a sword; rather, it doesn't only start working when you drop the sword.

-Hyp.

 

[mvincent]

In order to use improved unarmed strike, you have to actually BE unarmed.

Nope. The feat refers back to a regular unarmed strike, which can be used even while you are armed. Your interpretation implies that a monk could not make unarmed strikes while using another weapon (something that WotC has provided many examples of).

And as for armor spikes, you have to choose to use them as a weapon or not.

I have previously noted that TWF'ing penalties to not apply to AoO's.

When you do, they are considered to be a regular melee weapon as per their description, not an unarmed attack.

What are you debating with this statement?

In order to draw or sheathe a weapon requires a free action if you have Quick Draw or as part of movement or a move action if you do not.

I have no idea how you are applying this to the issue discussed.

 

[Dracorat]

Yes, but the distinction is that you are not "unarmed" while armed with a reach weapon. You are armed. And your armament has a specific range it can hit in. In order to become unarmed requires you do something to change yourself to unarmed, which is an action you can only take on your own turn.

 

[Dracorat]

Nope. The feat refers back to a regular unarmed strike, which can be used even while you are armed. Your interpretation implies that a monk could not make unarmed strikes while using another weapon (something that WotC has provided many examples of).

That's because a monk has a class feature that specifically allows this:

Unarmed Strike

At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk’s attacks may be with either fist interchangeably or even from elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may even make unarmed strikes with her hands full. 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.

Please note that it is called out specifically that a monk has an exception to the norm.

I have previously noted that TWF'ing penalties to not apply to AoO's.

Using the "rules of the game" articles which have gotten the rules wrong on previous occasions or even admitted that they adjudicate rules against the regular rules.

I have no idea how you are applying this to the issue discussed.

See above.