Are there any means for an unarmed Brawler Fighter to count as "wielding" a weapon?

[Wednesday Boy]

I like the aestetics of playing a bare knuckle Brawler Fighter but without wielding a weapon in his primary hand my PC would not get a shield and Fort bonus (see below).

While you wield a weapon in your primary hand and your off hand is free or grabbing a creature, you gain a +1 bonus to AC and a +2 bonus to Fortitude.

Are there any means (barring houseruling) to count as wielding while not actually holding a weapon? I assume the monk's unarmed strike would not change the situation but maybe there's a rule about the monk unarmed strike that I overlooked. Thanks for the help!

 

[mneme]

Spiked gauntlets?

But I'd argue that the Monk Unarmed Strike certainly -does- count.

Simple one-handed melee weapon

Damage: 1d8
Proficient: +3

Properties:
Off-Hand (An off-hand weapon is light enough that you can hold it and attack effectively with it while holding a weapon in your main hand. You can’t attack with both weapons in the same turn, unless you have a power that lets you do so, but you can attack with either weapon.).

 

[D'karr]

An unarmed attack is, by the rules, an Improvised Melee WEAPON

Proficiency - N/A
Damage - 1d4
Group - Unarmed

So unless you are carrying something else in that "primary hand" you are "wielding a Melee Weapon".

PHB Page 219 Melee Weapons Table

 

[Incenjucar]

You are basically always wielding a weapon of some sort unless you say you are not (holding instead of wielding, etc) or you are wielding something else (like an implement). If you have any object in your hand that would interfere with your wielding an unarmed attack weapon, you'd then just be able to wield that item as an improvised weapon.

 

[Larrin]

wrist razors from dark sun work for certain..

Simple one-handed melee weapon
Cost: 1 gp
Damage: 1d4
Proficient: +3
Weight: 1 lb.

This weapon consists of three sharp blades that protrude from a sturdy bracer, freeing the wielder’s hand. A shield cannot be worn on the same arm as wrist razors. Wrist razors do not need to be drawn, nor do they need to be sheathed for the wielder to use the hand the razors are on. An enchanted wrist razor occupies the arms slot.

Spiked guantlets leaving your hand free, unarmed( and monk unarmed strike) being weilding a weapon, these are reasonable and probably legal, but are not slam dunks, based on what i can see from the compendium.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Its a nice theory but not really. When the rules talk about wielding a weapon they mean a weapon, not "unarmed attack", which isn't really a weapon. You can ALWAYS make an unarmed attack, even if you ARE holding weapons in your hands. It just represents your ability to say head butt, kick, punch, or any other sort of possibility. It isn't a weapon of its own. Consider, you can be holding a bow (a 2-handed weapon) and STILL make an OA using an unarmed attack.

Also things like two-weapon attack and defense would work fine with empty hands, which they really clearly are not intended to.

The Monk's Unarmed Strike mainly exists for exactly this reason. It defines an actual weapon and lets you treat your empty fist as one.

 

[Incenjucar]

Eh? An unarmed attack is totally a weapon. Look at any action movie and you're likely to see lots of punching and kicking and headbutting even by people using weapons.

If you're wielding a bow, you should be using it as a two-handed improvised weapon.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yes, but the point is that while 'unarmed attack' is listed in the weapon table to tell you what stats to use for it, it literally doesn't count as a weapon. You aren't ARMED when you are UNARMED, lol. There would have never been a point in making these distinctions if 'unarmed attack' counted as a weapon. You can go talk to the rules lawyers on Q&A about it if you want, but we hashed this out over there 2 years ago. In order to be wielding a weapon you gotta be armed with an actual weapon.

 

[Incenjucar]

With the exception of obvious problems like "throwing" your weapon, I'm baffled that anyone would think you suddenly can't use Tide of Iron because you lost your whip.

 

[D'karr]

Yes, but the point is that while 'unarmed attack' is listed in the weapon table to tell you what stats to use for it, it literally doesn't count as a weapon. You aren't ARMED when you are UNARMED, lol. There would have never been a point in making these distinctions if 'unarmed attack' counted as a weapon. You can go talk to the rules lawyers on Q&A about it if you want, but we hashed this out over there 2 years ago. In order to be wielding a weapon you gotta be armed with an actual weapon.

So according to the rules lawyers a "weapon" that appears as a Weapon in the Melee Weapon table and that appears on the category of improvised melee Weapons is not a weapon.

That is one very weird way of reading English. I don't actually have to interpret anything about this. It is there in plain language. If this was something from Customer Service they need to take remedial English.

By the way right above that entry in the table is Any, which means anything you pick up from a rock to a chair to a pool cue, and those are weapons too.

The effect says when you are wielding a melee weapon in your primary hand. It does not say when you are wielding a melee weapon with a proficiency bonus, or any melee weapon but for your own hand. When I'm wielding a bow and I make an opportunity attack I can use the unarmed weapon to make an unarmed attack. But I can't benefit from what the OP was talking about because I have a ranged weapon in my primary hand, I'm wielding something besides a melee weapon.

So if the PC was holding a chair leg in his hand he would be wielding a weapon, it has no proficiency bonus and does crap damage but it is a weapon, and would benefit from the effect the OP is referencing. The unarmed attack has no proficiency bonus and does crap damage, but it is a weapon in every reference in the books.

The next "rules lawyering" would be can an unarmed attack benefit from powers/feats that reference the off-hand? And the answer would be NO. The unarmed attack does not have the Off-Hand property of weapons so it does not benefit from effects that reference the off-hand.