Can a duelist use two-weapon fighting?

[JRRNeiklot]

According to the descriptin in S&F, a duelist cannot use precise strike if she attacks "with a weapon in her other hand." If you take this as written, she could use two-weapon fighting to attack with an unarmed strike with her off-hand. Now my questin is, is this a loop-hole or a legitimate strategy?

 

[Dagger75]

Its part of the the Class.

An example a Dualist uses a Rapier and Short Sword. Lets say he gets 2 attacks a round normally, with the off hand he gets a third. Total damage 3d6 if he hits with all 3

Same dualist only using 1 Rapier nothing in off hand.
Total Damage 4d6 if he hits with both hits. 1d6 for Rapier + 1d6 for precise strike with each hit

Why because precise strike only works if you are not using anything in your off hand. You are actually better off with nothing in your off hand as shown.

Hope that helps

 

[Squire James]

Unarmed attacks ARE considered weapons as far as most feats are concerned, so I'd say a duelist would lose Precise Strike if he struck unarmed with his off-hand. Using that other hand to swing on a chandalier, on the other hand, is perfectly acceptable!

 

[hong]

Besides which, unless the duelist has Improved Unarmed Strike (not likely; there are better feats to get), attacking with your fist invites AoOs.

 

[Darkness]

Moved to Rules.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

Now my questin is, is this a loop-hole or a legitimate strategy?

What do you think?

Does this feel right to you? Do you really believe that the designer intended a duelist to be able to punch with his off hand and still gain precise strike while he couldn't do it with a dagger?

 

[kreynolds]

Now my questin is, is this a loop-hole or a legitimate strategy?

It's a legitmate strategy. If your fist is considered an armed attack then it is also considered a weapon, thus you lose Precise Strike. It's a balancing rule.

 

[Corinth]

I think it's wonky. The Duelist simulates Spanish rapier fighting, but it was the Italian and French styles that we remember best as they're the stuff commonly seen in swashbuckling films and books. Give the PRC some leeway to use a buckler, dagger, fist or cloak in the off-hand.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Re: Re: Can a duelist use two-weapon fighting?

What do you think?

Does this feel right to you? Do you really believe that the designer intended a duelist to be able to punch with his off hand and still gain precise strike while he couldn't do it with a dagger?

Ah, but with a few levels of monk, you could do some serious damage with a kick and STILL not use a weapon in your off-hand, thus preserving precise strike.

 

[Ristamar]

Re: Re: Re: Can a duelist use two-weapon fighting?

Ah, but with a few levels of monk, you could do some serious damage with a kick and STILL not use a weapon in your off-hand, thus preserving precise strike.

Very sneaky. But I'd rule against, since I believe it violates designer intent.

Monks are strange because of their unarmed attack techniques. Technically, you'd have to shower them with Magic Fang if you wanted to enchant all of their possible unarmed attacks.

How many Magic Fangs would it take? 2 to enchant both hands? Maybe 4 for hands and feet? 5 for hands, feet, and head (gotta love the headbutt)? 9 for hands, feet, head, knees, and elbows?

Anyway, the point is, if you start exploiting rules using the vague and loose monk unarmed attack description, you can easily turn it the other way and screw with the monk.