Do brawlers get their feature bonuses with grabbing weapons?

[DracoSuave]

My original concern when I started this thread was the similarity to the swordmage rules requiring a free off-hand. The swordmage ward feature specifically states that you cannot have a weapon of any kind in the off-hand, and I think that even an "unarmed" weapon would deny their benefit. That's why I was concerned that wearing a spiked gauntlet would deny the brawler benefit.

This concern of mine has been considerably alleviated when it was pointed out to me that grappling strike actually contains the weapon keyword. If this is the case, I feel spiked gauntlets (and their ilk) should be allowed to benefit brawlers.

Actually, your concern was alleviated when the entry for 'free hand' in the brawler fighter write up specifically says a hand can be free if it has a spiked gauntlet as an explicit exception to the no weapons, shields, or any other item rule.

Brawklers are fine with Spiked Gauntlets, the rules directly say so.

 

[Ferghis]

Actually, your concern was alleviated when the entry for 'free hand' in the brawler fighter write up specifically says a hand can be free if it has a spiked gauntlet as an explicit exception to the no weapons, shields, or any other item rule.

Brawklers are fine with Spiked Gauntlets, the rules directly say so.

Wow. Doing a more educated google search shows that this specific question has been asked a few times before. And I guess that's what I get for relying on the D&Di Compendium instead of opening a book. Thanks again for pointing me in the right direction.

Can't give xp to DracoSuave. Will someone cover me?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I would say requiring your off-hand do the grabbing is nonsensical under the rules. You are either grabbing or you are not. A grab does not prevent you from being able to use your weapon, even if that weapon was the one used in the original power that grabs.

Moreover, if you look at the powers for a brawler that grab, not a single one uses the off-hand to grab. They all are weapon powers that simply grab the target. Thusly, they cannot be distinguished as 'off-handed' grabs, the Weapon keyword makes it clear it's the main hand weapon doing the grabbing.

On top of this, by the definition of 'hand free' if your hand is free, and you then grab someone, your hand is still free technically. You must have a hand free to grab one creature, and you must have two hands free to grab two creatures (obviously specific weapons that have grabbing powers are exceptions to this) But in neither of those cases does your hand become 'unfree'.

It's clear tby the rules that if you are grabbing, you must have had a free hand to do it. You cannot grab if your hand is not free, and there's no such thing as 'off-handed grab'. If there is, please show us the power that uses this concept.

Just to perhaps clarify what DS is saying here. In 4e there is no such thing as a specific 'off-hand'. If you wield a 2nd weapon you are required to wield a weapon with the off-hand property. There is no specific hand which is 'off'. Thus you cannot state that a grab (or any other attack for that matter) is 'made with the off-hand', you can only state that it is made with a weapon which does or doesn't have the off-hand property. No 'handedness' exists in 4e.

In fact to emphasize this you can actually HOLD 2 non-off-hand weapons, you simply cannot WIELD them both at once. I could hold a mace in one hand and a longsword in the other. I can declare that I'm wielding the mace one minute and the sword the next minute. Because neither is off-hand I can't take advantage of any benefits of one of them while also getting the benefits of the other, but because there is no 'off-hand' and 'main-hand' (a term that doesn't even exist in 4e) I don't have to switch them around etc, just declare which is currently being wielded (and there's actually no rule that says when or how that happens, I can by RAW simply declare that at any opportune moment).

 

[DracoSuave]

Just to perhaps clarify what DS is saying here. In 4e there is no such thing as a specific 'off-hand'. If you wield a 2nd weapon you are required to wield a weapon with the off-hand property. There is no specific hand which is 'off'. Thus you cannot state that a grab (or any other attack for that matter) is 'made with the off-hand', you can only state that it is made with a weapon which does or doesn't have the off-hand property. No 'handedness' exists in 4e.

No that is not at all what I am saying.

Grabbed is a condition which does not apply any of your hands, your weapons, or anything to the opponent. The ONLY requirement is that you have a hand free. You do not 'grab with your weapon', you do not 'grab with your off-hand' you simply grab the opponent. The game is unconcerned mechanically with 'which hand or weapon does it.' That construct simply does not exist. You are either grabbing an opponent or you are not. For the duration of the grab, you must have a hand free. Grabbing the opponent does not magically make your hand not free as a rules construct.

You do not state that you're 'grabbing with a weapon' because that doesn't make sense in the rules, any more than 'He is marked with my off-hand weapon' does or 'He is being dazed by my longsword' or 'He failed a saving throw vs my staff of lightning' or 'my barbarian enters a rage by his battle axe'

The grabbed condition doesn't involve itself with weapons or handedness or any of that. It just is.

 

[Ferghis]

... you can actually HOLD 2 non-off-hand weapons, you simply cannot WIELD them both at once.

I would be afraid to make this argument to a DM, as it might be dismissed as "rules-lawyering." The subtle difference between holding and wielding is a subtle one, and it would have to be very important to me before I would risk being further solidify the reputation of one that contorts rules in my favor.

 

[DracoSuave]

I would be afraid to make this argument to a DM, as it might be dismissed as "rules-lawyering." The subtle difference between holding and wielding is a subtle one, and it would have to be very important to me before I would risk being further solidify the reputation of one that contorts rules in my favor.

Wizards with two staffs.

It's not only legal, it's a build archtype.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I would be afraid to make this argument to a DM, as it might be dismissed as "rules-lawyering." The subtle difference between holding and wielding is a subtle one, and it would have to be very important to me before I would risk being further solidify the reputation of one that contorts rules in my favor.

Eh, there is actually a surprisingly large class of these subtle points. As an example take a Swordmage wielding a versatile weapon like say a bastard sword. Lets suppose he has no shield or other item occupying a hand. Is he wielding it one-handed or two-handed? The question is largely moot. Switching grips is a Free Action, thus can happen at ANY time. Thus said Swordmage could take advantage of Swordmage Warding by declaring his weapon to be held in one hand, giving a defense bonus. An instant later he can make an attack with the same weapon using both hands and gain the +1 damage bonus, and another instant later take advantage of Swordmage Warding again. In this case there IS a state (one or two handed grip) but unless the character is say stunned and cannot take actions at all the character can take advantage of the benefits of whichever grip he feels like at any given instant. A brawler fighter actually can do something similar, making attacks 2 handed with a versatile weapon and yet still qualifying as having a hand free in the very next instant (technically perhaps even within the same action though we now have some arguments about taking Free Action within another action again).

 

[DracoSuave]

Regarding versatile weapons and brawlers... you can use a versatile weapon with a brawler (and it's actually pretty decent) but if you want to use a power that requires a free hand, you must use the weapon one-handed throughout the entire power.

Thusly insinuating you can change grip mid power.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Regarding versatile weapons and brawlers... you can use a versatile weapon with a brawler (and it's actually pretty decent) but if you want to use a power that requires a free hand, you must use the weapon one-handed throughout the entire power.

Thusly insinuating you can change grip mid power.

I agree that is more in keeping with the intent of the rules, and MAY be RAW as well at this point, though we can't apparently be sure about that. Certainly the whole question of Free Action timing and associated questions really should be clarified. It has a good bit of bearing on exactly what feats/items you need in order to swap things in and out during your turn and exactly which actions are required using different options too.

 

[Argyle King]

Why not just fight with both hands empty and enchant your fists?

It appears to work.

Unarmed Strikes are defined as a weapon; it appears both in the weapon list and is further explained to work with [W] (weapon) attacks in PHB1 as well as being further clarified as part of the Unarmed group in AV1. There are enchantments which can apply to 'any' weapon.

Monk Unarmed Strikes cannot be enchanted, but that (IMO) is a case of specific beating general.

So, as far as I can tell there is an Unarmed Weapon Group which contains Unarmed Strikes, Monk Unarmed Strikes (which have a special rule stating they can't be enchanted,) and a few other things which have been added along the way.


note: I do not have DDi, so, if this has been clarified to work differently, I'm not aware of that.