Improved Unarmed Strike and 2H weapons

[Deset Gled]

And here's a tricky question:

Fighter is carrying a longspear. He threatens the squares 10' away from him with the longspear. But he has Improved Unarmed Strike. Does he also threaten the squares adjacent to him with his unarmed strike (assuming he can use kicks or somesuch to deliver said attacks)?

My cut-and-paste answer from a previous thread:

There is a long term debate surrounding what penalties are associated with making an AoO with an off hand weapon. Some people maintain that if you take an AoO with your off-hand weapon, you must take the TWF penalties (I will refer to this as Side 1). Others claim you only take the penalties if you use the full attack action to get extra attacks using the off hand weapon (I will refer to this as Side A).

Once you get down into the debate far enough (i.e. looking only at the core info), the arguements hinge on the following text:

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.)

If you take "in this way" to mean whenever "you wield a weapon in your off hand", then you are on Side 1. If you take "in this way" to mean whenever you "get one extra attack", then you are on Side A.

If you are trying to be consistent, these two different interpretations have a pretty wide number of side effects. For example, with Side A's POV, a character can wield daggers in both hands and interchange attacks between the daggers as desired, as long as they only get the normal number of attacks. With Side 1's POV, this would require taking penalties, regardless of whether or not the character makes any extra attacks. This makes Side A seem better from a balance/options standpoint. OTOH, Side A's side allows a character to sit around 24/7 with a reach weapon just to take AoOs and never take any penalties. Side 1's view stops this. This makes Side 1 seem better from a balance perspective.

Note that the ruling from the 3.0 FAQ answers a question about Defending weapons that supports Side 1. There is an RotG article that explicitly supports Side A. I personally am on Side 1.

 

[pawsplay]

If he takes the two-weapon fighting penalties while attacking with his longspear, yes. If you rule "fighting in this way" differently, then YMMV.

Why would there be penalties? He would only be attacking with one weapon. Simply wielding two weapons carries no penalty.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Why would there be penalties? He would only be attacking with one weapon. Simply wielding two weapons carries no penalty.

"If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. 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 when you fight this way."

By my reading of that paragraph, it's wielding the second weapon that imposes the penalty... and also permits you to make an extra attack. (What Desert Gled refers to as 'Side 1', above.)

Which way are you fighting? With a second weapon in your off-hand. What are the effects of fighting this way? You can make an extra attack, and you take a penalty.

-Hyp.

 

[pawsplay]

It doesn't specify if you are fighting that way. What it specifies is the penalties for wielding two weapons for an attack. You wouldn't use both weapons for an AoO, since it is prohibited. Yes, you get those penalties for wielding two weapons... when making that kind of attack.

Thought example: a fighter is wielding a longsword and a shield. Someone draws an attack of opportunity. He can choose to use either the longsword or the shield. Hence, he is wielding both. Yet a longsword and shield user is not traditionally seen to be walking around with massive TWF penalties.

If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. 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 when you fight this way.

"This way" in this paragraph seems to distinctly refer to taking an extra attack. Wielding two weapons is the required condition.

 

[Artoomis]

..."This way" in this paragraph seems to distinctly refer to taking an extra attack. Wielding two weapons is the required condition.

In that case, your AoO can ONLY be with the weapon you are using. Obviously, if you did not take the off-hand penalties for TWF you do not get the benefits of TWF, and get only take an AoO with the same wepoan you used in your attack.

 

[Artoomis]

And here's a tricky question:

Fighter is carrying a longspear. He threatens the squares 10' away from him with the longspear. But he has Improved Unarmed Strike. Does he also threaten the squares adjacent to him with his unarmed strike (assuming he can use kicks or somesuch to deliver said attacks)?

I'd say IF he is taking penalties for two-weapon fighting (unarmed strike being the second weapon), then yes; otherwise no.

This seems fair, balanced and rules-based.

 

[Sejs]

And here's a tricky question:

Fighter is carrying a longspear. He threatens the squares 10' away from him with the longspear. But he has Improved Unarmed Strike. Does he also threaten the squares adjacent to him with his unarmed strike (assuming he can use kicks or somesuch to deliver said attacks)?

Yep, indeed he does.

That and archery are one of the reasons for a straight fighter to take IUS.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I would say that if your PC is fighting with a 2 handed weapon and has either armor spikes or IUC, he can strike with those as if he were fighting with 2 weapons.

The trick is when the attacks are triggered by AoOs- how do you resolve the conundrum of a PC who starts off fighting 2 handed, and finishes the round fighting 2 weapon style? I can't really justify retroactively penalizing the prior attacks.

The only way I can resolve that is to say that there is a time-element to fighting, and if a PC gets off his 2-Hd weapon attack first (before any AoOs are triggered) he gets no penalty- he is not at that time fighting with 2 weapons...but once the first AoO is triggered and taken, he is fighting with 2 weapons until the next round...including his next strike with the 2-Hd weapon in the subsequent round.

If, during that subsequent round, he takes no AoOs, the 2 weapon penalties disapear for the next 2-Hd weapon attack.

 

[Ferghis]

A fighter has Improved Unarmed Strike and Two-Weapon Fighting. He wields a greataxe. Can he use headbutts/kicks/stomps/etc. as his off-hand attack?

This doesn't answer your question, but I think the Dirty Fighting feat simulates what you're describing, at least as far as I've understood the feat. It adds d4 damage if you hit during a full attack, which is a little weak, in my opinion, but not by much. I'd be happier with d4+Str bonus, which may be intended, but would be a stretch from the text.

 

[glass]

Fighter is carrying a longspear. He threatens the squares 10' away from him with the longspear. But he has Improved Unarmed Strike. Does he also threaten the squares adjacent to him with his unarmed strike (assuming he can use kicks or somesuch to deliver said attacks)?

His choice: He can wield both, and therefore threaten both, taking the relevant penalties.

Or, he can wield one or the other, and threaten one range or the other.


glass.