Improved Unarmed Strike and 2H weapons

[glass]

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.

My god, I agree with Artoomis.

*looks out window* No, the sky doesn't seem to be falling.


glass.

 

[Klaus]

Interesting. This can work even with just Armor Spikes. By just taking a feat (Two Weapon Fighting), a character in armor spikes can take -2 to his attacks and threaten 24 squares!

 

[Infiniti2000]

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.

How about if there are no penalties and yet you chose not to take them (despite being zero) or could not choose to take them? I think there's a feat that reduces the penalties to zero, or consider if I have to move up to my enemy and make a single attack but have two weapons in hand--can I not make an AoO with a different weapon?

 

[Beckett]

Interesting. This can work even with just Armor Spikes. By just taking a feat (Two Weapon Fighting), a character in armor spikes can take -2 to his attacks and threaten 24 squares!

And a character with just one feat (EWP Spiked Chain) can do the same, without taking any penalties.

With that in mind, I have no problems with someone using a reach weapon who also has Improved Unarmed Strike to threaten at 10ft and 5ft with no penalty.

 

[Artoomis]

How about if there are no penalties and yet you chose not to take them (despite being zero) or could not choose to take them? I think there's a feat that reduces the penalties to zero, or consider if I have to move up to my enemy and make a single attack but have two weapons in hand--can I not make an AoO with a different weapon?

As far as I am concerned, you either have one weapon you are using or you have two and are taking all associated penalties.

 

[IcyCool]

As far as I am concerned, you either have one weapon you are using or you have two and are taking all associated penalties.

Agreed. You only threaten with the weapons you are using, and if you are using two weapons (i.e. "fighting in this way"), then you take the associated two-weapon fighting penalties. Of course, "fighting in this way" is very ambiguous.

 

[Legildur]

As far as I am concerned, you either have one weapon you are using or you have two and are taking all associated penalties.

Agreed. My buckler readying fighter often draws a dagger in his off-hand, but doesn't wield it (so can't take AOOs with it, but also doesn't take the TWF penalties), when faced by potential grappling foes where a longsword won't help in close-quarters.

I agree that a character would need to take the relevant TWF penalties in order to threaten with each weapon.

The only case I'm not 100% sure about is monks. Namely because the Unarmed Strike class ability explicitly expands the IUS feat to add "A monk may even attack with her hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk stiking unarmed."

 

[Hypersmurf]

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.

I would say that if the fighter elects to wield his shield, he can take an AoO with it, but he is incurring TWF penalties.

He can also elect to bear his shield without wielding it; he'd still benefit from the AC bonus, but since he is not wielding it as a weapon, he cannot attack with it. Since he is not in this case wielding a second weapon in his off hand (rather, he is carrying a shield which is not wielded as a weapon), he is not 'fighting this way', and incurs no penalties.

-Hyp.

 

[Infiniti2000]

My buckler readying fighter often draws a dagger in his off-hand, but doesn't wield it (so can't take AOOs with it, but also doesn't take the TWF penalties), when faced by potential grappling foes where a longsword won't help in close-quarters.

Interestingly, the combat action description for drawing a weapon says, "Drawing a weapon so that you can use it in combat..." There's no option for a drawing a weapon that you will not use in combat.

As far as I am concerned, you either have one weapon you are using or you have two and are taking all associated penalties.

The problem with that viewpoint is that it creates a conflict when someone wants to fight with two weapons and yet not use two-weapon fighting. In other words, consider someone with a BAB of +6 and only having a longsword in hand. He tries a disarm, fails, and gets his longsword disarmed in return. For his second iterative attack, can he do anything like quick draw a second weapon and attack? Is this a situation of "fighting this way?" If not, and I hope you'll agree not, then how is this situation any different than the attack of opportunity? As an attack of opportunity, IMO, you are not "fighting this way" (i.e. with two weapons at once in order to gain an extra attack per round).

 

[Artoomis]

Interestingly, the combat action description for drawing a weapon says, "Drawing a weapon so that you can use it in combat..." There's no option for a drawing a weapon that you will not use in combat.
The problem with that viewpoint is that it creates a conflict when someone wants to fight with two weapons and yet not use two-weapon fighting. In other words, consider someone with a BAB of +6 and only having a longsword in hand. He tries a disarm, fails, and gets his longsword disarmed in return. For his second iterative attack, can he do anything like quick draw a second weapon and attack? Is this a situation of "fighting this way?" If not, and I hope you'll agree not, then how is this situation any different than the attack of opportunity? As an attack of opportunity, IMO, you are not "fighting this way" (i.e. with two weapons at once in order to gain an extra attack per round).

No - I'd say he threatens only with whatever he is actually wielding. Having it just in your hand (with no intent to use it) is not threatening. Changing weapons to strike with something that did not threaten is just... wrong.