Improved Unarmed Strike and 2H weapons

[Artoomis]

Clarification on how I see this:

1. You can make an AoO with any weapon with which you threaten.

2. You threaten by simply wielding a weapon - whether you've used it or not (though simply having it in your hand is not the same as "wielding.").

3. For two weapons, you get to threaten with whatever you "wielded" during you turn. If you "wielded" both weapons, you can use either for you AoO, with appropriate penalties, of course.

I am not really certain about how this works if you have two weapons and decide to use them both (on-hand and off-0hand), but take no extra attacks. I'm still thinking about that.

After hearing all the arguments on both sides I have decided that, for me at least, the way this works is you may only wield one weapon at a time unless using TWF with all penalties, and can only switch weapons during your turn.

Further, if you make any attacks with your off-hand as well as you on-hand, you incur TWF penalties.

I think that's the simplest approach that is also rule-based and passes the "common sense" test.

 

[IcyCool]

No. I made no attack with the dagger in that example.

Then you are not "fighting in this way".

 

[NilesB]

After hearing all the arguments on both sides I have decided that, for me at least, the way this works is you may only wield one weapon at a time unless using TWF with all penalties, and can only switch weapons during your turn.

You'll forgive me if I don't see what purpose it serves to house rule the weakest fighting style in the game to be weaker and more complicated and cumbersome.

 

[Artoomis]

You'll forgive me if I don't see what purpose it serves to house rule the weakest fighting style in the game to be weaker and more complicated and cumbersome.

That's hardly a "house rule." It's a legitimate rules interpretation and solidly founded in the rules as they are written.

It is considered against this forum's rules to call some else's rule interpretations "house rules" as that comes across as somewhat dismissive and insulting. whether it was intended that way or not. I just thought I'd point that out before a moderator steps in to do it. In case you did not now, this has come about because of some rather nasty past discussions.

I trust you'll not take offense, as certainly none is intended.

I hope that's all we need say about that and can move on with substantive discussions.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Certainly. But you are now wielding a second weapon in your off-hand, so while making the AoO, you are 'fighting this way', and penalties apply.

Whichever weapon or weapons you were wielding at the end of your last turn.

So, are you suggesting that the single paragraph on Two-Weapon Fighting refers to two different scenarios? I.e. one of them is the full attack action "fighting this way" and the other is the which-weapons-are-readied "fighting this way"? From my reading, "fighting this way" can only occur if an extra attack per round is gained. If that extra attack is not gained, then the remainder of the paragraph is not used, thus you are not "fighting this way."

If the penalties are 0, then you would always choose to take them. If for some perverse reason you didn't, then you would limit yourself, but why would you?

Well, I'd agree, but it depends on how the DM rules when a weapon is wielded or not, in actual practice. In the withdraw example, the DM has to force the player to answer a question on which weapon(s) are wielded and which are just held, according your interpretation, right? I suppose you could establish a default or something, but nevertheless it's more 'bookkeeping' to some degree.

Then you are not "fighting in this way".

That doesn't answer the question. Can I make an attack of opportunity or not? I think Hyp's interpretation is yes, but with TWF penalties.

 

[Artoomis]

So, are you suggesting that the single paragraph on Two-Weapon Fighting refers to two different scenarios? I.e. one of them is the full attack action "fighting this way" and the other is the which-weapons-are-readied "fighting this way"? From my reading, "fighting this way" can only occur if an extra attack per round is gained. If that extra attack is not gained, then the remainder of the paragraph is not used, thus you are not "fighting this way."....

I though Hyp made it clear that you could read "fighting this way" in moee than one way. He and I read it to mean when fighting with two weapons (one in each hand) - whether you take an extra attack or not.

It is, of course, not the only way to read it.

So, once again, there is more than one "right" answer. I seem to be one of only a few folks who are very comfortable with the concept of multiple "correct" answers to many of these rules questions.

 

[billd91]

We already know that it's possible to hold a weapon without wielding it - consider, again, a quarterstaff held in one hand.

-Hyp.

But is it possible to hold a weapon with the requisite number of hands without wielding it? Two-handed weapons held in one hand is an obvious example of something being held but not wielded, but it's not as relevant as being able to determine if a longsword held in one hand is wielded or merely held.

This presupposes that we're not talking about holding the weapon in some way in which it cannot be wielded at all such as holding a spear by the tip or a sword with the hand half-way up the blade. Those situations make it fairly obvious that the weapon must be "drawn" in some way to make them usable.

 

[Hypersmurf]

So, are you suggesting that the single paragraph on Two-Weapon Fighting refers to two different scenarios?

I'm suggesting that the section on Two-Weapon Fighting describes a single scenario - someone wielding a second weapon in his off-hand.

When this scenario applies, there are consequences. One consequence is that he may elect to make an extra attack with the off-hand weapon in a full attack action. The other consequence - whether or not he avails himself of that extra attack, and whether or not he is in fact taking the full attack action - is that he suffers penalties on his attacks.

In your dagger example, you aren't wielding a second weapon in your off-hand; you're wielding a single weapon. So I have no problem with you making an AoO at no penalty with the dagger.

-Hyp.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I'm suggesting that the section on Two-Weapon Fighting describes a single scenario - someone wielding a second weapon in his off-hand.

When this scenario applies, there are consequences. One consequence is that he may elect to make an extra attack with the off-hand weapon in a full attack action. The other consequence - whether or not he avails himself of that extra attack, and whether or not he is in fact taking the full attack action - is that he suffers penalties on his attacks.

If it were a single scenario, then you would get the extra attack (whether or not you take it), but what we've agreed upon is that you do not get the extra attack and cannot take it because the dagger is not yet wielded. More importantly, you don't get the penalties. Then, before your turn ends, you switch to a second scenario where you are ascribed the penalties and do not have the option even of taking the extra attack.

It's two scenarios. This is an important distinction IMO because I feel it invalidates your interpretation of "fighting this way."

 

[BASHMAN]

No.

A monk can, though. The monk's description specifically mentions that he can use his unarmed strike even if both hands are holding something. So a Fighter X/Monk 1 could wield a greataxe and use his unarmed strike as a secondary weapon.

This is not true.

I have a Level 15 Monk who uses a spiked chain. While it is true he can use unarmed strikes while holding the chain, he CANNOT just switch between Unarmed Strikes and attacks with the Chain. He either uses 1 or the other each round.

Essentially I only use the chain for AOOs, and if I can close with an enemy, I unload my unarmed strikes which do a lot more damage anyway, and get 2 extra attacks per round.