Improved Unarmed Strike and 2H weapons

[IcyCool]

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.

You are now wielding the dagger, so yes, you can make an attack of opportunity with it. As you are not wielding two weapons, you take no penalties.

 

[Hypersmurf]

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.

Wait - why are you taking penalties? You dropped your longsword before drawing your dagger, right?

Where are the penalties coming from?

-Hyp.

 

[BASHMAN]

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?

If not, can he use it as a secondary natural attack? (like some monsters do who also wield weapons.)



why or why not? I'm leaning toward "not" but would like to back it up.


thanks in advance.

Your instinct is correct. Now here's the proof. There is a Feat in the Tome of Battle: Book of 9 Swords called Snap Kick. The exact purpose of Snap Kick is to allow a person with improved unarmed strike to attack with it and a weapon in the same round (both with a -2 penalty).

If you could just do that anyway, why would the feat exist? It seems especially useful if you have a 2 handed weapon, because you can use it to kick an enemy while using your 2-handed weapon...

If your fighter friend wants to do this, he has to take the feat...

 

[billd91]

Your instinct is correct. Now here's the proof. There is a Feat in the Tome of Battle: Book of 9 Swords called Snap Kick. The exact purpose of Snap Kick is to allow a person with improved unarmed strike to attack with it and a weapon in the same round (both with a -2 penalty).

If you could just do that anyway, why would the feat exist? It seems especially useful if you have a 2 handed weapon, because you can use it to kick an enemy while using your 2-handed weapon...

If your fighter friend wants to do this, he has to take the feat...

I do not think he needs to take the feat to perform the maneuver. This feat allows you to take a snap kick at a lower penalty than standard two-weapon fighting (-4 primary, -8 secondary) without having to invest in the two-weapon fighting feat itself.

Given the Dex requirement of the TWF feat, the snap kick feat could be an attractive way for a high-strength bruiser to get in an extra attack without really harsh penalties. That is, unless the snap kick feat also has a fairly high Dex requirement...

 

[Artoomis]

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.

Untrue. An advantage of unarmed strike is that you can attack with the chain, and then take you second attack with an unarmed strike (you could not Flurry, of course).

I guess this is part of the good deal of being a monk. Normally, you could not do this because off the on-hand/off-hand issue, but a monk does not have that issue if using only a single weapon and NOT using a flurry.

 

[Machiavelli]

Wait, so by holding a weapon in your off-hand while attacking with the one-handed weapon in your other hand, you incur the TWF penalties, right? And you can ignore those penalties by, say, holding the blade of the weapon in your off-hand, instead of the handle?

Am I the only one who thinks that sounds stupid? Holding a coffee cup doesn't give you TWF penalties, so why should holding a dagger do so? Should your hand be required to be empty or on the handle/haft of the primary weapon?


Why shouldn't the TWF penalties apply only on your turn, while making a full attack and gaining an extra attack? Then, after you've made your full attack, the penalties are no longer applicable, because you're no longer in the midst of that full attack.

There, done, no more confusion. Now, which part of that solution is incorrect?

 

[Artoomis]

Wait, so by holding a weapon in your off-hand while attacking with the one-handed weapon in your other hand, you incur the TWF penalties, right? And you can ignore those penalties by, say, holding the blade of the weapon in your off-hand, instead of the handle?...

Nope.. by WIELDING the weapon such that, for eaxmple, you can take AoOs with either that weapon or your primary weapon.

If you choose not to use it at all, then no penalties.

 

[Machiavelli]

Nope.. by WIELDING the weapon such that, for eaxmple, you can take AoOs with either that weapon or your primary weapon.

If you choose not to use it at all, then no penalties.

But when do you make the choice to "wield" the weapon? How long does that choice last?

And, most importantly to me, why follow rules that make combat so complicated? If you are absolutely correct, that's okay, because it's always possible to change the rules for a specific gaming group.

 

[Artoomis]

But when do you make the choice to "wield" the weapon? How long does that choice last?

And, most importantly to me, why follow rules that make combat so complicated? If you are absolutely correct, that's okay, because it's always possible to change the rules for a specific gaming group.

Absolutely correct? Don't be silly - there's more than one legitimate way to view these rules.

As for when you make the decision, it's when you make your first attack. It has to be, because if you decide later in the round to use you off-hand weapon, it changes all your previous die rolls.

As for how long the penalties last, I have seen nothing that even approached being convincing to suggest they should any less than until you next turn.

 

[NilesB]

I just looked up this dispute in the archives of the Rules of the Game articles on the Wizards website. And Skip Williams addresses almost every point under contention here:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060905a