Improved Unarmed Strike and 2H weapons

[SlagMortar]

Another scenario for consideration:
A TWFer with a longsword and shortsword moves and makes a standard attack at no penalty. He is then disarmed of his longsword later in the round. Does he still threaten an area? Can he make attacks of opportunity with his shortsword? If so, does he take two-weapon fighting penalties?

The same questions could be asked about a fighter with improved unarmed strike who is disarmed.

For the record, I'm in the camp that improved unarmed strike and a reach weapon is a legal way to threaten 5' and 10' without taking TWF penalties. I'm in the camp for cinematic reasons and because I think it better balances the spiked chain. It is really mostly a defensive bonus because it can foil special attacks, a non-monk is not going to do much damage with an unarmed attack without spending significant cash. I also don't like that armor spikes threaten at 5' at all, so fighting with a reach weapon and armor spikes does not enter into my thinking. This means the warrior either spent a feat or multiclassed with monk to threaten 5' and 10'.

 

[NilesB]

Another scenario for consideration:
A TWFer with a longsword and shortsword moves and makes a standard attack at no penalty. He is then disarmed of his longsword later in the round. Does he still threaten an area? Can he make attacks of opportunity with his shortsword? If so, does he take two-weapon fighting penalties?

Yes, Yes, and No respectively. Skip addresses all of this in the article I just linked to.

 

[SlagMortar]

Thanks for the link. I didn't see it before posting.

 

[Legildur]

Skip addresses all of this in the article I just linked to.

Good thinking to go to this article. But can someone please comment on the accuracy of Skip's article? His RotG articles have a history of innaccuracies, blending of 3.0 and 3.5 rules, and introduction of house rules.

I reckon the RitG articles are generally pretty useful guidelines, but hardly a reliable rules source.

Then again, maybe this article is acceptable... I don't recall now.

 

[pawsplay]

Skip was doing so well until he wrote this part:

If, after you made two-weapon attacks with your sword and torch, a foe later provokes an attack of opportunity from you that same round, you can strike that foe with your longsword with no two-weapon penalty at all. (You also can use just the torch, also with no two-weapon penalty, though you still take the -4 penalty for an off-hand attack; you also still take the -4 penalty for an improvised weapon for a total penalty of -8.)

What, in the name of all that is 3.5, is the penalty for an off-hand attack?

 

[Hypersmurf]

What, in the name of all that is 3.5, is the penalty for an off-hand attack?

3.5 PHB P311: An attack made with the off hand incurs a -4 penalty on the attack roll. In addition, only one half of a character's Strength bonus to damage may be added to damage dealt with a weapon held in the off hand.

What's the off hand? From the same paragraph: A character's weaker or less dexterous hand (usually the left).

If the character is wielding the torch in his weaker or less dexterous hand, I agree with Skip that he takes a -4 penalty on his attack roll. (Obviously, I don't agree with Skip that he doesn't incur TWF penalties if he is wielding two weapons )

-Hyp.

 

[Legildur]

What, in the name of all that is 3.5, is the penalty for an off-hand attack?

LOL! I rest my case. At first read I didn't see a problem... until I went to find the rule on it and realised it only applied to damage!

 

[Hypersmurf]

LOL! I rest my case. At first read I didn't see a problem... until I went to find the rule on it and realised it only applied to damage!

See p311

-Hyp.

 

[Legildur]

See p311

Ahhaaa! So I wasn't imagining things! That's what happens when you open a reply and THEN start to search for evidence... someone else posts and you miss it! Thanks Hyp. <goes back to trawling SRD to see why I missed it>

 

[Felix]

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? <snip>

There is a feat called Eagle Claw Attack. Or Eagle Claw Strike; something like that. Taking it allows a monk (or someone with IUS) to perform the Sunder action against a foe's weapon.

Which is something you could already do per the rules.

The existance of a feat allowing an maneuver does not mean that the maneuver is not already allowed.