L4W Discussion Thread V

[WEContact]

A Half-elf Monk with Twin Strike wants to use said power. He's holding a club and the other hand is empty; he wants to use his Monk Unarmed Strike for the off-hand weapon portion of Twin Strike. Does he fulfil Twin Strike's requirement that he wield two melee weapons? If he has the Two-Weapon Defense feat, (req.: wielding a melee weapon in each hand) can he gain the benefit while keeping one hand free per the requirement of the Monk Unarmed Strike?

I believe RAW says no to both, but that this is a case in which RAW should be overlooked because the alternative makes more sense. I'm considering making a proposal that the Monk Unarmed Strike simply be considered to be wielded in one hand when, as using that the feature requires, that hand is empty and otherwise unoccupied. Should I do that, or just leave it up to whomever DMs for the PC that brought this issue to my attention?

 

[Neurotic]

Maybe you could use wrist razor or gauntlet axe or some other not-in-hand, but wielding weapon?

 

[renau1g]

A quick note to everyone, I'll be slow this week and away from Friday to Monday. I'm moving so my free time will be more focused on packing up boxes. I expect the weekend to be slow around here anyway, it's Memorial Day in the US I believe.

Ok, I'm back. Super tired, but I'm here. Probably a day or so to return to normal whilst I focus on work-y stuff after being off for a couple days

 

[Son of Meepo]

OOC: Many martial powers, as well as several divine powers, can be used only if you’re wielding a weapon. (You can use an unarmed attack as your weapon.) When you make a weapon attack such as a melee basic attack, you can use the monk unarmed strike, which is a weapon in the unarmed weapon group

I would allow Twin Strike. To me the above says that as a monk, your unarmed strike should be counted as a weapon.

Personally I would also allow two weapon defense with monk unarmed strike, but not with regular unarmed strike. Monks are trained to deflect all sorts of blows with their empty hand. But this is certainly a stretch on the raw.

 

[Someone]

A Half-elf Monk with Twin Strike wants to use said power. He's holding a club and the other hand is empty; he wants to use his Monk Unarmed Strike for the off-hand weapon portion of Twin Strike. Does he fulfil Twin Strike's requirement that he wield two melee weapons? If he has the Two-Weapon Defense feat, (req.: wielding a melee weapon in each hand) can he gain the benefit while keeping one hand free per the requirement of the Monk Unarmed Strike?

I believe RAW says no to both, but that this is a case in which RAW should be overlooked because the alternative makes more sense. I'm considering making a proposal that the Monk Unarmed Strike simply be considered to be wielded in one hand when, as using that the feature requires, that hand is empty and otherwise unoccupied. Should I do that, or just leave it up to whomever DMs for the PC that brought this issue to my attention?

FWIW, I think you can use an unarmed strike as any one of the attacks from twin strike (using your Str modifier for attack and damage though even if you have combat training, internalize the basic kata or similar) since the weapons chapter seems to make no difference between an unarmed strike and any other kind of melee weapon.

I don't believe however you can use an unarmed strike to fulfill the requirements from two weapon defense, as it says you must wield a weapon in each hand and technically you're no wielding anything in that hand though you can make attacks with it.

 

[WEContact]

I don't believe however you can use an unarmed strike to fulfill the requirements from two weapon defense, as it says you must wield a weapon in each hand and technically you're no wielding anything in that hand though you can make attacks with it.

This is my understanding as well, (that is why wrist razors don't fix the problem, also) which is why that second question is important: Is the ruling that a hand kept empty for using the Monk Unarmed Strike satisfies TWD enough of a common-sense, minor departure from RAW that I don't need to make a proposal, or should I go ahead and propose it?

 

[Nebten]

We don't need a proposal for every little rule clarification. It sounds like you need to go to WotC and do some homework. Check out their updates/errata, FAQ and boards to gain insight on this subject.

 

[Son of Meepo]

We don't need a proposal for every little rule clarification. It sounds like you need to go to WotC and do some homework. Check out their updates/errata, FAQ and boards to gain insight on this subject.

*sigh*

So does your reply mean you've done the research and are refusing to share or are you making an assumption that the rules are conclusive?

I have done the research and the rule appears to be ambiguous to me. Some people think it should work and some don't. The best I could come up with is that the Character Builder allows it, but this may simply be that the design of the tool makes it easier to treat the Monk Unarmed Strike as a weapon is all ways instead of only some.

I think that one of the benefits of the proposal system is to codify rules clarifications so that we can have a more consistent play experience than other shared world campaigns. I think he acknowledges that a strict RAW interpretation may not allow either Twin Strike or Two Weapon Defense, so it's probably worth putting forth a proposal to clarify or change those rules in L4W.

 

[WEContact]

Well, I'm pretty confident that isn't necessary. Someone's reading is correct. The wording of the Monk Unarmed Strike is such that you are only wielding it when you use it in an attack, and it is never considered to be in your hand. Since the wording in Two-Weapon Defense requires that the PC be wielding a weapon in each hand, by RAW a monk with a hand free couldn't make his MUS count as his other weapon for TWD. My question isn't 'what do the rules say?' my question is 'what the rules say in this case seems to defy common sense and design intent, should I just ignore this minor rule or should I petition to get it formally waived by the community?'

EDIT: SoM said it first. Man, how is it that you always seem to just get me?

 

[JoeNotCharles]

my question is 'what the rules say in this case seems to defy common sense and design intent, should I just ignore this minor rule or should I petition to get it formally waived by the community?'

Petition. If you hadn't pointed it out, I probably wouldn't have noticed, but now that you did you can't just ignore the rules without getting permission. (That'll teach you to open your mouth...)

(I'm not a judge anymore, though, so this is just my opinion.)