Natural Weapons and Reach Weapons

[Hedgemage]

Simple question: If a creature has a natural claw attack, and is using a reach weapon (like lizardfolk with longspear), can he threaten all area within 10', or simply the 10' radius doughnut that the longspear can reach OR the 5' radius his claws reach?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Simple question: If a creature has a natural claw attack, and is using a reach weapon (like lizardfolk with longspear), can he threaten all area within 10', or simply the 10' radius doughnut that the longspear can reach OR the 5' radius his claws reach?

The longspear is a two-handed weapon, which means he's either wielding the longspear with both hands, or he's holding the longspear in a non-usable fashion and has a claw free.

If it were a bite attack, he could threaten both.

-Hyp.

 

[Hedgemage]

Isn't changing hands around on a reach weapon a free action as long as it happens on the creature's turn? So could he switch up his attacks on his turn, and then at the end have to pick what weapon is active until his next initiative round?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Isn't changing hands around on a reach weapon a free action as long as it happens on the creature's turn? So could he switch up his attacks on his turn, and then at the end have to pick what weapon is active until his next initiative round?

There's debate. I'd say sure, no problem.

Skip Williams, in the 3E Main FAQ, called it a free action. Then Andy Collins, in the 3.5 Main FAQ, called it a move action. The Skip Williams, in a Rules of the Game article, called it a free action again.

-Hyp.

 

[pallandrome]

This same concept comes up with Monks using Reach weapons. It, however, is a lot simpler in that the monk will just kick you in the junk, no hands needed.

 

[Hypersmurf]

This same concept comes up with Monks using Reach weapons. It, however, is a lot simpler in that the monk will just kick you in the junk, no hands needed.

Except that since a monk's unarmed strike can't be used as a secondary natural weapon, you run up against the TWF debate...

-Hyp.

 

[pallandrome]

Oh I didn't say there might not be penalties, I's just sayin they threatened.

 

[silentspace]

Except that since a monk's unarmed strike can't be used as a secondary natural weapon, you run up against the TWF debate...

-Hyp.

TWF debate? You're saying the monk doesn't threaten unless he's fighting with two weapons?

 

[pallandrome]

He's saying that the monk doesn't threaten BOTH areas unless he's fighting with both his natural weapons, and his Glaive. Which, Honestly, Makes a good deal of sense, if ya ask me.

 

[Elethiomel]

He's saying that the monk doesn't threaten BOTH areas unless he's fighting with both his natural weapons, and his Glaive. Which, Honestly, Makes a good deal of sense, if ya ask me.

I disagree. I would allow someone to take iterative attacks with different weapons (say, an attack with a reach weapon against one foe, and an attack with a kick against another foe) without further penalties as long as they were on different iterative attacks. By the same token, both those weapons could be used for attacks of opportunity without penalty. I would only apply TWF penalties when the character gained an extra attack from the two weapons (say a 11th level Monk with a Longspear attacking twice with the longspear and kicking someone adjacent - this would have to be declared at the start of the full attack and two weapon penalties would apply with the unarmed strike as the "off-hand" attack.