Reach Weapons, Monks, Whirlwind Attack

[The Souljourner]

When you have a reach weapon and monks unarmed attacks, you should at least take TWF penalties if you want to use both in one round.

Otherwise, would you allow a mounted combatant to wield a lance and a bastard sword at once, being able to use each of them without penalty?

Here's the thing, I'm not talking about doing a full attack and attacking with both at the same time, I'm only talking about using the monk attacks for attacks of opportunity. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that it doesn't seem clearly defined in the rules.

And thanks for the vote of confidence that the character can work. I think it'll definitely be viable. Obviously not the first string in either capacity, but a solid second string in both.

-The Souljourner

 

[FrankTrollman]

Otherwise, would you allow a mounted combatant to wield a lance and a bastard sword at once, being able to use each of them without penalty?

Of course. Remember, the TWF penalties don't come from using two weapons in the same round, they come from attacking with both weapons simultaneously with the same attack.

So, for example, you don't take two weapon fighting penalties when you throw a javelin and then quickdraw another javelin and throw it - even though oyu are certainly using two weapons during the round.

Similarly, if a Ranger is carrying a +3 shortsword and a +1 Dragonbane shortsword, and he uses his first attack to stab a dragon (killing it), and then uses his second attack to stab someone else with the other sword he doesn't suffer penalties. However, if the Ranger wanted to get his extra attacks and strike with both weapons at his highest BAB - he'd have to take the TWF penalties.

Using different weapons sequentially is never a problem. Using weapons simultaneously is. Using more than one weapon in 3.5 can never get you extra attacks of opportunity or extra attacks while whirlwind attacking - so it can never get you the TWF penalties either.

-Frank

 

[The Souljourner]

Thank you, Frank. That's exactly the type of explanation I was looking for. Yeah, it makes sense that if you're not getting *extra* attacks with the second weapon, that there's no to-hit penalty. It's just that most people don't use them that way.

One more reason why my build is good - I get a bunch of good class skills from the monk levels. Granted, they'll be cross class for the rest of the character's life, but being human with a reasonably high intelligence, I should be able to double up on 2 or 3 of them, which is enough for tumble and a couple other skills, and tumble is all I really want anyway.

-The Souljourner

 

[Darklone]

Easy example:
This monk is using his reach weapon for AoOs. Someone tumbles through his reach and grapples him. I would not allow him to make an unarmed monk AoO if he didn't take TWF penalties while fighting with his polearm last round.

The "without penalty" in my last quoted sentence was refering to using both without TWF penalty of (at least) -2 to both attacks.

 

[The Souljourner]

As Frank said, the two weapon penalties are only for when you attack with both weapons at the same time, thus getting more than your normal allotment of attacks. Simply holding a second weapon doesn't force you to use two weapon fighting, and *not* using two weapon fighting doesn't stop you from threatening with your second weapon. And since you threaten with that weapon, you can make attacks of opportunity with that weapon.

The only requirement for attacks of opportunity is that you be able to make a melee attack into that square. Since the monk certainly *can* make an attack into that square, regardless of whether he actually has or not, he is considered to be threatening that square.

The section on two weapon fighting talks about getting an additional attack during a full attack and applying penalties to hit for that action. There's nothing that talks about simply having a second weapon and not attacking with it.

-The Souljourner

 

[Darklone]

Sure. But as Caliban said, in that case you don't threaten with the second weapon/unarmed attack.

It's not really clear, so rule it differently if you wish.

 

[The Souljourner]

Yeah, I think it's one of those things that just isn't defined clearly enough. Personally, I don't think there's anything unbalancing about letting someone use two weapons and threaten with both, but only actually attack with one. In general it's better to attack with both anyway.

-The Souljourner

 

[Spatzimaus]

I have an idea for a character - Monk 2/Fighter 2/Wizard 6/Eldritch Knight 10 (eventually).

Eep. That's a lot of stats to worry about, and low HD. But, you get good saves, decent BAB, some bonus Feats, and good utility spellcasting... since I've never been much of a blastermage-player, I have no problem with sacrificing a few caster levels.

I've actually played a similar character, a Monk/Psychic Warrior/Diamond Warrior (Mind's Eye PrC). She used a Glaive, plus Combat Reflexes and Stand Still, and only switched to unarmed attacks when she had to (AoOs, for example). It was a really effective character; not a huge damage-dealer, but really tough to pin down and could scramble all over the place (Speed of Thought five times + Psionic Charge). Nice AC, too, since the Diamond Warrior gets a few Improved Inertial Armor feats and a lot of Psychic Warrior powers are defensive.

Anyway, Whirlwind Attack was never really something I wanted, since it requires a full attack action. Most of the time, I ended up doing more of the hit-and-run sort of thing. The fact that the 3.5E version doesn't mix with other Feats just makes it less desirable.

 

[Altamont Ravenard]

It mentions a single melee attack. It doesn't say anything about weapons. Attacking with a reach weapon is a melee attack. Attacking with an unarmed strike is a melee attack.

Yes. And attacking with a reach weapon AND an unarmed attack isn't a single melee attack.

AR

 

[Altamont Ravenard]

Craptastic double-post