Threatening Unarmed?

[AuraSeer]

I feel that you should always be able to threaten the arean adjacent to you.

I feel my sorcerer PC should be able to cast infinite spells per round, but that's not allowed in the rules either.

The reason being you can always use an improvised weapon, granted you take a -4, a stick is still considered a weapon. heck- it is probably a better weapon than a sap.

This is irrelevant. Improvised weapons have nothing to do with unarmed strikes or two-weapon fighting.

Are you confusing the improvised weapon rule with the rule for doing lethal damage while unarmed? The only thing they have in common is that their to-hit penalties are equal (-4). That is a coincidence, not an indicator of an underlying connection.

 

[Aaron2]

I do not think this is correct. Do you have a cite?

I don't have a cite in either case. Unfortunately, the two-weapon fighting penalties are only ever mentioned in the context of gaining an extra attack. However, the TWF penalties are not described as applying to "all attacks this round" or "until the next round" as all other voluntary penalties such as Expertise, Power Attack, Defensive Fighting etc. This leads me to believe that they don't apply to AoOs and, thusly, TWF has no effect on AoOs.

If I have multiple attacks from BAB, I can attack with a sword in my right hand, use a free action to switch my sword to my left hand and attack with it in my left hand with no TWF penalty. Correct?

What I'm suggesting is similar.


Aaron

 

[Deset Gled]

If I have multiple attacks from BAB, I can attack with a sword in my right hand, use a free action to switch my sword to my left hand and attack with it in my left hand with no TWF penalty. Correct?

As long as you make no more attacks than the normal number allowed because of your BAB, I think this would be fine (although I don't really see a situation where it would be useful).

As far as the question of attacking with different weapons goes, the best cite I can give is this, which comes from the Netbook of Feats (I am leaving out the name and some info, but I think this covers the relevant part):

Benefit: If you are wielding two weapons, you may forego
your extra attack (or attacks, if you have Improved Two-
Weapon Fighting) with the off-hand weapon. If you do so,
you may split your normal attack freely between the two
weapons. Attacks with the weapon in your primary hand
have no penalty, and attacks with the weapon your off hand
suffer the normal -4 penalty for off-hand attacks unless you
also have Ambidexterity. This feat can be used if one
‘weapon’ is an unarmed strike.

Notes: Some DMs may interpret this rule from Core
Rulebook I in a different fashion, and allow this ability
freely to all characters without the need to spend a feat.
This feat merely outlines that there are two possible
interpretations and documents the version that would
require additional explanation.

 

[Caliban]

If I have multiple attacks from BAB, I can attack with a sword in my right hand, use a free action to switch my sword to my left hand and attack with it in my left hand with no TWF penalty. Correct?

Where is it stated that moving a weapon to your off-hand is a free action?

Where is it stated that you can use different limbs to make your iterative attacks (other than for a monk)? That's something that is normally a function of natural weapons, not iterative attacks. (Once again, the monk is an exception. Their unarmed strikes have qualities of both natural weapons and iterative attacks.)

And if you don't have Ambidexterity you would get at least a -4 on your off-hand attack, even if you DM did not assess the full TWF penalties.

It just opens up a can of worms that can really slow down combat, so I made a ruling that greatly simplified it.

 

[thegreatbuddha]

attack of opportunity: A single extra melee attack per round that a combatant can make when an opponent within reach takes an action that provokes attacks of opportunity. one-half or better cover prevents attacks of opportunity.

melee attack: A physical attack suitable for close combat.

ranged attack: Any attack made at a distance with a ranged weapon, as opposed to a melee attack.

threaten: To be able to make an attack of opportunity against an opponent within reach. Creatures threaten all areas into which they can make melee attacks, even when it is not their turn to make an action.

threatened area: An area within an opponent's reach. Generally, characters threaten all areas within 5 feet of them, though reach weapons can alter this range.

unarmed attack: A melee attack made with no weapon in hand.

Unarmed characters do threaten the area around them, because creatures threaten all areas into which they can make melee attacks, and unarmed attacks are melee attacks made without a weapon.

Characters using ranged weapons are not usually entitled to make attacks of opportunity, since they do not threaten the area around them. They are unable to make melee attacks into the area around them since they are wielding a ranged weapon, which is incapable of performing melee attacks. The exception to this either a character wielding a whip or crossbow in one hand, or a character wielding a bow who decides to make an "off-hand" attack with another limb (headbutt, kick, etc). if they accept the TWF penalties, they may make attacks of opportunities with a melee weapon in-hand, or with their unarmed attack.

Characters who wield two weapons but do not use the extra attack are still forced to take the TWF penalties if they wish to make attacks of opportunity with their off-hand weapon. The description of TWF states that characters can make an extra attack with their off-hand weapon, but it does not necessitate them doing so. If they do not accept the penalties, they are unable to make a melee attack with the off-hand weapon, and therefore do not threaten any area with the offhand weapon.

 

[Li Shenron]

I don't remember anywhere in PHB that says you must do all your AoOs with your primary weapon. In fact you can trip as AoO, and you don't trip with your weapon (unless you have a specific tripping weapon).

Why couldn't you attack normally with your primary weapon and make the AoO with a secondary weapon (or the opposite)? You take all the appropriate penalties for not having Ambidexterity, and most probably the secondary weapon is weaker, at least for the half Str bonus to damage, but why should you ever take the 2WF penalties?

I agree with Aaron2 that 2WF penalties (the -6 to both attacks which is reduced by 2 from 2WF Feat and having light weapon in secondary hand) apply only when you use both weapons in your turn, and if you choose to do so those penalties apply for 1 whole round, which includes AoO. But if you haven't been 2WFighting during your turn, why should you get the penalties now, that you're doing 1 single attack (which doesn't have penalties if in your regular turn you use ONLY the secondary weapon?).
What about a monster who attacks only with its tail, and then make an AoO with a claw or bite?

I think you decide to use 2WF when it's your turn such as with Power Attack, and its bonus/penalties apply until your next turn (except that you still make 1 and only attack as AoO).

Therefore, I don't really think you need to "wield" your unarmed attack to use it in a AoO, in the sense that "wielding" it without using it together with another attack isn't really two-weapon fighting...

 

[Aaron2]

Originally posted by Caliban Where is it stated that moving a weapon to your off-hand is a free action?

Its not listed either way but it certainly quallifies as reasonable.

Where is it stated that you can use different limbs to make your iterative attacks (other than for a monk)? That's something that is normally a function of natural weapons, not iterative attacks. (Once again, the monk is an exception. Their unarmed strikes have qualities of both natural weapons and iterative attacks.)

Where does it state that you can't? I can punch someone (normal unarmed strike) and follow that with a trip (unarmed strike using my leg). Heck, with Improved Trip, I can trip someone with my leg and follow it up with an attack with a sword in the same attack action. I don't see how you can disqualify punching one target and kicking another as normal iterative attacks.

And if you don't have Ambidexterity you would get at least a -4 on your off-hand attack, even if you DM did not assess the full TWF penalties.

Agreed.

It just opens up a can of worms that can really slow down combat, so I made a ruling that greatly simplified it.

Your making two attacks. Why is it slower to say one is a punch and one is a kick?


Aaron

 

[Aaron2]

Originally posted by thegreatbuddha Characters who wield two weapons but do not use the extra attack are still forced to take the TWF penalties if they wish to make attacks of opportunity with their off-hand weapon. The description of TWF states that characters can make an extra attack with their off-hand weapon, but it does not necessitate them doing so. If they do not accept the penalties, they are unable to make a melee attack with the off-hand weapon, and therefore do not threaten any area with the offhand weapon.

The whole point of TWF is to make the extra attack. Notice how the rules are listed as a subset of the full-attack rules. If I'm not making a full-attack the TWF penalties do not apply. Even if I'm attacking with one weapon as my standard action and another weapon as an AoO.


Aaron

 

[aliensex]

I would think the TWF penalties apply when making an unarmed AOO while holding a weapon. Otherwise, whats to stop someone who wields a longsword to constantly add in an free unarmed strike without a to hit penalty?

 

[0-hr]

Its not listed either way but it certainly quallifies as reasonable.

"Certainly qualifies as reasonable"? That is not going to win you any debates in this forum. Using words like "certainly", "obviously", or "clearly" only shows that you haven't been around for very long (or haven't been paying attention). This ruleset is nothing if not abiguous and open to interpretation.

Where does it state that you can't?

That is not a valid argument when talking about these rules. Where does it say that I can't make kobolds explode by saying "Kuturpultuk" backwards?