Does This Work?: Sword + Unarmed Strike while Holding Shield

[Alexander Augunas]

I'm almost afraid to ask this question in light of the handedness thread that seems to have exploded over the last several days, but I'm planning on my character's progression, so here it goes.

I'm planning on taking Improved Unarmed Strike to qualify for Vicious Stomp. I would also like to take Two-Weapon Fighting in the next few levels. If I am using a sword as my Primary weapon, can I use an unarmed strike as my Off-Hand weapon while holding a shield in my other hand? I'm not using the shield to attack in any way, I'm wielding it only for its shield bonus to AC. I wanted to theme the combat "style" as my character is slashing with his sword while making deft kicks at opponents while blocking incoming attacks with his shield.

I couldn't find anything to the contrary in the rules. What is the verdict of the rules forum?

[blackbloodtroll]

Nothing suggests that you cannot do this.

You need no free hand to attack with your foot.

The recent FAQ does not change this.

[Nicos]

With the current rules it works.

[blackbloodtroll]

If you are not attacking a weapon in two hands, then you are not prevented from two weapon fighting.

[Drachasor]

This should work. Weapons use primary and off-hands (which aren't technically hands per se), and shields just need a physical arm/hand.

[ArmouredMonk13]

A level of monk makes it work better, if you ignore the whole, no armor thing. because you now do 1d6 damage with your kick

[Nicos]

Going monk is not bad considering that it give IUS and improved trip and a boost to all saves.

[Alexander Augunas]

Yeah, I know that going monk is an awesome option, but there are a few problems with it for my character concept.

First, my character has a Wisdom of 10 and wears a Mithral breastplate. Most of the monk features I would get would be useless because I wear armor.

Second, my character is staunchly Neutral Good in alignment. I know I could take Martial Artist if I wanted to, but overall I would be losing +1 BAB and getting a whole bunch of class features I can't use in exchange for Improved Unarmed Strike, a +2 on saving throws, and an extra Monk level for when I get a Monk's Robe. Doesn't seem worth it to me, but you all are free to try and convince me otherwise. :)

[blackbloodtroll]

Well, you could start a thread in the Advice Boards to help your build come to completion.

[HangarFlying]

Even though the recent FAQ didn't directly affect this, I think the inferred question is: because 2HW uses up my "off-hand", does wielding a shield also use up my "off-hand". In short, if a character TWF while sword-n-boarding it, does that character lose the AC bonus of the shield for that round?

It's a fair question, I think.

[blackbloodtroll]

That's implying that an off hand attack is a hand represented.

That is going into the "free hand to kick" territory.

You should only lose your shield bonus to AC, if you attack with said shield.

[Drachasor]

HangarFlying wrote:

Even though the recent FAQ didn't directly affect this, I think the inferred question is: because 2HW uses up my "off-hand", does wielding a shield also use up my "off-hand". In short, if a character TWF while sword-n-boarding it, does that character lose the AC bonus of the shield for that round?

It's a fair question, I think.

I would point out this: Shields use up an arm and part/all of a PHYSICAL hand. Off-/primary hands are a technical term that only apply to weapons. This only matters for a shield when it is used as a weapon. The buckler text clearly talks about how using the shield arm to wield a weapon interacts with it. Beyond that shields don't even talk about off-hands at all and there's no reason to think there's any relation.

And let's remember that Shield Bashing gets a number of benefits with feats that you can't get easily/cheaply with a Boot Blade, Unarmed Strike, Armor Spikes, or the like. So there's definitely no balance issue here. Going with one of the other options for TWF is going to be inferior to just using a shield to do it after you spend a few feats. That or it might be equal but cost a lot more money.

So there's nothing in the rules that makes a link like people fear and there are no balance concerns. Non-issue, imho.

[TheRedArmy]

I was always under the impression that only Monks could "kick" and the like without a special rule. It says under the Monk special unarmed strike rule "this means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full."

I don't think other classes can legally make unarmed strikes with their hands full.

[blackbloodtroll]

Off hand and Primary only refer to attacks.

Holding a shield to gain an AC bonus is not an attack.

[Drachasor]

TheRedArmy wrote:

I was always under the impression that only Monks could "kick" and the like without a special rule. It says under the Monk special unarmed strike rule "this means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full."

I don't think other classes can legally make unarmed strikes with their hands full.

Unarmed Strikes are not specified to only involve the hands. Anyone can kick someone. Also, the Unarmed Attacks section in the the Combat Chapter lists some examples as kicks and headbutts along with hand strikes.

One might as well say Armor Spikes need to use the hands or any number of other weapons that clearly do not just because they don't explicitly say so.

You will find there are a number of feats and abilities that talk about how you can do things that you already could do. The Monk is likely very explicit on this because it is focused on unarmed attacks, so clearly spelling out the implications of unarmed strike is needed for players of the class.

[Lincoln Hills]

Because I favor "this makes sense within the context of the game-world" over "this is perfectly balanced against all other options," my gut reaction is to say yes.

The rules don't seem to disallow it and I'd be OK with it. The technique's got some benefits over some other applications of 2WF, but nothing I'd regard as alarming.

[Crash_00]

In the massive thread over the FAQ ruling Jason stated that you can TWF while wielding a shield and keep its bonus (the example given was Longsword and Armor Spikes while holding a shield). The Shield does not require the off hand (unless you are attacking with it) so it works out fine.

[Morgen]

Actually with the proper Archetype a level dip into monk gets you a lot and loses you pretty much nothing at all in armor.

Maneuver Master could be fun for example. Plus not being able to flurry isn't a huge problem if you've actually just got Two Weapon Fighting.

[jerrys]

jesus christ guys, just stop being cheeseballs. The point of playing tabletop instead of some big anonymous online game is that the players are supposed to be too embarrassed to be cheeseballs, such that they just act like reasonable people.
Just pick one of: 2HF; 2WF; sword/shield; (i guess this is ok: TWF with sword/shield via shield bashes (not unarmeds))

[CrystalSpellblade]

As Crash has said, yes, you can TWF with a sword and armor spike while using a shield. I don't think it's that much of a stretch to say you could TWF fight with a sword and unarmed strike while wearing a shield.

[Nicos]

jerrys wrote:

(i guess this is ok: TWF with sword/shield via shield bashes (not unarmeds))

Exactly why unarmed would not be good?

[Lincoln Hills]

I think he's referring to the balance issues. Using the shield in a shield-bash means giving up AC, whereas a guy using Improved Unarmed Strike and coupling it with an amulet or spell to boost his unarmed strikes is getting to keep his shield bonus and do more damage.

I agree it's stronger. But at least it justifies the use of Improved Unarmed Strike for more warrior-types. (If the feat that allows Deflect Arrows and helps immensely with "you start off this adventure naked" situations really needs justification.)

[Nicos]

Lincoln Hills wrote:

I think he's referring to the balance issues. Using the shield in a shield-bash means giving up AC, whereas a guy using Improved Unarmed Strike and coupling it with an amulet or spell to boost his unarmed strikes is getting to keep his shield bonus and do more damage.

No, no becuase It is a feat tax for both styles. Impreved shield bash for one style and Improved unarmed strike for the other. And in the end of the day Shields are cheaper to enchant than unarmed strikes and later on there is the shield master feat.

The Swor + Shield >> Sword + Unarmed strike (in terms of damage, and later on in AC too)

[ArmouredMonk13]

Alexander Augunas wrote:

Yeah, I know that going monk is an awesome option, but there are a few problems with it for my character concept.

First, my character has a Wisdom of 10 and wears a Mithral breastplate. Most of the monk features I would get would be useless because I wear armor.

Second, my character is staunchly Neutral Good in alignment. I know I could take Martial Artist if I wanted to, but overall I would be losing +1 BAB and getting a whole bunch of class features I can't use in exchange for Improved Unarmed Strike, a +2 on saving throws, and an extra Monk level for when I get a Monk's Robe. Doesn't seem worth it to me, but you all are free to try and convince me otherwise. :)

This makes sense. Here is why a 1 level dip into martial artist is a good idea.

1.)The only class features at Level 1 You don't benefit from are Flurry of Blows (Which you don't seem to be planning on using), AC bonus (Which doesn't matter at 1st level because you have no wisdom bonus), And fast movement (which doesn't apply to you yet).
2.)Your unarmed strike now does 1d6 damage instead of 1d3.
3.)You get the Improved Unarmed Strike feat and can take another bonus feat from a nice list and skip the prerequisites from said bonus feats.
4.)You get Stunning Fist as a bonus feat.
5.)+2 to all saves.

Feel free to play your character how you like Alexander, I don't want to seem like that guy who tells you how to play your character, but I think you should know all the facts before you rule out a viable option.