Raynor Black |
So I'm sure this is illegal somehow but I have a character concept that basically a barbarian who uses twf. My question is if I was using a bastard sword (or similar weapon that counts as one handed) why can't I two hand it for the first attack, then let it go with one hand (free action) to then use my second attack with an unarmed strike basically getting full barb damage and a free hit to boot. Like I said very much doubt it's legal but knowing exactly why would be nice.
lemeres |
You have to go a LONG way to explain the logistics of what you are trying to do. And you are getting a large increase in damage without expending any extra resources. Those two are usually the first signs that you are twisting things in a very weird way.
I will not go further into this topic, since there are already a million threads on metaphorical hands.
Claxon |
The answer is hands of effort. You're only allowed two hands worth of effort in a round, a main hand and an off-hand. If you attack with a two-handed weapon it uses both your main hand and off-hand. It doesn't matter whether you have an actual free hand or not to make an attack, you've used them up.
It's why you can't use a two-handed weapon and attack with armor spikes.
BigNorseWolf |
because your number of attacks represent what you're trying to do for the entire round. You do not instantly swing a sword in the blink of an eye and then stand there for 5.9 seconds waiting for your turn again. During that time your hand cannot both be on the pommel of your sword helping you swing and punching someone in the face.
Nefreet |
The posters above (and myself as well) have been around long enough to have participated in some of the lengthy debates with the Game Developers that solidified this as not possible.
For those that weren't around for them, we were given THIS FAQ.
Simply substitute "unarmed strike", or any other off-hand weapon, in place of Armor Spikes.
Drahliana Moonrunner |
So I'm sure this is illegal somehow but I have a character concept that basically a barbarian who uses twf. My question is if I was using a bastard sword (or similar weapon that counts as one handed) why can't I two hand it for the first attack, then let it go with one hand (free action) to then use my second attack with an unarmed strike basically getting full barb damage and a free hit to boot. Like I said very much doubt it's legal but knowing exactly why would be nice.
1. It's not legal because both hands are occupied for the full attack sequence.
2. If it were legal, without the improved unarmed attack feat, your armed opponent would get a free AOO on you.
Kazaan |
A better way to explain it is in terms of attack economy. Just as you have an action economy that restricts how many and what kinds of actions you can take in a round, you have an attack economy that is implied by the rules and the general design principals of the game; though, there is some conflation of terms because "hand" is used to refer to both a grasping appendage as well as the distinct pools of attack economy. For the sake of clarity, I will use "hand" to refer to grasping appendage (which applies to holding objects and rules elements that require a "free hand") and "attack economy" to refer to the number of attacks you are allowed among various pools (main-hand/iterative, off-hand, additional attacks).
Making an attack with a two-handed weapon uses your iterative attacks and also subsumes your potential off-hand attack economy. Even if you let go of the weapon to free your hand and benefit from rules elements that call for a free hand (eg. deflect/catch arrows), this does not free up already spent or subsumed attack economy. That off-hand attack you "spent" to wield your weapon two-handed is gone for that round. In reverse, if you spend off-hand attack economy to make an off-hand attack, you have an attack economy "debt", so to speak, which obligates you to make further attacks with your main-hand weapon with without the use of a second pool of attack economy. What this means is that, while making 2-h attacks doesn't "require" you to have available off-hand attacks, they singularly preclude the "double-dipping" of off-hand attack economy. The purpose of "non-hand" weapons (eg. unarmed strike not using the hand, armor spikes, boot blades, etc.) is to free up your hand(s) for other purposes (eg. holding a shield, guiding your mount by the reins, climbing, grappling, etc). There are specific weapons which provide explicit exceptions (eg. Barbazu beard, Sea knife), but they are the exception that proves the rule. They also tend to have significant restrictions and liabilities to their use (barbazu beard provokes AoO, sea knife precludes walking, etc.).
Now, what you could do is use your Bastard Sword two-handed when you want to deal more "concentrated" damage or against an opponent for which you can't spare the TWF attack penalty, and then switch to one-handed wielding for opponents where getting more attacks is beneficial and you still have a good chance to hit despite the penalties. However, in this case, a double weapon is usually the superior choice since you don't have to split up weapon-specific feats and abilities or enhance two separate weapons.
KainPen |
yeah can kind of do what you want to do, just not with two weapon fighting. you swing with your two handed sword for your 1st irrative attack, then on your next one release your grip as free action and punch them in the face.
The only thing I would see that maybe could be debatable is changing the option during the 2nd irrative attack. I think you would have to start with two weapon fighting 1st that way the penalty applies to the rest of your irrative attacks, such as using armor spikes and punching a target using two weapon fighting and on your next attack attack with two handed weapon. because per the FAQ you are allowed to change weapons during your irrative attacks.
SlimGauge |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you chose to two-weapon fight (that can only be done as part of a full-round attack action), your off-hand is busy for that entire full-round giving you the benefit of TWF (the single extra attack). It (your off-hand) is unavailable to assist your primary hand in making a two-handed weapon attack.
In other words, although your primary hand and off-hand attacks are resolved sequentially, they are occurring concurrently. Your off-hand cannot be involved in the two-handed attack AND the off-hand attack during the same round if you are TWFing.
The feat Two Weapon Fighting simply reduces the penalties for using TWF.
The feat Improved TWF and Greater TWF simply increase the number of offhand attacks one gets when using TWF (albeit at an increasing penalty).
They do not change the fact that your off-hand becomes dedicated to TWFing when, at the start of your full-attack action, you declare that you're going to TWF.
Nefreet |
Just to play devil's advocate, unarmed strikes can be made with any part of the body. "The hand is occupied" arguments fall flat since the barbarian could slash/kick instead of slash/punch.
They don't. The FAQ's example is Armor Spikes, which don't take up a physical hand (but which do require a "metaphorical" hand).
BigNorseWolf |
Just take some levels in alchemist and grow extra arms. You can't make "extra" attacks with them, but you can use them for two-handedness and still have a free hand.
Not for this purpose.
Two handing a weapon + offhand attack= more attacks than you would have gotten otherwise.
Kazaan |
Just take some levels in alchemist and grow extra arms. You can't make "extra" attacks with them, but you can use them for two-handedness and still have a free hand.
This is, again, a case of the conflation of terms with "hand" being used for both a grasping appendage as well as a pool of attack economy. What vestigial arms means when it says it grants no extra attacks is that it only grants you grasping appendages but no additional attack economy. In my explanation above, I describe how making a 2-h weapon attack "eats" your off-hand attack economy. You still only have one main-hand/iterative pool and one off-hand pool even with vestigial arms. By contrast, creatures that "naturally" have additional arms gain both additional grasping appendages and additional off-hand pools. Additionally, losing or lacking arms doesn't reduce your potential pools of attack. If you lose an arm, that only limits your grasping appendages, not your off-hand pools. A human that loses an arm can still wield a one-handed weapon and a non-handed weapon to TWF. Even a creature that naturally has no arms can TWF with unarmed strikes.