First game of Pathfinder last night and had a blast. Question, though. 1st level Human Fighter. EWP: B. Sword, 2-Wep Fighting, 2-Wep Defense. Carrying the B. Sword in my main hand and a torch in my off-hand as my race is not blessed with darkvision. Goblin walks up and attacks me. Does having the torch in my off-hand make me "armed" for the purposes of activating the +1 shield bonus to AC from 2-Wep Defense? Is it club-like enough to count? Just curious about some opinions.
well it counts as an improvised weapon so if that would allow it then I would say yeah
agree. torch is a flaming club, like in so many movies, or at the very least an improvised weapon.
I would say "no, having an improvised weapon doesn't count as being armed". I've had this come up with a character holding a bow; he claimed that he was armed (for purposes of threatening a square) because he could use his bow as an improvised weapon.
As a DM, I would ask you: "Are you trying to use the item in your second hand as a weapon?" If the answer is yes, then I would allow the Two-Weapon defense. However, this would really open up a debate as to what types of items can be used for this. I'd say it'd have to be at least dagger length and have hardness/hp at least on par with thick wood.
EDIT: Changing my original opinion. According to the 3.5 SRD:
"Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use, any creature that uses one in combat is considered to be nonproficient with it and takes a -4 penalty on attack rolls made with that object. To determine the size category and appropriate damage for an improvised weapon, compare its relative size and damage potential to the weapon list to find a reasonable match."
Because you're taking a -4 with it, I'd have to say no.
I would say no. The torch may be an improvised weapon if if you are not using it as such at the time it would open the door for a lot of players to carry lots of "improvised" weapons in the off hand "just in case". If you were already fighting goblin with the torch before the situation came up, I would allow it.
|
As a DM, I would ask you: "Are you trying to use the item in your second hand as a weapon?" If the answer is yes, then I would allow the Two-Weapon defense. However, this would really open up a debate as to what types of items can be used for this. I'd say it'd have to be at least dagger length and have hardness/hp at least on par with thick wood.
EDIT: Changing my original opinion. According to the 3.5 SRD:
"Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use, any creature that uses one in combat is considered to be nonproficient with it and takes a -4 penalty on attack rolls made with that object. To determine the size category and appropriate damage for an improvised weapon, compare its relative size and damage potential to the weapon list to find a reasonable match."
Because you're taking a -4 with it, I'd have to say no.
I don't quite follow you're reasoning here so help me... Are you saying that because he is not profecient in the use of the torch as a weapon he is unarmed? Would that not require that anyone holding a weapon they are not trained to use is likewise unarmed.
I actually think your first take is the right one. What is the intent of the player. If they want to use the torch as a weapon, then I would consider it a weapon. But doing so also penalizes the use of the primary weapon so there's some balance there.
Well, if players are carrying an object that approximates a weapon "just in case", I have no probem giving them that benefit. (if they need to use that hand to schwig a potion, etc, it's an extra action to drop the torch, so there IS a penalty to always having both hands full - you can't cast an IMMEDIATE spell like Feather Fall, for example)
I would treat a torch as a weapon, because even if it's not as stout as a club, the flame itself is a dangerous weapon (I would apply some sort of flame damage/chance of catching on fire for anything struck by it)
Even IF you ruled that a standard torch was not treated as a weapon, it should be allowable for characters to purchase/make special torches that DO count as weapons, i.e. are considered clubs, but coated with pitch & sawdust or something (they would cost as much as a club + 1/2 a torch, or something)
Otherwise, what's the alternative? All the PCs will just craft/commission special "Torch Helmets", that have special brackets to hold Torches, hands-free... And while they're at it, why not a Potion of Cure Serious with a flexible straw, activatable as an Immediate Action) [/sarcasm]
The alternative is a sunrod, which casts light but not heat, and can be tied to a belt.
|
|
Otherwise, what's the alternative? All the PCs will just craft/commission special "Torch Helmets", that have special brackets to hold Torches, hands-free... And while they're at it, why not a Potion of Cure Serious with a flexible straw, activatable as an Immediate Action) [/sarcasm]
Actually, in point of fact, the first half of your statement is not a stupid idea at all. Its the obvious solution.
Which is why miners have been using variations of a 'torch helmet' for hundreds of years.
|
There are actually rules in the main books for 3rd edition that talk about using a torch as a weapon like that, so often that there was actually a martial combat feat in one of the odd books (Dungeonscape I think) that worked if you had a weapon in one hand and a torch in the other.
I don't see why you wouldn't be able to get the +1 AC from the feat you've got, though it's really up to your DM at the end of the day.
some logic
Now I'm conflicted. I feel like the person trying to utilize two-weapon defense needs a proficient weapon in his hand.
We have to assume it isn't just about the torch, any object in the second hand.
What if it's a book?
What if it's an orb?
What if it's a very long feather?
I guess I really just erred on the side of "in case it's not a viable weapon to be proficient with" and made the ruling that way.
|
|
some logicNow I'm conflicted. I feel like the person trying to utilize two-weapon defense needs a proficient weapon in his hand.
We have to assume it isn't just about the torch, any object in the second hand.
What if it's a book?
What if it's an orb?
What if it's a very long feather?I guess I really just erred on the side of "in case it's not a viable weapon to be proficient with" and made the ruling that way.
How about this: In order for an object to be able to be used as a melee weapon, it must have a hardness of at least 3 and be able to be swung about freely.
Discussion:
The feather is too soft and fails the hardness test. The orb cannot be swung about freely and thus is impractical except as a ranged weapon. The book. See the book is iffy. Since using a book as a weapon would likely break the spine, I might allow it but I would give the player dirty looks for a long, long time. ;)
How about this: In order for an object to be able to be used as a melee weapon, it must have a hardness of at least 3 and be able to be swung about freely.Discuss.
The feather is too soft and fails the hardness test. The orb cannot be swung about freely and thus is impractical except as a ranged weapon. The book. See the book is iffy. Since using a book as a weapon would likely break the spine, I might allow it but I would give the player dirty looks for a long, long time. ;)
I could get behind that ruling, I guess I really wanted a more elegant/simple solution. :(
The proficiency thing is a red herring:
A druid with 2WF doesn't have many weapon proficiencies,
yet if all they have are some rapiers, they can still 2WF with them,
just as non-proficient, giving them big att penalties... which is all straight forward.
The 2WDefense Feat give +1 AC if you are armed, not based on your EFFECTIVENESS with those weapons, not based on your likelihood to HIT with those weapons, but just that you are using them as weapons. The rules about what constitutes 'armed' never mention proficiency, whose effects ARE well detailed (just att penalties.)
I think as long as you could "do damage" with whatever you're wielding, it should be considered a weapon that you're 'armed' with... So, Acid Flasks, Contact Poisons, etc, should all 'arm' you, but a spell scroll wouldn't since it's in no way harmful as a melee attack. Note how standard Unarmed Attacks are not considered armed (they only do nonlethal), but once the character can choose to apply lethal damage (Imp. Unarmed), they are considered 'armed'.
Look at the "Caught off Guard"/"Throw Anything" Feats, they basically give PROFICIENCY in improvised weapons (Chair Legs, similar to Torches), WHICH IMPLIES that those objects are CONSIDERED WEAPONS. This means there IS a reason for Characters WITHOUT Imp.Unarmed/C.o.G./T.A. to ever choose Improvised Weapons (although non-proficient) over Unarmed, because they're gaining the extra defense of being 'armed', letting them take AoOs. OTHERWISE, THERE IS NO REASON to pick up a branch or torch (when you don't have a weapon) to swing around at a threatening monster... Elegant enough?
BTW, I didn't mean the miner's helmet thing itself was unlikely, I meant that even banning the torch as a 2WF weapon, it's easy enough to keep a lit torch, and thus be able to hold a REAL weapon in your off hand, so the whole issue could never really impede a character who wants to 2WF. [/sarcasm disambiguated]