Interesting...
Somewhere there are rules for adding a natural attack to part of your normal attacks, but I don't know if that would apply here or not...
Usually, TWF involves "offhand" not off legs, but honestly theres no reason it can't be a kick. But this assumes a one handed weapon in the main hand, not a 2 hander. There is no "offhand" when using a 2 handed weapon, both are involved in using the weapon. Mechanicly, this is not possible.
YMMV.
Sounds as RAW legal as the 2hd fighter who uses armor spikes as his off hand to TWF. If he opts for this he has to burn an extra feat for Imp Unarmed with the spikes he dosent.
Does it fit the spirit of the rules, well that is a different discussion.
You may also want to look at the section on mixing natural and weapon attacks I honestly dont know if a kick would fit as its mostly for things that have claws, bites, etc.
I don't know if this will help you tell him no (I would just tell him no) but here is the rules for two weapon fighting from the srd.
Two-Weapon Fighting
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in two ways. First, if your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light. Second, the Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6.
specifically, the first line says: "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand" I would take that to mean you actually have to have a weapon in each hand in order to gain two weapon fighting. I've always assumed that in the case of spiked armor, that your attacking with spikes attached to your bracers (ie: forearm), and thus can't use it with a double handed weapon. The only exception I've seen to this rule is flurry of blows from the monk class, which specifically says that you can attack with any part of your body, or the same weapon a bunch of times.
Sadly Swish, as this is a backwards compatable game and one of the 3.5 books had a fighting style feat specifically for using a 2hd'er and armor spikes im not sure that that is the official read of that section of the rules. and as you can add a Bite / tail swipe attack if you possess it to a FA action there is precident for non hand/arm based attack incorporation.
Is it cheesy? Yes, yes it is. Thats why a number of the 3.5 Char Op boards used 2hd armor spike builds.
|
specifically, the first line says: "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand" I would take that to mean you actually have to have a weapon in each hand in order to gain two weapon fighting.
Dragonsong is correct, if you believe in "backwards compatibility" then it's allowed under the rules. There's a great article written I believe by SKR himself over on the Wizards site regarding the topic.
It's also easy to manage in Pathfinder by taking one level of monk which explicitly states that your melee attacks do not count as "off-hand".
|
It is legal, but the DM can always say no per Rule 0.
Now, taking a look at it, he gains very little. all attacks at a lower to hit, to gain an extra attack that does 1d3 lethal (or non-lethal if it is not an armored boot)? And if he does not take the feat, then every time he uses it, he offers an attack of opportunity from any enemy that threatens him. So, in reality, he is eating up a feat and some to-hit to do an extra 1d3 damage...
Personally, I would have no problems with allowing this in my game.
I have had a monk in my game who took simple weapon prof for longspear so that he could threaten out 10' but still flurry of blows anything close..
Well yeah, if you use 3.5 stuff sure it works. This is why i don't allow 3.5 rules in my pathfinder chilli, it makes it too spicey. As for the monk splash, it doesn't quite work, because a monk can't flurry with a greatsword (unless somehow the greatsword became a monk weapon, which I believe there is a feat in complete warrior that does that, once again, habanero 3.5). To my knowledge, there isn't a double handed monk weapon in Pathfinder (although, now I'm on a quest to find one...cause a monk flurring with a double handed weapon sounds redonkulous)
I did this in a 3.5 game with a cleric of xan yae (in simplified terms a monk goddess).
But I had twf ius and the one fronton that gives you small monk unarmed damage. Then used a falchion (the godesses weapon) mainland and kicked them off hand.
Far as I know by raw it works. Though in my case given I spent like 3 feats it didn't seem so cheesy.
|
|
Well yeah, if you use 3.5 stuff sure it works. This is why i don't allow 3.5 rules in my pathfinder chilli, it makes it too spicey. As for the monk splash, it doesn't quite work, because a monk can't flurry with a greatsword (unless somehow the greatsword became a monk weapon, which I believe there is a feat in complete warrior that does that, once again, habanero 3.5). To my knowledge, there isn't a double handed monk weapon in Pathfinder (although, now I'm on a quest to find one...cause a monk flurring with a double handed weapon sounds redonkulous)
quarterstaff?
Also, remember this line from Flurry of Blows:
A monk applies his full Strength bonus to his damage rolls for all successful attacks made with flurry of blows, whether the attacks are made with an off-hand or with a weapon wielded in both hands.
right right...that covers both the 1/2 damage with an off hand weapon as well as the 1 1/2 damage from a double-handed weapon. So you can't just spam a double-handed weapon with a million attacks and 1 1/2 damage and power attack and junk.
|
|
Well yeah, if you use 3.5 stuff sure it works. This is why i don't allow 3.5 rules in my pathfinder chilli, it makes it too spicey. As for the monk splash, it doesn't quite work, because a monk can't flurry with a greatsword (unless somehow the greatsword became a monk weapon, which I believe there is a feat in complete warrior that does that, once again, habanero 3.5). To my knowledge, there isn't a double handed monk weapon in Pathfinder (although, now I'm on a quest to find one...cause a monk flurring with a double handed weapon sounds redonkulous)
Who said anything about flurry? The intent isn't to use flurry, it's to get the unarmed abilities of the monk class and then using the two-weapon fighting tree to gain all your extra attacks as the player originally envisioned.
hmm... I guess that does work, if you use two weapon fighting from the feats as opposed to flurry...
Thats a little sick
right right...that covers both the 1/2 damage with an off hand weapon as well as the 1 1/2 damage from a double-handed weapon. So you can't just spam a double-handed weapon with a million attacks and 1 1/2 damage and power attack and junk.
On the off-topics of monks, you could actually use a temple sword in both hands to gain the greater bonus of power attack. The bonus from the feat is granted specifically to wielding in two hands, and not based on the strenght multiplier.
I don't think it would be earth-shattering compared to using the monks unarmed damage. But it does make a monk critical build more possible.For non-monks, there are also the possibility of wearing a cestus to make the off-hand attack together with the greatsword. Since it allows you to wield items in the hand it is on, it should be possible (yet cheesy) to use them both, if there hasn't been an errata...
What your player is proposing looks like this:
Primary Attack: Greatsword 2d6 + 1 1/2 Strength Bonus
Second Attack: Unarmed 1d3 + 1/2 Strength Bonus
This doesn't seem too powerful to me.
- It costs a feat to get Improved Unarmed Strike.
- Using different weapons for each attack will eliminate half the usefulness of Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus, and Greater Weapon Specialization.
- Using different weapon groups will reduce the benefit from Weapon Training 1-4.
- Improved Two-Weapon Fighting adds a fairly weak unarmed attack.
- Greater Two-Weapon Fighting adds another a fairly weak unarmed attack.
After a few levels, he would net more damage on a full attack with two shortswords. The build he wants will make him slightly better at level 1-4, and on a standard attack or charge.
Is it good? Yes, if he takes the right feats, this plan could lead to a well-built fighter. Is it broken? No, it's not any more powerful than many other Fighter builds.
right right...that covers both the 1/2 damage with an off hand weapon as well as the 1 1/2 damage from a double-handed weapon. So you can't just spam a double-handed weapon with a million attacks and 1 1/2 damage and power attack and junk.On the off-topics of monks, you could actually use a temple sword in both hands to gain the greater bonus of power attack. The bonus from the feat is granted specifically to wielding in two hands, and not based on the strenght multiplier.
I don't think it would be earth-shattering compared to using the monks unarmed damage. But it does make a monk critical build more possible.For non-monks, there are also the possibility of wearing a cestus to make the off-hand attack together with the greatsword. Since it allows you to wield items in the hand it is on, it should be possible (yet cheesy) to use them both, if there hasn't been an errata...
The cestus doesn't work, if you make an attack you cannot make any other attacks with the same limb as the initial attack.
I've never really understood the resistance to this build. It's mechanically inferior to just about every other popular fighter build, especially when you add in the necessary stats for TWF and IUS, plus the inherent penalties.
It's flavorful, different, and mechanically almost impossible to min/max. I just don't see the problem.
Plus finding a good magic boot to kick with might be difficult and any blade added to the boot would be an exotic weapon.
Interesting...
Somewhere there are rules for adding a natural attack to part of your normal attacks, but I don't know if that would apply here or not...Usually, TWF involves "offhand" not off legs,
Sorry but that is incredibly too literal. You can make off-hand attacks with some bit attacks.
OP- Yes you can do it that way. If you have improved unarmed strike and a great sword you can use TWF. Feat Cheaper way would be to combine TWF with armor spikes.
I am sorry but I feel I must address this nah nonsense more.
Say a monk is using TWF. So just because the game term says they must use their "off hand" as the 2nd attack from the feat does that automatically mean they have to use a fist for that attack? Ludicrously.
Is this OP? I don't think it really is. At most it grants a good utility ability if you want to use a two handed weapon, more so if you use a reach weapon.
Actually, I'd encourage it, it's a fun and unusual build and not over-powered at all.
I'd even say he doesn't need to use Improved Unarmed Strike if he just has the proficiencies of spiked armor; I'd allow him to simply pay the normal price and rules-wise have spiked armor while the fluff simply is the spiked boots. The difference is minor compared to actually using armor spikes, and if the campaign is going into high levels, being able to enchant it is a must.
As has been said, it's simply not worth it since feats, weapon training and so on has to be taken twice.
The damage will probably be lower than shortsword/shortsword on full attack, and the defensive capabilities lower than sword/board. This 2WF style only has the advantage on single attacks (which is nice but not broken).
Hey guys, I've got a friend who was messing around and came up with the idea of a fighter with TWF who uses a greatsword and improved unarmed attacks (with boots).
To my understanding, using an unarmed strike with improved unarmed attack is viable for TWF (for non monks, not interested in monks)... so is this legal?
Starting out.. my response is for pathfinder. I don't know much about other rule-sets. I believe that these sorts of "Unarmed Strike" attacks must be made with your hand (literally)to avoid any Improvised Weapon penalties. Armor spikes and Secondary Natural Attacks (such as bite) are something else entirely.
It would seem to only work with one level of monk due to their class ability called Unarmed Strike.
Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. (AND) A monk’s attacks may be
with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk
may make unarmed strikes with his hands full. There is
no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking
unarmed (that is, if the monk is not wielding a weapon). A monk may thus apply his full Strength bonus
on damage rolls for all his unarmed strikes.
If other classes could perform such an attack, there would be no need for this class ability or description. And the Improved Unarmed Strike feat by itself does not garner this ability. Savvy?
If he were a non-monk, performing an offhanded kick it would incur Improvised Weapon penalties as well as Two Weapon fighting penalties.
If other classes could perform such an attack, there would be no need for this class ability or description. And the Improved Unarmed Strike feat by itself does not garner this ability. Savvy?If he were a non-monk, performing an offhanded kick it would incur Improvised Weapon penalties as well as Two Weapon fighting penalties.
From the combat section of the PFSRD:
"Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:"The knees and elbows are specific for the monk ability. Also, the ability means the monk deals full STR damage even on off-hand attacks (if wielding a weapon).
The knees and elbows are specific for the monk ability. Also, the ability means the monk deals full STR damage even on off-hand attacks (if wielding a weapon).
Got me there. Looks like no improvised penalties! Though I still think I'd go with a monk level...
|
|
Here's an idea: let him use his kick attack as either a Bull Rush or Trip maneuver, allowing him to treat Improved Unarmed Strike as Improved Trip or Improved Bull Rush in those instances, but only when used as part of a full attack in conjunction with the greatsword.
I really don't like this one. By turning his kick into a bull rush or trip maneuver you're really lessening the usefulness of the Punishing Kick feat.
I've never really understood the resistance to this build. It's mechanically inferior to just about every other popular fighter build, especially when you add in the necessary stats for TWF and IUS, plus the inherent penalties.
It's flavorful, different, and mechanically almost impossible to min/max. I just don't see the problem.
Damn. You beat me to it.
Oh well, it bears repeating:
This build is both legal and NON-cheesy. There are much better builds out there, so why isn't this one acceptable?
Because armor spikes are cheesy? ;)
Because armor spikes are cheesy? ;)
What do you mean by "cheesy"? I don't think you're using it the same way the rest of us are. "Cheesy" in social settings, it means "Trying too hard, unsubtle, and inauthentic" in retail it means, "Cheap, flimsy, poor quality." In gaming, it refers to something that is overpowered, yet out of character or theme.
I don't think armor spikes are overpowered at all.
I don't think armor spikes are overpowered at all.
They are not overpowered even under the most optimistic/liberal of rules interpretations.
I and my player are having a showdown over what the official ruling is going to be on this is. In fact I started another thread about it before I found this one.
Let me say first... and I cannot stress this enough...
IT IS NOT A POWER ISSUE!!!
I, as a DM of 8 years, do not believe that it is in the spirit of the rules to twist them around and do things that were not originally considered, like horse-bomb (in 3.0.) You could just as easily use mouse-bomb. Should I allow it just because it is not overpowered?
Furthermore, if it is the case that creators of the game rule that you can do this, like they have with armor spikes, then this raises all kinds of interesting technical problems for the rules system. For instance, can a tiefling with a vestigial arm take improved multiweapon fighting (just because she has an extra "hand" and then multiweapon fight with two shortswords and her foot? Well... I would say that if the two weapon fighting thing is kosher, because of the foot counting as an "offhand," then the logical extension of that would be this and lots and lots of other silly tactics.
Perhaps in your game this is preferable. I myself have been DM in games where I encouraged and even rewarded silly tactics, but I do not think that this should be the norm (especially in official organized play.)
Another problem... what do you do with monsters who have lots of limbs? If a cestus can't be used with a greatsword, because you already used it (the arm that is, just like you can't two weapon fight with one dagger by quick drawing it out of your other hand, because you already used it: the weapon,) then does my hypothetical tiefling with multiattack get two swords and two feet? What about a marilith? Can she get a tail and a head-butt in? What about the tieflings head-butt?
My friend (who has been playing longer than I have been DMing) says that the answer to my last string of questions would be ‘of course not!’ because you can only attack with unarmed strike as if it were a single weapon, so the marilith could get an extra attack if she had improved unarmed strike, but no more than one. An atach could get an extra unarmed strike in with his foot, but not both feet and his head.
This makes perfect sense in the case of monsters, but unfortunately for me, long winded and rules lawyery as I am, it raises another problem. What if I am an unarmed fighter who uses his fists, like a boxer? I can't do this now because I can only attack with one unarmed strike. The unarmed strike could be my primary weapon, gaining my full strength bonus to damage and extra attacks by virtue of a high base attack bonus, but I must be wielding a real weapon in my other hand. I am no longer allowed to duel wield my own two hands. This is in my mind a disastrous implication because it limits the PCs in a more significant and relevant way than not allowing them to two weapon fight with their foot and a greatsword. What if the ranger gets disarmed? Is he completely bum!@#$ing useless now?
It is perfectly OK with me if someone in a position of authority to make this call for errata purposes says on a case by case basis “Yes, you can do this. No you can’t do that.” Please make me not confused anymore.
I and my player are having a showdown over what the official ruling is going to be on this is.
That´s too bad... Even if somebody I´m playing with has a different view on this sort of thing, it´s not really something to argue over (beyond when one is arguing/discussing the rules for their own sake, i.e. for understanding), you just have to go with the GM´s preference how they want the game to run, and enjoy the rest from there... I think too many people take things like this personally, rather than saying ´huh, this happens in this game universe, vs. this doesn´t happen in it´.
I mean, if you´re not enjoying the game because of the game, the story, the comradery, but just because 2WF isn´t modelled exactly to your preference... I don´t know what to say. Lots of game sytems work differently, and they might not all model every variation exactly ideally. Play D6 and there will be no rules arguments, everything just runs extremely simply because everything is the exact same mechanic, period.
For instance, can a tiefling with a vestigial arm take improved multiweapon fighting (just because she has an extra "hand" and then multiweapon fight with two shortswords and her foot?
OK, if you´re using multi-weapon fighting, that´s predicated on using the additional hands to do attacks. If the ´vestigial limb´ is viable as an attack, why aren´t they using it? If it´s not viable (capable to wield a weapon / deliver UAS), it shouldn´t count to qualify for the feat, since that´s clearly what ´hand´ means here in this context. I can see what you´re getting at here, but it´s ultimately pointless, if you have a viable attack arm, you can use it, kicking isn´t going to be more effective.
does my hypothetical tiefling with multiattack get two swords and two feet? What about a marilith? Can she get a tail and a head-butt in? What about the tieflings head-butt?
Your hypothetical tiefling with additional arm gets what MWF says: an additional off-hand attack for each additional (viable, capable to wield a weapon) limb... So for your example, ONE Main-Hand and TWO off-hand attacks. MWF is very clear, you NEVER gain main-hand attacks from it, period.
What about tail and head-butts? That´s also directly covered by the rules (though the rules conflict in places). Here´s the section that consensus has is in conformance with RAI:
Creatures with natural attacks and attacks made with weapons can use both as part of a full attack action (although often a creature must forgo one natural attack for each weapon clutched in that limb, be it a claw, tentacle, or slam). Such creatures attack with their weapons normally but treat all of their natural attacks as secondary attacks during that attack, regardless of the attack's original type.
I have no idea where you are getting the ´only can make one (hand) UAS attack´ stuff. I have never seen anybody question that 2WF with UAS is completely possible - you just can´t make weapon or natural weapon attacks with the same hands as UAS, because you must dedicate your limbs to specific attacks for any given attack (incl. Full Attack sequence), though there´s no reason you can´t ´switch´ later to use limbs differently for AoO´s (though you must un-wield a weapon before end of your turn if you want to use that limb for another attack type via AoO).
If you want a rules reference, try the section just following that Natural Attack reference, which directly refernces using UAS with 2WF (for humanoids and humanoid-type monsters without Nat. Weapons):
Some fey, humanoids, monstrous humanoids, and outsiders do not possess natural attacks. These creatures can make unarmed strikes, but treat them as weapons for the purpose of determining attack bonuses, and they must use the two-weapon fighting rules when making attacks with both hands. See Table: Natural Attacks by Size for typical damage values for natural attacks by creature size.
I, as a DM of 8 years, do not believe that it is in the spirit of the rules to twist them around and do things that were not originally considered, like horse-bomb (in 3.0.) You could just as easily use mouse-bomb. Should I allow it just because it is not overpowered?
The problem with ruling based on the "spirit" of the rules is that each DM will interpret what the spirit is differently. That's why the forums argue about RAW so much. Any GM can say "No, I don't like that, you can't do it", but you can't actually discuss that in any meaningful way, because it's preference. So the question isn't whether you should allow things or not, but whether you're making a house rule to block it or whether it's disallowed by default.
For instance, can a tiefling with a vestigial arm take improved multiweapon fighting (just because she has an extra "hand" and then multiweapon fight with two shortswords and her foot?
I've seen this tiefling with 3 arms referenced before and I can't find anything about it. Where does that arm come from? I can't decide whether multiweapon fighting makes sense or not until I've read it.
Perhaps in your game this is preferable. I myself have been DM in games where I encouraged and even rewarded silly tactics, but I do not think that this should be the norm (especially in official organized play.)
Sadly, "silly" is too subjective for official organized play.
Another problem... what do you do with monsters who have lots of limbs? If a cestus can't be used with a greatsword, because you already used it (the arm that is, just like you can't two weapon fight with one dagger by quick drawing it out of your other hand, because you already used it: the weapon,) then does my hypothetical tiefling with multiattack get two swords and two feet? What about a marilith? Can she get a tail and a head-butt in? What about the tieflings head-butt?
Marilith's already get a tail attack as a natural attack. So it stacks with multi-weapon fighting. Anything adding unarmed attacks (head-butt, kicks) to a normal attack routine has to replace their iterative manufactured weapon attacks with the unarmed attacks - they don't get extra for having extra limbs, and they don't get to just arbitrarily add as many as they want.
My friend (who has been playing longer than I have been DMing) says that the answer to my last string of questions would be ‘of course not!’ because you can only attack with unarmed strike as if it were a single weapon, so the...
His answer is correct, but his reasons aren't. There's nothing about it being a single weapon that would keep you from using it multiple times. Arbitrarily adding it multiple times into an attack routine isn't allowed, though.
I, as a DM of 8 years, do not believe that it is in the spirit of the rules to twist them around and do things that were not originally considered
That's really, really a shame. There's a difference between trying to cheat by doing what the rules clearly intend to not be, and using the rules for interesting and new combinations.
The rules on TWF are clear; unarmed strikes are permissible for off-hand attacks. The rules on unarmed strikes are clear; feet are permissible to be used as weapons.
The only grey-area here is the idea that the user of a greatsword as a two-handed weapon can use that weapon in the midst of a TWF sequence. Were I ruling on this, I would permit them to do it because it's neat but with the caveat that their primary attack with the greatsword deals 1x Str damage, not 1.5x Str. Basically I'd let them do what they want to do, but maintain the usual TWF rules. The player could switch back and forth from 2H attacking and TWF attacking at will. Flexibility, but in no way breaking the rules.
Look, the very strength of 3e as a system is that it's got so many neat rules that interact in interesting ways. Spells alone allow fascinating combinations that aren't spelled out. The idea of a DM who doesn't let his players do combinations that the creators didn't explicitly spell out in their limited pages... that's depressing.
The only grey-area here is the idea that the user of a greatsword as a two-handed weapon can use that weapon in the midst of a TWF sequence. Were I ruling on this, I would permit them to do it because it's neat but with the caveat that their primary attack with the greatsword deals 1x Str damage, not 1.5x Str. Basically I'd let them do what they want to do, but maintain the usual TWF rules. The player could switch back and forth from 2H attacking and TWF attacking at will. Flexibility, but in no way breaking the rules
I like the ruling, although I probably wouldn't apply it in my game (I let my players get away with even more broken things if they can justify it - I just turn up the difficulty). I just want to point out that it is, in fact, a GM ruling not RAW. As I see it, there isn't any gray area in the RAW - you can intermix attacks with each "hand", and your "offhand" can be something other than a hand.
|
I'm reading this with interest as I have a Chelaxian HalfOrc Drunken Brute Barbarian, wielding a Greataxe as his main weapon and having some Blade Boots as well.
Blade Boots are a martial light weapon (Adventure Armoury)- so no extra feat needed. The reason I'm using them is for fluff - 'He just kicks out to show his disdain' and to allow me to drink alcohol or a potion while raging.
While inferior to take one hand off the axe, take a swig and just kick someone I feel it adds some flavour and allows me raging for longer against some inferior enemies.
Some DireRats aren't worth my Axe if their leader is down - I just keep on raging, drinking and kicking. So far I never intended TWF with this combination. But it allows me additional option (yes - I even have a sap and have used it as well).
But it raises an interesting question:
From the description: 'You can use a blade boot as an off-hand weapon'. And for 25gp they are pretty affordable for anyone.
Thod