|
| 7 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
Is it allowed to use Two Weapon Fighting, with the primary weapon being a two-handed weapon, such as a great sword, and the off-hand weapon being a Improved Unarmed Strike, such as a kick?
My reading of the rules suggest the answer is "Yes", but I'd like to confirm this with the community.
I can provide relevant rules quotes if needed.
bsongy
PS Please excuse if this is posted in the wrong section of the forum. I'm still new to this.
How 2 Handed STR modifier and Power Attack applies to the `main-hand` in such a case may also be interesting to know (at least if it diverges from RAW, which is that they apply to 2-Hand-wielded weapons which the Greatsword main-hand is), which is also tangentially relevant to how those apply to Double Weapons used for 2WF`ing (also wielded in 2 hands, though off-hands always use 1/2 STR modifier to DMG per their definition).
|
This is an interesting thought. Your off-hand is generally considered your hand, though it is stated in the Monk class that your off-hand may be considered to be any body part. (If I am remembering correctly.)
However, since you are using 1.5 Str, I as a GM, would not allow it normally. (At least not with a non-monk weapon.) A great sword, great axe, etc. would require a lot of momentum, that, though not impossible, would take an intense amount of training to be able to do effectively.
Just my 2 copper pinches.
|
Yeah, you may. Same principle as with Armor Spikes. Your shoulder or kick or whatever is the "off-hand" used to attack. Naturally this means you won't be getting 1.5 str modifier(or PA modifier) to your two-handed weapon, since your off-hand is already in use.
And of course you need the two-weapon fighting feats to not take horrible penalties.
Actually, it seems you could use your two handed weapon (at 1.5x STR)and another form of attack (like an Unarmed Strike/Armor Spike or Natural Attack).
Look at the Minotaur's Statblock in the PRD, great axe (with 1.5 str) and Gore.
Actually, it seems you could use your two handed weapon (at 1.5x STR)and another form of attack (like an Unarmed Strike/Armor Spike or Natural Attack).
Look at the Minotaur's Statblock in the PRD, great axe (with 1.5 str) and Gore.
That is a secondary natural attack, not an off hand weapon. They are handled differently.
I would go with a yes here you still have 2wp penalties and unless a monk (of which i dont know of any monk 2handers though been a while since someone played one) only have 1d4 damage. PA and 1.5 only affect the two hander and you only get .5 on the off hand.
That is a secondary natural attack, not an off hand weapon. They are handled differently.
Correct. But the rules implications are: if you Unarmed Strike (Kick), the attack will be available because the Kick does not use your "hands" at all.
As Talon said, you'll be suffering TWF penalties and your offhand attack will be Unarmed Strike (Kick) during your Full Attack.
That is a secondary natural attack, not an off hand weapon. They are handled differently.Correct. But the rules implications are: if you Unarmed Strike (Kick), the attack will be available because the Kick does not use your "hands" at all.
As Talon said, you'll be suffering TWF penalties and your offhand attack will be Unarmed Strike (Kick) during your Full Attack.
I wasn't commenting on the actual topic of the thread because I don't agree with it (using a two handed weapon in two weapon fighting like that is to cheesy to me, but that is just IMO). I was commenting on your comment about the minotaur.
|
|
That is a secondary natural attack, not an off hand weapon. They are handled differently.Correct. But the rules implications are: if you Unarmed Strike (Kick), the attack will be available because the Kick does not use your "hands" at all.
As Talon said, you'll be suffering TWF penalties and your offhand attack will be Unarmed Strike (Kick) during your Full Attack.
That's the one way to read it, yes.
Natural attacks work entirely different from two-weapon fighting and can't be used as a short-hand on other rules, since they were initially intended to exist only to monsters and follow a different progression, limits and size.
Now, I would allow kicks to work in the way you said, since they use an entirely different limb than those the sword uses, but unfortunately we have a set of rules to fall back on and they disagree:
Monk FoB. It uses the same rules that two-weapon fighting does and features two-handed weapons too. It's pretty clear that while flurrying, in other works "as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat", the character, or the monk in this case "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." This means that a monk using a quarterstaff two-handed while flurrying(or two-weapon fighting as it is) does not garner the 1.5 str modifier.
I think we have a pretty clear rules precedent there.
Edit: Eh, I really like the imagery of using a heavy blade and adding kicks to the mix. And since the rules don't make it cheesily powerful, well, let's just say that it's nice to fulfill all those Soul Calibur character builds. :D
We are talking about a non monk i believe here. The monk gains no 1.5 but also get no .5s either.
|
|
We are talking about a non monk i believe here. The monk gains no 1.5 but also get no .5s either.
Yeah, true. But I think "as if Two-Weapon fighting" trumps using monk as an exception. They are just treated as if having Double Slice, so you wouldn't have to have 15 dex(the prequisite) to be effective.
I can provide relevant rules quotes if needed.
Please give me a rule for a "kick".
All rules are talking about a primary hand and an offhand and you can use them for TWF or THF, not a mixture of both. For that you need more limbs (see multiweapon fighting or Eidolon rules). Maybe it is not clear in the RAW but everything else is cheese..Silly question: Why should i use a longshort+dagger when i can use a greatshort+kick?
Silly question: Why should i use a longshort+dagger when i can use a greatshort+kick?
Because the Longsword + dagger requires less feats invested than greatsword + (Improved Unarmed Strike) kick/headbutt/etc.
Spending a feat to merely enable the possbility of going TWF while weilding a two hander is the furthest thing from cheesy or broken; if you're a Martial class, its far easier just to use Armor Spikes. Going with unarmed can be flavorful and gives you a situational advantage in the event you are unarmed, but thats it.
|
|
You are still only getting 2d6+str(in case of great sword) and 1d3+0.5str(in the case of a kick). Compare that to Scimitar and kukri for instance.
And none of these combos has anything on Heavy Shield-melee weapon two-weapon fighting. And that requires even more feats.
See, it all balances out in the end?
The 2h weapon + kick is an interesting idea... but I would expect it to cause additional penalties without added feats. Basically, the Improved Unarmed Strike feat is (potentially) allowing you to deliver the kick without provoking AoO's, but...
1. You are a bipedal creature lifting a foot off the ground. This *could* possibly give you a penalty to CMD versus Trip, Bull Rush, etc. (obviously not disarm)
2. If you are wearing heavy (I don't think typical medium/light armors would interfere with kicking) armor that's not designed for kicking you should take the armor check penalty on your attack roll. The idea here is... have you ever seen someone in full plate armor attempt to kick?
So then you could start dev'ing custom feats & armor enchants/types:
*Balanced Stance, Requires Improved Unarmed Strike
You don't take the penalty to CMD when delivering a kick attack
Maneuverable Armor; +1 bonus
This set of armor magically adjust around your body while performing unarmed attacks. Do not apply the check penalty to kicks.
Etc. etc...
The 2h weapon + kick is an interesting idea... but I would expect it to cause additional penalties without added feats. Basically, the Improved Unarmed Strike feat is (potentially) allowing you to deliver the kick without provoking AoO's, but...
1. You are a bipedal creature lifting a foot off the ground. This *could* possibly give you a penalty to CMD versus Trip, Bull Rush, etc. (obviously not disarm)
2. If you are wearing heavy (I don't think typical medium/light armors would interfere with kicking) armor that's not designed for kicking you should take the armor check penalty on your attack roll. The idea here is... have you ever seen someone in full plate armor attempt to kick?So then you could start dev'ing custom feats & armor enchants/types:
*Balanced Stance, Requires Improved Unarmed Strike
You don't take the penalty to CMD when delivering a kick attackManeuverable Armor; +1 bonus
This set of armor magically adjust around your body while performing unarmed attacks. Do not apply the check penalty to kicks.Etc. etc...
The sort of penalties you are talking about are already accounted for; if you make an unarmed strike without spending the feat on improved unarmed strike, it provokes.
If you've spent an entire feat on Improved Unarmed Strike, you do not need additional penalties beyond those still explicitly present (IE, Two Weapon Fighting). Its rough enough as is.
The sort of penalties you are talking about are already accounted for; if you make an unarmed strike without spending the feat on improved unarmed strike, it provokes.
If you've spent an entire feat on Improved Unarmed Strike, you do not need additional penalties beyond those still explicitly present (IE, Two Weapon Fighting). Its rough enough as is.
No, the penalties I'm referring to aren't accounted for in Improved Unarmed Strike. IUS only removes the AoO, that's saying that you are proficient enough with the attack to not execute it clumsily. I didn't suggest AoO's, I was pointing out how the attack may result in vulnerability to certain combat maneuvers. Regardless of how skilled you are at delivering the kick, your foot is still leaving the ground and when it returns you have to find footing again.
And I pose the question again... have you ever seen someone attempt to deliver a kick in full plate mail? Can you honestly tell me that absolutely no penalties should be applied to *heavy* armors?
And I pose the question again... have you ever seen someone attempt to deliver a kick in full plate mail? Can you honestly tell me that absolutely no penalties should be applied to *heavy* armors?
In reality its probably more complicated than doing it naked, sure.
However, in an abstracted game, its not really relevant. There's no reason it shouldn't work in the rules, the rules dont call for additional penalties, and its in no way overpowered; in fact, its worse than your other options for comparable effects.
There's no reason at all to add additional complications to it.
I don't see any reason you can't do it, but I can see a lot of reasons why it is a bad idea.
- If you dual wield kukris, both you main hand and off hand use the same feats and weapon groups. Going with falchion + kick, you have 2 different weapon groups, 2 different weapons for weapon focus, weapon specialization, etc.
- You still have to put points into dexterity to qualify for the two-weapon fighting chain. This pulls points away from strength, which results in less two hand damage, and a lower to hit all around.
- You still need to find a way to get an enhancement bonus on your kick. Amulet of mighty fist is significantly more expensive than a normal weapon.
- Most weapons have a better threat range than an unarmed strike.
So lets take a look at some fighters at level 10.
Two handed fighter with +3 falchion(18k gold), and 24 strength, weapon focus, weapon spec, improved crit, and power attack(4 feats). +20/+15 to hit for 2d4 +10 str +2 weapon spec +2 weapon training +3 enhancement +9 power attack = 31 damage -> against AC 24 = 66.5 DPR with crits
Dual wield Kukri fighter with 2 +2 kukris(16k gold), 20 strength, 17 dexterity, weapon focus, weapon spec, improved crit, power attack, TWF, Imp TWF, double slice(7 feats). Main hand is +17/+12 1d4 + 5 str +2 weap spec +2 weap training +2 enhancement +6 power attack = 19.5 offhand loses 3 points from power attack for +17/+12 to hit at 16.5 damage. Against AC 24 -> 53.8 DPR.
Falchion/Unarmed fighter would have 20 strength and 17 dexterity a +2 falchion and a +2 amulet of mighty fists(28k gold). They would need weapon focus x2, weapon spec x2, improved crit x2, power attack, TWF, imp TWF, and double slice(10 feats total). Pick heavy blades for your first weapon training group, and unarmed for your second. The falchion would be +17/+12 to hit for 2d4 + 7 str +2 weap spec +2 weap training +2 enhancement +9 power attack = 27 damage. The unarmed strike would be +17/+12 for 1d3 + 5 str +2 weap spec +1 weap train +2 enhance + 3 power attack = 15 damage. Against AC 24 -> 59.3 DPR.
Yeah, I get to spend 6 feats, and an extra 10k in gold to do less damage than if I had just focused on using my two handed weapon to the best of my abilities.
Sure, go for it.
|
|
You are still only getting 2d6+str(in case of great sword) and 1d3+0.5str(in the case of a kick). Compare that to Scimitar and kukri for instance.
And none of these combos has anything on Heavy Shield-melee weapon two-weapon fighting. And that requires even more feats.
See, it all balances out in the end?
just a minor correction though.
Your greatsword would be getting 1.5* str mod not 1*str mod.
No, because your off-hand is in use. It's kicking. Same principle as with armor spikes and flurry of blows. I already explained this earlier on.
No, because your off-hand is in use. It's kicking. Same principle as with armor spikes and flurry of blows. I already explained this earlier on.
Flurry of Blows is an exceptional case which tells you how it works. It does not define how anything works other than Flurry of Blows.
How two weapon fighting works normally is defined under two weapon fighting; your offhand uses half your strength mod for damage, and your main hand is unnaffected.
yeah, what krispy said.
No, because your off-hand is in use. It's kicking. Same principle as with armor spikes and flurry of blows. I already explained this earlier on.Flurry of Blows is an exceptional case which tells you how it works. It does not define how anything works other than Flurry of Blows.
How two weapon fighting works normally is defined under two weapon fighting; your offhand uses half your strength mod for damage, and your main hand is unnaffected.
See math above. Even with 1.5 str on your main hand, the build is still inferior to a straight two-handed fighter build.
See math above. Even with 1.5 str on your main hand, the build is still inferior to a straight two-handed fighter build.
Completely true. Especially since Improved Unarmed Strike is a waste of a feat for any optimized build; Armor Spikes give you a better damage die and dont require a feat for a Martial character to be proficient.
And even then, its (probably) not worth the attack penalty on your main weapon.
See math above. Even with 1.5 str on your main hand, the build is still inferior to a straight two-handed fighter build.Completely true. Especially since Improved Unarmed Strike is a waste of a feat for any optimized build; Armor Spikes give you a better damage die and dont require a feat for a Martial character to be proficient.
And even then, its (probably) not worth the attack penalty on your main weapon.
Yeah, it saves you 1 feat, you would still have to spend 9 feats to get all of the TWF, and weapon specific feats to max out your damage.
|
Back to the OP...
Is it allowed to use Two Weapon Fighting, with the primary weapon being a two-handed weapon, such as a great sword, and the off-hand weapon being a Improved Unarmed Strike, such as a kick?
To site a 3.5 precedent from Tome of Battle (yes, I know that it's really not a good example, but eh) they had a feat called Snap Kick that allowed a character to make an unarmed attack after the rest of their regular attacks, albeit with a -2 penalty to all attacks. It also has no two-weapon fighting prerequisite.
In other words, I don't think that by the standard Core rules this is exactly possible. However, it is a pretty easy thing to house rule as shown by everyone above.
|
|
Back to the OP...
In other words, I don't think that by the standard Core rules this is exactly possible. However, it is a pretty easy thing to house rule as shown by everyone above.Is it allowed to use Two Weapon Fighting, with the primary weapon being a two-handed weapon, such as a great sword, and the off-hand weapon being a Improved Unarmed Strike, such as a kick?
getting to two weapon fight with a greatsword and an unarmed strike is not a house rule. You are expected to be able to use unarmed strikes in two weapon fighting. The two weapon fighting rules even tell you to count the unarmed strike as a light weapon(which is only relevant if you use your unarmed strike as a off hand weapon).
Two-weapon fighting is not a house rule, no, but I honestly don't know how a person would manage to use two-weapon fighting while holding a heavy weapon that requires two hands on it to use. Unarmed strikes while dual-wielding? Perfectly fine. Greatsword while dual-wielding? Not normal.
|
|
How about this as a test case:
2nd Level Half-Orc Inquisitor of Irori
Assume STR of 18 and DEX of 15.
To begin with, ignore judgments and other class powers.
It appears to me that the math works out as follows.
Test Case One: Standard 2-Handed Hitter
1st Level Feat: Power Attack
version1:
Great Axe w/o Power Attack To Hit:+5 Damage:1d12+6
version 2:
Great Axe w/ Power Attack To Hit:+4 Damage:1d12+8
Test Case Two: Great Axe & Unarmed Two Weapon Fighting:
1st Level Feat: Two Weapon Fighting
version 1:
Primary Attack: Great Axe To Hit:+3 Damage:1d12+6
Secondary Attack:Unarmed Kick To Hit:+3 Damage:1d3+2
==============================================================
Questions for the Forum:
1. Is my assumptions and math above correct? (Of course, my answer would be "yes".)
2. Is TWF beneficial in a DPR sense? (I'm unsure but I think "no, but it only has a small effect")
3. The test case ignores judgments and other class abilities of the Inquisitor; How would including these class powers change the situation? (I'm unsure how much additive/precision damage would make TWF viable.)
4. The test case is at a very low level; how does this situation hold as the levels increase? (I have no idea.)
Two-weapon fighting is not a house rule, no, but I honestly don't know how a person would manage to use two-weapon fighting while holding a heavy weapon that requires two hands on it to use. That's my interpretation, at any rate.Back to the OP...
In other words, I don't think that by the standard Core rules this is exactly possible. However, it is a pretty easy thing to house rule as shown by everyone above.Is it allowed to use Two Weapon Fighting, with the primary weapon being a two-handed weapon, such as a great sword, and the off-hand weapon being a Improved Unarmed Strike, such as a kick?
getting to two weapon fight with a greatsword and an unarmed strike is not a house rule. You are expected to be able to use unarmed strikes in two weapon fighting. The two weapon fighting rules even tell you to count the unarmed strike as a light weapon(which is only relevant if you use your unarmed strike as a off hand weapon).
Watch movies with sword fights, like say Kill Bill Vol. 1. There are a lot of fighting styles used in the movies that make use of pommel strikes, kicks, elbow strikes, shoulder bashed, etc while holding a weapon with both of their hands. Even in the Drizzt Novels, there is the fight with his undead uncle fight where he makes use of a kick which wielding a sword in each hand. It isn't that much of a stretch.
|
|
Watch movies with sword fights, like say Kill Bill Vol. 1. There are a lot of fighting styles used in the movies that make use of pommel strikes, kicks, elbow strikes, shoulder bashed, etc while holding a weapon with both of their hands. Even in the Drizzt Novels, there is the fight with his undead uncle fight where he makes use of a kick which wielding a sword in each hand. It isn't that much of a stretch.
True enough, but I never saw it as a simultaneous kind of thing. I honestly don't have an issue with it; I would point the wanting player to the Snap Kick feat.
|
How about this as a test case:
2nd Level Half-Orc Inquisitor of Irori
Assume STR of 18 and DEX of 15.
To begin with, ignore judgments and other class powers.It appears to me that the math works out as follows.
Test Case One: Standard 2-Handed Hitter
1st Level Feat: Power Attack
version1:
Great Axe w/o Power Attack To Hit:+5 Damage:1d12+6version 2:
Great Axe w/ Power Attack To Hit:+4 Damage:1d12+8Test Case Two: Great Axe & Unarmed Two Weapon Fighting:
1st Level Feat: Two Weapon Fighting
version 1:
Primary Attack: Great Axe To Hit:+3 Damage:1d12+6
Secondary Attack:Unarmed Kick To Hit:+3 Damage:1d3+2==============================================================
Questions for the Forum:
1. Is my assumptions and math above correct? (Of course, my answer would be "yes".)2. Is TWF beneficial in a DPR sense? (I'm unsure but I think "no, but it only has a small effect")
3. The test case ignores judgments and other class abilities of the Inquisitor; How would including these class powers change the situation? (I'm unsure how much additive/precision damage would make TWF viable.)
4. The test case is at a very low level; how does this situation hold as the levels increase? (I have no idea.)
A second level inquisitor can't have Power Attack. I'd also say that it might be a good idea not to ignore additional damage effects because they are what makes TWF viable.
And even if the inquisitor could have Power Attack, it would increase the damage by 3, not 2.|
|
A second level inquisitor can't have Power Attack. I'd also say that it might be a good idea not to ignore additional damage effects because they are what makes TWF viable.
And even if the inquisitor could have Power Attack, it would increase the damage by 3, not 2.
Thanks for that, Jadeite. I admit, I'm still learning.
|
|
And even if the inquisitor could have Power Attack, it would increase the damage by 3, not 2.
The +2 in the Unarmed Kick would be due to 1/2 strength bonus, vice power attack.
From PRD > Equipment > Light, One-Handed, and Two-Handed Melee Weapons
Light: A light weapon is used in one hand. It is easier to use in one's off hand than a one-handed weapon is, and can be used while grappling (see Combat). Add the wielder's Strength modifier to damage rolls for melee attacks with a light weapon if it's used in the primary hand, or half the wielder's Strength bonus if it's used in the off hand. Using two hands to wield a light weapon gives no advantage on damage; the Strength bonus applies as though the weapon were held in the wielder's primary hand only.
The sort of penalties you are talking about are already accounted for; if you make an unarmed strike without spending the feat on improved unarmed strike, it provokes.
If you've spent an entire feat on Improved Unarmed Strike, you do not need additional penalties beyond those still explicitly present (IE, Two Weapon Fighting). Its rough enough as is.
No, the penalties I'm referring to aren't accounted for in Improved Unarmed Strike. IUS only removes the AoO, that's saying that you are proficient enough with the attack to not execute it clumsily. I didn't suggest AoO's, I was pointing out how the attack may result in vulnerability to certain combat maneuvers. Regardless of how skilled you are at delivering the kick, your foot is still leaving the ground and when it returns you have to find footing again.
And I pose the question again... have you ever seen someone attempt to deliver a kick in full plate mail? Can you honestly tell me that absolutely no penalties should be applied to *heavy* armors?
Have you ever seen anyone in full plate mail to begin with?
I agree, but only on the ground that if he can't kick, he can't mount a horse big enough to carry him.
FYI, I thought I`d mention that somebody at Paizo (SKR I believe... He really is good at FAQ/Errata... Why doesn`t somebody throw him on that full time!? ;-) ) specifically stated that the RAI for Armor Spikes is that they require an arm to use, i.e. if you are using the arm for another weapon (such as using 2 hands for Greatsword), you can`t use Armor Spikes. They are aware that isn`t clear by RAW, but it looks likely to be future Errata, and that was officially stated to be the RAI. So that means UAS, or more exotic means, are the only way to 2WF with a 2Handed main-hand weapon + other off-hand weapon (you can use the 2Hander as the off-hand, but you lose out on damage bonus besides big weapon dice, since off-hands always use `only` 1/2 STR mod to DMG).
As mentioned, it`s almost always sub-optimal vs. just Full Attacking with a 2-Hander, but I don`t see why it should be banned... As mentioned, mixing in some dirty kicks or whatnot during a Greatsword onslaught is a pretty reasonable, and flavorful, way of fighting. Why not allow it?
As mentioned, some of the statements we have from Paizo on related subjects (albeit from James Jacobs, not on the Rules team), specifically re: Double Weapons (where the weapon is being wielded in 2 hands, and thus the main-hand would seemingly qualify for 2-handed dmg bonus) have suggested that the main-hand DOESN`T benefit from 2-handed dmg bonus, although without any basis in the rules for that (again, this is James Jacobs). AFAIK, Power Attack implications were never dealt with. I don`t think JJ`s take has any basis in the actual RAW, but if everybody designing crunch at Paizo IS taking that as how the rules work, and designing stuff (like 2 Weapon Fighter Archetype) around that assumption, then it IS the RAI, even if the RAW should be Errata`d to accurately reflect that. Hit the FAQ button, folks.
I don`t believe that `changing grip` is even defined in the first place, but all Free Actions would default to working like other actions, i.e. sequentially and not interrupting other actions (such as 2WF Full Attack action). The Speaking Free Action has wording allowing it uniquely to be taken off-turn, but doesn`t say anything about being able to interrupt / occur in the middle of other actions... The other Free actions don`t even have that exception. ...Good explanation?
Have you ever seen anyone in full plate mail to begin with?
I agree, but only on the ground that if he can't kick, he can't mount a horse big enough to carry him.
I have, actually... I did not see him attempt to kick though. Regarding mounting a horse, lifting a leg is much different than accelerating your leg in a lift motion to deliver a damaging kick.
Honestly, I wasn't deadset on my suggestions, I was just throwing those out there. I could've sworn this thread was originally in the Homebrew category when I posted in it, so I figured that coming up with a whole answer to the situation was the goal. Based on what I've skimmed from other posters, there are far better answers here than mine (considering that mine is all home brew...).
5` step has specific wording allowing it to interrupt other actions, yet Free Actions in general don`t have that wording. Is changing grip more or less time than Speaking, or the other Free Actions (which can`t interrupt)? Probably not, so it would seem pretty clear that only 5` step can uniquely interrupt other actions (besides Ready Actions, Immediate Actions off your turn, etc). If a CLASS of actions was intended to function a certain way, that would be included in the description of that CLASS of actions. If a specific action belonging to that Class has it`s own special features, that doesn`t apply to the whole class of actions... That would kind of defeat the purpose of having specific, distinct actions.
|
|
5` step has specific wording allowing it to interrupt other actions, yet Free Actions in general don`t have that wording. Is changing grip more or less time than Speaking, or the other Free Actions (which can`t interrupt)? Probably not, so it would seem pretty clear that only 5` step can uniquely interrupt other actions (besides Ready Actions, Immediate Actions off your turn, etc).
From the PRD
Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM.
It does not state that you can perform a free action before or after other actions, but while taking other actions.
Full-Round Actions
A full-round action requires an entire round to complete. Thus, it can't be coupled with a standard or a move action, though if it does not involve moving any distance, you can take a 5-foot step.
A full-round action says nothing about not taking free or swift actions during it. It only states that you cannot take a move or standard action with it.
A paladin should also be able to drop a lay on hands to them self during a full round attack, even with a two-handed weapon.
If you want to release one hand from a weapon (free action) punch someone with IUS (melee attack), and re-grab your weapon (free action) I would allow it.
If you want to take at best a -2 to your attacks to hopefully gain a 1d3+(STRBonus/2) extra damage which is most likely non-magical at that..
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
That`s correct, that info is stated at the beginning of the Actions section,
I only was familiar with the info in the `Free Action` section itself which just says:
Free actions don't take any time at all, though there may be limits to the number of free actions you can perform in a turn.
Free actions rarely incur attacks of opportunity. Some common free actions are described below.
Obviously, it`s pretty much repeating the exact same informatin MINUS that one bit about occuring during other actions (and PLUS the bit about rarely provoking AoO`s). That`s kind of a problem with the Editing in the Core Rules, that information tends to be replicated in different places, but not 100% identically, meaning different sections can be misleading to some extent. If the information NEEDS to be replicated, it should ALL be replicated, otherwise they should have saved space and only included that information in one place.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Yup, which completely negates the entire point of their stealth FAQ/Errata about Armor Spikes. (well, not completely, it just remains relevant for AoOs)
So I suppose it`s possible that the section which allows `interrupt` is Errata, and the other section is RAI.
Hitting the FAQ button is the only way to tell.
But this means even if they errata armor spikes it doesn't stop anyone from 2WF with armor spikes and a 2 hander.
Actually because of
However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM.
this puts it straight back into "it works how the DM says it works" territory.