|
| 11 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. |
In another thread, I conjectured about a Pathfinder character that used two weapon fighting, with a Falchion (or other two-handed weapon) as his primary weapon, and used a Kick (assuming the character has Improved Unarmed Strike) for his off hand weapon. The consensus seems to indicate that this was highly unusual, but not abusive and following rules as written -- but this consensus was not unanimous.
Would a build like this be allowable for PFS play?
Even if it is allowable, would it be desirable, considering the acrimony &/or time wasting discussions it could prompt?
|
This is a rules question not a PFS question, you would get more responses there. So you know I flagged your post to be moved over there already.
But to start off to answer your question, as a GM I would not allow it, that is in the purview of "Natural Attacks" not "Armed Unarmed Attacks". Now if you say played a Half-Orc with a "Bite Attack" that would be allowed.
|
Dragonmoon, Klothar asked if it's legal for PFS play, so it is totally a PFS question and should be in that section of the boards.
Klothar, yes, it is a bit unusual but TWF says "You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands." so RAW I would not allow it. If you used a one handed weapon and had the TWF and IUS I'd totally allow a sword/kick combo to be used for attacking.
Dragonmoon, Klothar asked if it's legal for PFS play, so it is totally a PFS question and should be in that section of the boards.
Klothar, yes, it is a bit unusual but TWF says "You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands." so RAW I would not allow it. If you used a one handed weapon and had the TWF and IUS I'd totally allow a sword/kick combo to be used for attacking.
Unarmed Strike Damage: An unarmed strike from a Medium character deals 1d3 points of bludgeoning damage (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). A Small character's unarmed strike deals 1d2 points of bludgeoning damage, while a Large character's unarmed strike deals 1d4 points of bludgeoning damage. All damage from unarmed strikes is nonlethal damage. Unarmed strikes count as light weapons (for purposes of two-weapon attack penalties and so on).
So if you ignore this, you can not use TWF with punches...
|
|
I am assuming the 2 of you who keep bringing up TWF (Two-Weapon Fighting) mean THF (Two Handed Fighting) since that is what the question is about. *or a Mixture of the 2*
And fray it was still a Rules question even if he used PFS as an example of play. PFS uses Core Rules which is what this question was, PFS would be no different on this then PF rules.
I am assuming the 2 of you who keep bringing up TWF (Two-Weapon Fighting) mean THF (Two Handed Fighting) since that is what the question is about. *or a Mixture of the 2*
And fray it was still a Rules question even if he used PFS as an example of play. PFS uses Core Rules which is what this question was, PFS would be no different on this then PF rules.
TWF has no exclusion on THF. Plus, if your willing to take a feat to be able to do this, that is fine, not like it is all that optimal.
I'll never understand why people get so bent out of shape over this combo....
At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. 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. A monk may thus apply his full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all his unarmed strikes.
You are considered to be armed even when unarmed—you do not provoke attacks of opportunity when you attack foes while unarmed. Your unarmed strikes can deal lethal or nonlethal damage, at your choice
It looks like a non-monk with improved unarmed strike would not be able to use a kick as an offhand. Being able to do that is a monk ability. Unarmed strikes are ordinarily fists. Without the monk's rules exception, an unarmed strike is a light weapon and thus needs to be wielded in a hand.
To use TWF with a 2-handed weapon and unarmed strike, you'd need to either have 3+ hands or be a monk.
Agree with Jake on this one, its legal and not that strong.
It looks like a non-monk with improved unarmed strike would not be able to use a kick as an offhand. Being able to do that is a monk ability. Unarmed strikes are ordinarily fists. Without the monk's rules exception, an unarmed strike is a light weapon and thus needs to be wielded in a hand.
Uh.. what?
Did you read the Definition of an Unarmed Attack before you came to this conclusion?
Unarmed Attacks
Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following[...]
Of course any character can kick.
|
Interesting idea. I'd say it is not legal for the following reason:
Two-Weapon Fighting (Combat)
You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands. You can make one extra attack each round with the secondary weapon.
Prerequisite: Dex 15.
Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6. See Two-Weapon Fighting in Combat.
Normal: If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. When fighting in this way 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. If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light.
It specifically calls out "a weapon wielded in each of your hands" and "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand." Since you can't wield two weapons in one hand then RAW - and I would say RAI - this means that you can only get the extra attack if you are wielding your main weapon with only one hand and your second weapon is wielded in your off hand (or an unarmed strike using your off hand) and therefore can't be combined with a Two-Hander.
|
Interesting idea. I'd say it is not legal for the following reason:
Two-Weapon Fighting (Combat)You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands. You can make one extra attack each round with the secondary weapon.
That is flavour text. It gives no RAW numbers, it only gives a basic idea of how the feat plays out, and should not be taken word for word literally. Yes you can TWF with a Greatsword and Unarmed Strike, but you probably wouldn't want to.
|
|
***Comments and restatement of the question(s) by OP.***
>I am assuming the 2 of you who keep bringing up TWF...
In effort for transparency, I, the OP of this thread, want to acknowledge that I may be both of the people "who keep bringing up TWF"; I'm still setting up my account and my postings in the last week have shown up under several aliases/name changes/icon changes.
I will state that I came into this thread convinced that this combo was allowable, but I have to admit since Belafon pointed out that portion of the rules that state "a weapon wielded in each of your hands", I'm now leaning towards rejecting my own thesis. I will add, though, that I have seen and played several characters based on this combo under 3.5 and Pathfinder; I don't find the combination abusive and I would be comfortable with a character like this in a home game.
I will likely be playing my first PFS scenario in the next few weeks, and posting this thread was an effort to get a definitive response that I could print out and show the GM at the table; a similar tactic worked well to reduce discussions at the table, for a controversial but legal character in Living Greyhawk many moons ago.
So.....Let me expand and restate my original question as follows:
1. Rules Is this a legal combination for PFS play? I think Belafon has shown that the answer is "no". Does anyone have any counter arguments?
2. Society Sociology Is it bad form to show up to a table with a controversial but legal character and risk burning up table time with
discussion about the legality of the character?
FWIW, this and others threads have convinced me not to include this combo in any PFS characters I create.
|
|
2. Society Sociology Is it bad form to show up to a table with a controversial but legal character and risk burning up table time with
discussion about the legality of the character?
Now this is a PFS question.
It is not a good idea to show up with a questionable Legality character because different GMs will different things.
For example at My Table I would not allow it, But I would allow it if you had a Natural Attack.
Now if one of the developers came into this thread to clear it up and ruled on your side, then you would have something to show the GMs.
Interesting idea. I'd say it is not legal for the following reason:
It specifically calls out "a weapon wielded in each of your hands" and "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand." Since you can't wield two weapons in one hand then RAW - and I would say RAI - this means that you can only get the extra attack if you are wielding your main weapon with only one hand and your second weapon is wielded in your off hand (or an unarmed strike using your off hand) and therefore can't be combined with a Two-Hander.Two-Weapon Fighting (Combat)
You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands. You can make one extra attack each round with the secondary weapon.
Prerequisite: Dex 15.
Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6. See Two-Weapon Fighting in Combat.
Normal: If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. When fighting in this way 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. If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light.
You can not fight with your foot with it in your off hand easily so you can not use your foot as an off hand weapon. OKAY now that this is cleared up. Feats =/= actual rules, just descriptions of modifications to rules.
IMO I'd let it fly only because I don't see a problem with it at all. So he hits them with his two hander and uses the momentum of his swing to do a neat kick during his full attack. Considering he's choosing a highly flavorful attack that yields significantly less damage, in our example of falchion 2d4 str 1.5 18-20 vs unarmed strike 1d4 .5 str for off hand 20, sure go for it. My immediate thought upon reading this was Ninja Turtles.
Leonardo uses 2 Katanas and is constantly throwing out kicks as is Donatello who is using a Staff as a mostly two handed weapon. If you take a look at various fighting video games or some movies you can see examples of when a person using a weapon that occupies both hands pulls off unarmed attacks. When using a spear you could stab stab with the spear then drive the butt of the spear into the ground and use it to do a vaulting kick as an example.
I just thought I'd point out a few examples as to why it may not be as outlandish as it first appears, if I'm missing why it's so devastating that it needs to be immediately banhammered please point it out to me.
I'm glad we're all agreed that TWF can only be performed with hands, even though I have already cited above that it is possible to perform a kick (from the actual functionality rules, not flavor text)
Again you can use punches, KICKS & HEADBUTTS when you make an Unarmed Strike. Many more options open up when you're a monk.
Honestly.
What about Armor Spikes? Nope can't TWF with that! Doesn't use a hand! Nevermind that Armor Spikes has explicit language for being used as off-hand weapon.
Cmon... just because most weapons are wielded in a hand doesn't mean all of them are.
{QUOTE]
Blade Boot
Blade boots come with a spring-mounted knife that pops out when triggered with the right combination of toe presses.
Benefit: You can use a blade boot as an off-hand weapon.
Action: Releasing the knife is a swift action; rearming it is a full-round action.
Drawback: When the blade is extended, you treat normal terrain as difficult and difficult terrain as impassable.
Hows this fit in to the mix?
Hows this fit in to the mix?
As yet another example that the term "off-hand" is not to be taken literally.
|
|
I'm glad we're all agreed that TWF can only be performed with hands, even though I have already cited above that it is possible to perform a kick (from the actual functionality rules, not flavor text)
Again you can use punches, KICKS & HEADBUTTS when you make an Unarmed Strike. Many more options open up when you're a monk.
Honestly.
What about Armor Spikes? Nope can't TWF with that! Doesn't use a hand! Nevermind that Armor Spikes has explicit language for being used as off-hand weapon.
Cmon... just because most weapons are wielded in a hand doesn't mean all of them are.
Pull back a little Stynkk. No one is saying you can't kick as part of a TWF full attack. The question is if you can use a Two-Handed weapon (or a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands) as your main-hand attack and then perform some other action (kick, knee, headbutt, etc.) as the off-hand attack.
As far as the argument about flavor goes, you might want to take a look at alignment channel or elemental channel and see if the first part of the feat description is nothing but "flavor." In the meantime here's a snippet from the rules governing combat:
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.
Same language - "If you wield a second weapon in your off-hand..."
I can see a way you can try to torture the language into letting you use a two-handed weapon - "It just says I get a penalty to attacks with my primary hand. It doesn't say that I can't use a two-handed weapon in my primary hand (and my secondary hand)." On the other hand I, and most GMs I know, will interpret the description as you use a weapon you wield using only your main hand and then make a second attack using anything that counts as an off-hand attack. (I'm not getting into real world issues of balance, movement, etc. because we're just talking about the Paizo rules.)
Pull back a little Stynkk. No one is saying you can't kick as part of a TWF full attack.
Good.
The question is if you can use a Two-Handed weapon (or a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands) as your main-hand attack and then perform some other action (kick, knee, headbutt, etc.) as the off-hand attack.
Why would you not be able to do this? You have already stated that you would ok a natural attack with this kind of attack, why rally against a Bladed Boot, Armor Spike or Unarmed Strike?
Same language - "If you wield a second weapon in your off-hand..."
So... I the character in question is wielding a second weapon, you've already said that these attacks can function as an off-handed weapon. If they use a Full Attack Action they can choose to two-weapon fight and gain an extra attack just like any other character.
I see nothing in the rules that states anything about not being able to utilize a two handed weapon while two weapon fighting. I'm not seeing your case.
As far as the argument about flavor goes, you might want to take a look at alignment channel or elemental channel and see if the first part of the feat description is nothing but "flavor."
The flavor part holds true as a general rule. There are some feats that parse part of their mechanic into the text that gives the general sense of the feat. Oddly Alignment/Elemental channel's "flavor text" only has the choices available and no actual gameplay/rules impact. The actual mechanics are listed after Benefit: just like all other feats.
The question is if you can use a Two-Handed weapon (or a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands) as your main-hand attack and then perform some other action (kick, knee, headbutt, etc.) as the off-hand attack.Why would you not be able to do this? You have already stated that you would ok a natural attack with this kind of attack, why rally against a Bladed Boot, Armor Spike or Unarmed Strike?
Natural Attacks follow a different set of rules. For those, you can go here.
IUS is only considered a natural attack for item and spell effects such as Magic Fang, or creatures who have abilities that specifically state an effect when hit by an unarmed or natural attack. As part of a full attack action after making all of your weapon attacks, your natural attack would suffer a -5 penalty to the attack using your full BAB, with only 1/2 of your Strength modifier added to the damage. That is also assuming it was not a natural weapon which was wielding the manufactured weapon, such as a claw or tentacle. In which case, you would not receive an attack with your natural attack at all.
Please do not confuse Natural Attacks and Unarmed Strike, as they follow different rules altogether.
Please do not confuse Natural Attacks and Unarmed Strike, as they follow different rules altogether.
What I stated was that we have a precident for other attack forms being used in conjunction with a two-handed weapon, so it's not out of the question that more options may be available.
I have never stated that an Unarmed Strike is a natural attack. I will be more careful with my examples in the future.
your off hand does not literally need to be an off hand. you can use a th weapon and kick or armor spikes. it's hardly optimal and I don't see why people get bent out of shape over it.
|
The focus on the word "hand" within two-weapon fighting's rules is very much a trap. One does not even need hands to two-weapon fight. The player need only be able to effectively wield two weapons. The examples of the blade boot, and armor spikes are good ones. Most weapons are wielded within the hands, but not all. There is no rules that disallow the act of fighting with both handheld and non-handheld weapons at the same time. I am rather confused about the fight against doing so. There is no verisimilitude or balance issue present. Why would one restrict one's fun and imagination when no problem seems apparent? This is not WOW, you can climb trees. Ruleswise, legit. Go forth and enjoy PFS play.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
The more comments I read, the more unsure I am about the whole matter.
Which of these are legal Two-Weapon fighting combinations?
Listed "Primary Attack"/"Secondary Attack"
Dagger/Improved Unarmed Strike
Falchion/Improved Unarmed Strike
Falchion/Armor Spikes
Falchion/Blade Boot
Improved Unarmed Strike/Blade Boot
Blade Boot/Blade Boot: wearing blade boots on both feet
Improved Unarmed Strike/Improved Unarmed Strike
????
I think what you can take from this thread is that the idea is controversial. You may get a PFS judge who agrees with you and allows it, but you'd better have a back up character to be on the safe side.
|
|
Even if it is allowable, would it be desirable, considering the acrimony &/or time wasting discussions it could prompt?
I would suggest that if this is something that you like that you do it. You will both be playing the character that you want and educating some less rules savvy judges out there.
All in all I'd call that a double win.
-James
In Living Greyhawk is was the norm to either avoid controversial characters or, at least, have written proof that backed your interpretation. Having not yet played a PFS scenario, I'm unsure on what kind of reception a character like this would receive.
My concern is that the character could prompt an extended rules discussion that could eat into the time for the scenario; IMHO this would not be fair to the other players at the table, even if the act would be instructive for the GM.
Unless I can get some unequivalble evidence, such as a message from an authority from Paizo, I intend to stick to characters which are not so controversial.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Technically when welding a weapon with two hands your are already using your primary hand and secondary hand. {hence the 1.5 x Str mod}
By trying to use a weapon two handed and another off-hand attack that doesn't actual use a hand, you in effect are using your primary hand and two off-hands in making your attacks.
The effect of the strategy is to increase your damage output. (assuming 18 str) by almost an additional off-hand attack over the traditional use.
One hand weapon 1d8+4 and Light off hand weapon 1d6+2 ~= 12 dam if both hit.
Vs
Two hand weapon 2d6 +6, and off hand 1d3+2 ~= 16.5 dam if both hit.
Note if this was allowed, you could also use a shield, sword and other Off-hand attack ( that doesn't use an actual hand) to keep the same damage, but increase your AC.
I would say that you can use the alternate off-hand attacks, but that it replaced the use of your actual off-hand.
2. Society Sociology Is it bad form to show up to a table with a controversial but legal character and risk burning up table time with discussion about the legality of the character?
My two cents: I think it's bad form to argue with the GM beyond gently pointing out a rule in the rulebook. If it were me, I'd have a back-up version of the same character for when a GM disallowed the combination. E.g. I'd have stats prepared for falchion + off-hand kick (possibly dubious, even though I think it's perfectly fine) and scimitar + off-hand punch (which no one can argue with).
Go with your heart, though. :-)
I've had GMs say things that were completely unsupported by the rules:
My two cents: I think it's bad form to argue with the GM beyond gently pointing out a rule in the rulebook.
I'd rather have an incorrect GM and a happy table than a correct GM and an unhappy table. YMMV, of course.
|
|
Note if this was allowed, you could also use a shield, sword and other Off-hand attack ( that doesn't use an actual hand) to keep the same damage, but increase your AC.
It is allowed, and you can do this.
Some examples of weapons that you can do this with:
Armor Spikes
Batezu Beard
Boot blade
Unarmed Strike
This is definitely allowed - if you're only using one hand on your weapon.
Ludicrous example time!
Let's say I'm playing a Rondelero Duelist (from Inner Sea Primer). At level two I gain the ability to shield bash with a buckler. Per core rules I can wield a weapon in two hands while using a buckler, I just take a penalty and lose its AC bonus until my next turn. So...
If we buy into the "I can TWF with a two-handed weapon" argument, then I can take a mighty swing with my greatsword as my "main-hand attack" and then bash with my buckler because it's "off-hand." Never mind that it's strapped to the arm I just used to wield my mighty greatsword.
Or, heck, I can swing my greatsword and then just elbow someone with my off-hand and don't even need this archetype.
So I submit that one of the following must be true:
1)You can't use a two-handed weapon when TWF (my argument)
2) You can use a two-handed weapon when TWF then punch someone with the off-hand you were just wielding that weapon with.
3) You can use a two-handed weapon when TWF then use any off-hand attack that doesn't use either of your hands.
If you argue (2) then there's nothing anyone can say to convince you otherwise. If you argue (3) please find me any citation that differentiates (for purposes of when you are allowed to attack with it) between attacking with your actual "off hand" and attacking with something that counts as an "off hand weapon" but isn't actually wielded by your off hand.
|
|
Technically when welding a weapon with two hands your are already using your primary hand and secondary hand. {hence the 1.5 x Str mod}
By trying to use a weapon two handed and another off-hand attack that doesn't actual use a hand, you in effect are using your primary hand and two off-hands in making your attacks.
The effect of the strategy is to increase your damage output. (assuming 18 str) by almost an additional off-hand attack over the traditional use.
One hand weapon 1d8+4 and Light off hand weapon 1d6+2 ~= 12 dam if both hit.
Vs
Two hand weapon 2d6 +6, and off hand 1d3+2 ~= 16.5 dam if both hit.Note if this was allowed, you could also use a shield, sword and other Off-hand attack ( that doesn't use an actual hand) to keep the same damage, but increase your AC.
I would say that you can use the alternate off-hand attacks, but that it replaced the use of your actual off-hand.
I think you make a good argument, but I will point out two issues.
Concerning your point about the 12 vs 16.5 points of damage:
I have not closely examined your numbers, but I ran three scenarios through the DPR calculator from the "Ironsides..." thread: 2-Hand Falchion, TWF 2Hnd Falchion/IUS, 1Hnd Bastard Sword/IUS. Varying teh scenarios, I was never able to find a setup that changed the DPR more than 2 HP. IMHO the DPR differenec is too small to base prohibition on that fact.
Your Reducto ad Absurdum, that permitting my line of reasoning would also permit Sword & shield/IUS, and since this combination is ridiculous or abusive, my argument should be refuted. (Do I understand correctly? Is this right?) In response that I will point out that sword & shield/boot blade is certainly permitted, yes? I find that combination even more silly and subject to any potential abuse. So, I don't think I can reject my argument based on this line of reasoning; though I think you may still end ou being right.
To me the legality of this build is indeterminate.
Based GlennH concept of "prohibiting double dipping strength bonuses", perhaps the rule for these situations should be something like "total up strength bonuses for all attacks. this total can not exceed 1.5 strength" but this doesn't cover cases like Fighter 2Hnd archetypes x2 strength bonus. Perhaps something similar. Hmmm.
Still as confused as ever.
|
|
Note if this was allowed, you could also use a shield, sword and other Off-hand attack ( that doesn't use an actual hand) to keep the same damage, but increase your AC.
It is allowed, and you can do this.
Some examples of weapons that you can do this with:
Armor Spikes
Batezu Beard
Boot blade
Unarmed StrikeThis is definitely allowed - if you're only using one hand on your weapon.
Ludicrous example time!
Let's say I'm playing a Rondelero Duelist (from Inner Sea Primer). At level two I gain the ability to shield bash with a buckler. Per core rules I can wield a weapon in two hands while using a buckler, I just take a penalty and lose its AC bonus until my next turn. So...
If we buy into the "I can TWF with a two-handed weapon" argument, then I can take a mighty swing with my greatsword as my "main-hand attack" and then bash with my buckler because it's "off-hand." Never mind that it's strapped to the arm I just used to wield my mighty greatsword.
Or, heck, I can swing my greatsword and then just elbow someone with my off-hand and don't even need this archetype.
So I submit that one of the following must be true:
1)You can't use a two-handed weapon when TWF (my argument)
2) You can use a two-handed weapon when TWF then punch someone with the off-hand you were just wielding that weapon with.
3) You can use a two-handed weapon when TWF then use any off-hand attack that doesn't use either of your hands.If you argue (2) then there's nothing anyone can say to convince you otherwise. If you argue (3) please find me any citation that differentiates (for purposes of when you are allowed to attack with it) between attacking with your actual "off hand" and attacking with something that counts as an "off hand weapon" but isn't actually wielded by your off hand.
Okay this seems to be a good argument.
The only counter I can think of would be: Imagine a humanoid creature (without natural weapons) possessing the TWF feat and four arms. (I'm keeping this abstract in effort to focus the discussion, but if necessary I can try and come up with concrete examples). In that case would the "You can't use a two-handed weapon when TWF" still apply?
Also, imagine a human that has manacles on his hands, has the TWF feet and IUS. Would he be able to attack twice with kicks or headbuts? The "You can't use a two-handed weapon when TWF" would suggest "yes", correct?
The rule seems reasonable and consistent to me, but how do we justify where it came from? I do not know of anything like that rule in the rules.
I think I'll think a bit on this.
Just to reitereate, I originally asked this question in regards to an idea for my first PFS character (Half-Orc Inquisitor of Irori) for role playing fluff reasons. Seeing the response in this and other threads, I intend to play this character without TWF, just straight 2Hnd Falchion, because I think bringing the original concept to a table couldd be disruptive. I'm now continuing this discussion simply to try and clarify the TWF rules in my own head.
Checking through the 3.5 FAQ, I find that using two handed weapons and an other off-hand weapon such as an armor spike or unarmed attack was valid. As well as the shield, sword and other off-hand attack combo. I assume its valid in Pathfinder, not being aware of any changes in the wording of the rules that would change it.
OK, I'm convinced that its allowable, but you will probably run into people who will balk at it.
|
|
A barbazu beard can be used as an off-hand weapon that requires no hands to use; thus, a warrior could combine use of a barbazu beard with a two-handed weapon. It otherwise follows all rules for using an off-hand weapon.
Now that is a good argument.
OK. Since we've got the word "thus" in there it follows by extension that any weapon that requires no hands to use (including unarmed strikes from an untrained combatant) can be used as part of TWF in conjunction with a two-handed weapon.
I am convinced.
Now perhaps you are trying to say that a blade boot is held in your hand, or that armor spikes need a hand free, or that to kick and knee someone you have to put your foot/knee in your hand first...-James
That is funny, I said the same thing! LOL
-Hexen
Now that is a good argument.
OK. Since we've got the word "thus" in there it follows by extension that any weapon that requires no hands to use (including unarmed strikes from an untrained combatant) can be used as part of TWF in conjunction with a two-handed weapon.
I am convinced.
Wow. Just. Wow. I'm glad they wrote this into the rules somewhere. *shakes head in dismay*
I'd like to extend a personal thanks to james for finding that rules nugget.
In another thread, I conjectured about a Pathfinder character that used two weapon fighting, with a Falchion (or other two-handed weapon) as his primary weapon, and used a Kick (assuming the character has Improved Unarmed Strike) for his off hand weapon. The consensus seems to indicate that this was highly unusual, but not abusive and following rules as written -- but this consensus was not unanimous.
Would a build like this be allowable for PFS play?
Even if it is allowable, would it be desirable, considering the acrimony &/or time wasting discussions it could prompt?
Just gonna pop in to say that you're going to have problems enchanting your foot with anything less than expensive jewelry (assuming you aren't a monk)
In another thread, I conjectured about a Pathfinder character that used two weapon fighting, with a Falchion (or other two-handed weapon) as his primary weapon, and used a Kick (assuming the character has Improved Unarmed Strike) for his off hand weapon. The consensus seems to indicate that this was highly unusual, but not abusive and following rules as written -- but this consensus was not unanimous.
Would a build like this be allowable for PFS play?
Even if it is allowable, would it be desirable, considering the acrimony &/or time wasting discussions it could prompt?
I'd allow it.
Its flavorful, interesting and not game-breaking.Also,
It's not against the rules, IMHO.