I'm really trying to lock down the mechanics of this as its causing some dissention in our group.
If a character has claws (as a Dragon Disciple might, or a Beast Totem Barbarian) and a reach weapon:
1) Can he use the weapon while he has claws or will the claws interfere with the weapon's use?
2) Does he threaten both squares 10' away with the reach weapon AND the adjacent squares with his claws? Or does he have to declare which he is threatening at the end of his turn?
I've heard legitimate arguments either way as far as how it would work from a flavor standpoint, but I'm looking for the RAW to settle those arguments.
1) He can use the weapon, but then not the claws. So it's the weapon that interferes with the claws, not the otherway around.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
I'm really trying to lock down the mechanics of this as its causing some dissention in our group.
If a character has claws (as a Dragon Disciple might, or a Beast Totem Barbarian) and a reach weapon:
1) Can he use the weapon while he has claws or will the claws interfere with the weapon's use?
2) Does he threaten both squares 10' away with the reach weapon AND the adjacent squares with his claws? Or does he have to declare which he is threatening at the end of his turn?
I've heard legitimate arguments either way as far as how it would work from a flavor standpoint, but I'm looking for the RAW to settle those arguments.
1. Like Cheapy said, he can use the weapon fine, but if it's a two handed weapon, he won't be able to attack with his claws at the same time.
2. I've always understood it that if he's using both his hands to attack with his weapon, those limbs are considered 'occupied' for the round (similar to the way that you lose your shield bonus from your buckler if you use your buckler arm to attack), and so he wouldn't be able to use them to make attacks of opportunity. In that case he'd only threaten the farther squares, and not the squares adjacent to him.
Now, if he has a one-handed reach weapon, he can threaten both squares, the far ones with the weapon and the close ones with his one unoccupied claw.
1) Is definitely a no, he can't use both on the same attack action / full attack.
2) Is less clear. Since taking a hand on or off a weapon should be a free action, and since unless stated otherwise, you can't take free actions out of turn, I'd rule that he can choose to either end his turn holding the reach weapon in one hand (and thus unable to wield it) and not threaten with it but be able to AoO with the empty hand's claw, or to keep it in both hands and thus threaten with it but not with the claws.
If he wants to threaten at reach and adjacent, he'd have a much easier time using unarmed strikes (with Imp. US or a gauntlet), spiked gauntlet, or armor spikes. That's definitely RAW legal and much simpler to accomodate.
Assuming 2 hands and no special extra abilities on the claws:
1: You can elect to use either claws, a weapon, or both. However, to wield a weapon, it will be using your "limbs." Combat section describes this more:
You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used for each attack. For example, you cannot make a claw attack and also use that hand to make attacks with a longsword. When you make additional attacks in this way, all of your natural attacks are treated as secondary natural attacks, using your base attack bonus minus 5 and adding only 1/2 of your Strength modifier on damage rolls. Feats such as Two-Weapon Fighting and Multiattack can reduce these penalties.
You could probably drop the weapon as a free action, but I'm not sure if that would allow the full attack sequence to continue, and it would have to be picked up again when you want to use it next.
2: If you are using a two-handed weapon (which most reach weapons are), you need two hands to operate it. If those hands are doing something other than wielding the weapon, then you don't threaten with the weapon. If the claws are on your feet, on a second pair of arms, or you use a bite attack instead, then you can likely threaten multiple areas. Same goes if you find a one-handed reach weapon.
To be clear, my first question was merely to clarify that the simple fact of having claws would not keep you from weilding the reach weapon (like wearing mittens would prevent you from playing the piano), not an attempt to make claw attacks AND an attack with the weapon itself.
Thank you all for your responses. They've been very helpful.
2) Is less clear. Since taking a hand on or off a weapon should be a free action, and since unless stated otherwise, you can't take free actions out of turn, I'd rule that he can choose to either end his turn holding the reach weapon in one hand (and thus unable to wield it) and not threaten with it but be able to AoO with the empty hand's claw, or to keep it in both hands and thus threaten with it but not with the claws.
If he wants to threaten at reach and adjacent, he'd have a much easier time using unarmed strikes (with Imp. US or a gauntlet), spiked gauntlet, or armor spikes. That's definitely RAW legal and much simpler to accomodate.
Help me understand this - a spiked gauntlet on a hand weilding a two-handed weapon can be used to threaten, but the claws on that same hand can not?
Or is it just how the rules are written and not something to be dissected too closely?
2) Is less clear. Since taking a hand on or off a weapon should be a free action, and since unless stated otherwise, you can't take free actions out of turn, I'd rule that he can choose to either end his turn holding the reach weapon in one hand (and thus unable to wield it) and not threaten with it but be able to AoO with the empty hand's claw, or to keep it in both hands and thus threaten with it but not with the claws.
If he wants to threaten at reach and adjacent, he'd have a much easier time using unarmed strikes (with Imp. US or a gauntlet), spiked gauntlet, or armor spikes. That's definitely RAW legal and much simpler to accomodate.
Help me understand this - a spiked gauntlet on a hand weilding a two-handed weapon can be used to threaten, but the claws on that same hand can not?
Or is it just how the rules are written and not something to be dissected too closely?
They may be interpreting it as the fact that a Spiked Gauntlet is not technically a "natural attack" and therefore somehow doesn't follow the restriction on not using the same limb to do two different things at once. You can, unequivocally, "hold" a Spiked Gauntlet and another weapon in the same hand, and attack with the weapon that the gauntlet is holding (heavy armors would be a terrible choice were that not the case). No explicit rule I know about bars attacking with the gauntlet as it is holding the weapon (there are plenty of examples in cinema of this happening if you look). The rules on Unarmed Attacks with Improved Unarmed Strike are hazy about what exactly you are attacking with- probably deliberately so- and it can be argued that you can attack with Improved Unarmed Strike even when holding a reach weapon.
(Editorial: this argument is not without merit. It is not likely to become an issue as long as the stats of what is used when are followed thoroughly and gauntlets do not become a source of extra attacks in a full-attack sequence like natural attacks are. They are not following the same rules, nor is it really possible to consider them for two-weapon fighting in combination with a two-handed weapon wielded in both hands.)
Help me understand this - a spiked gauntlet on a hand weilding a two-handed weapon can be used to threaten, but the claws on that same hand can not?
Most people rule it that you must choose which weapon you are wielding.
If you're wielding the glaive, you're holding the gauntlet. If you're wielding the gauntlet, you're holding the glaive. Free action to wield, so basically you just choose what you want to threaten with at the end of your turn.
Armor spikes (shoulder, leg, etc.) or Improved Unarmed Strikes (knee, kick, headbutt) are a workaround, since they don't use up a hand.