Are Claws equivalent to "one hand free"?

[BeAuMaN]

Figured I'd ask. There's things like Crane Wing, or Deflect/Snatch Arrows, and a number of other feats and class abilities, that have a "when you have at least hand free clause".

So, do claws count as hands? Logically, claws can come in all sorts of shapes and sizes as part of a hand, and for things like Deflecting it would make a sort of sense.

Mechanically, I'm imagining these things were worded to specifically exclude people who have a weapon in their offhand, which people with claws do.

So, thoughts? rule quotes? erratas?

I'm asking since I think a Barbarian raging, deflecting arrows and/or attacks... is pretty awesome :p

[Umbranus]

Some claws may be hands, others are not.
The Barbarian's claw should be a hand but it is only a free hand if you don't use the claw.

[blackbloodtroll]

Umbranus wrote:

Some claws may be hands, others are not.

The Barbarian's claw should be a hand but it is only a free hand if you don't use the claw.

This reasoning is equivalent to stating one cannot cast a spell with a verbal component, because they just used a bite attack.

[Umbranus]

No, it's more like saying: If casting stated that you need a free mouth for casting you couldn't do it while chewing bubblegum.
But as spellcasting doesn't say anything about having your mouth free it's not realted at all.

[blackbloodtroll]

No, it does not matter if you used a claw, or if you attacked with a dagger, then dropped it. A free hand, is a free hand.

[BeAuMaN]

Hm, interesting points.

Mildly related... I also considered how this compares to say... wielding a one-handed weapon and then two-handing it for the strength/power attack bonus as a free action, and then free-actioning back to one hand to satisfy the requirements for Crane Wing, etc.

Not sure if that really helps stimulate any arguments or not, I'm new to natural weapons, so *shrug*.

I appreciate the arguments so far though, and I look forward to any other findings!

[Roaming Shadow]

So long as the claw can function as a hand, it should count as a free hand, so long as it is not holding anything. So long as it's not holding anything, it's free to use as a hand; therefore, a free hand.

For Umbranus' arguement above, that'd be like saying you're not considered to be wielding a weapon in a hand if you use that weapon to attack during your turn, ergo cannot make AoO because you used it to attack, and don't even threaten the squares. That doesn't make any sense.

As for the two weapon release/regrip, I see no problem with it. Now, you can't make AoO with the two hander because you're holding it in one hand, and therefore not able to "wield" the weapon, and the "opportunity" has passed by the time you regrip it. As a houserule, I'd say you can regrip in response to the first "provoke", allowing you to AoO if he does another action that provokes (like, say, moving through another square with you now threaten because you are now wielding you 2 hander).

[Richard Leonhart]

if the claws are clearly on your hands (not your feet (talons?) for example), then they should count as free hands for those feats, in my opinion at least.
It's like "wielding" an unarmed strike.

Just make sure that you can still use your hand normally, your GM could rule that if your claws are too big or unhandy then snatching an arrow with them is not that easy. But this is even more houseruling.

[Michael Grancey]

I would agree as long as the claw is a hand and not holding anything it free; if its a foot they better be a monkey or something that similarly has an opposable digit.

BeAuMaN wrote:

Mildly related... I also considered how this compares to say... wielding a one-handed weapon and then two-handing it for the strength/power attack bonus as a free action, and then free-actioning back to one hand to satisfy the requirements for Crane Wing, etc.

Concerning this, I would bust them over it. They could switch once a turn as you either fight with both hands for a round or 1 hand for a round but I would bust them over power gaming like that; if only by giving anyone attacking them a bonus for having a messed up style. It would like trying to swap weapons between hands during a full round attack and TWF.

Also Natural weapons count as light weapons if that what you weren't sure about.

[Skylancer4]

Michael Grancey wrote:

BeAuMaN wrote:

Mildly related... I also considered how this compares to say... wielding a one-handed weapon and then two-handing it for the strength/power attack bonus as a free action, and then free-actioning back to one hand to satisfy the requirements for Crane Wing, etc.

Concerning this, I would bust them over it. They could switch once a turn as you either fight with both hands for a round or 1 hand for a round but I would bust them over power gaming like that; if only by giving anyone attacking them a bonus for having a messed up style. It would like trying to swap weapons between hands during a full round attack and TWF.

Also Natural weapons count as light weapons if that what you weren't sure about.

What are you talking about? RAW it works, as a free action you can shift your "handed-ness," you just can't do it mid full attack action. It isn't power gaming, it is the way it is supposed to work. There is nothing to "bust" them over. You aren't "stuck" fighting with both hands once you start, you have a choice and that is why they made it a free action. If you want to keep 2 hands on a weapon for potential AoOs you have the choice to, if you don't care about the extra damage on an attack you may never get to make, you have the choice to do that as well.

[FerrisAir]

If you are a creature with claws that can also wield weapons and you are only using your claws you have a free hand. Similar to monks. Now when you make a fist as a monk you are armed but your hand is free. Mechanically if you do not take up your hand slot or you are not using that hand, you have a free hand.