| 6 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hi Guy! I have a rules question. Been looking all over but...
I have an Arcane Duelist bard and I am looking at taking a one level unarmed fighter dip for Improved Unarmed Strike and Crane style to really give her that swashbuckling duelist flavor. (then taking the other two feats in Crane style as I advance) I am trying to convince my GM that Crane Style works even if I have a melee weapon in one hand. The general consensus on the board seems to be it does, but I can't find anything official. Any suggestions?
Does anyone use something like this in organized play? Or know of any developers who have commented on it?
As long as one hand is free it works.
Thank you for your quick reply,
This is my argument as well, but is there anything official I can point my GM at to support this?
|
Your unarmed fighting techniques blend poise with graceful defense.
Prerequisites: Dodge, Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +2 or monk level 1st.
Benefit: You take only a –2 penalty on attack rolls for fighting defensively. While using this style and fighting defensively or using the total defense action, you gain an additional +1 dodge bonus to your Armor Class.
Nothing in Crane Style even requires a single free hand.
You move with the speed and finesse of an avian hunter, your sweeping blocks and graceful motions allowing you to deflect melee attacks with ease.
Prerequisites: Crane Style, Dodge, Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +5 or monk level 5th.
Benefit: Once per round while using Crane Style, when you have at least one hand free and are either fighting defensively or using the total defense action, you can deflect one melee weapon attack that would normally hit you. You expend no action to deflect the attack, but you must be aware of it and not flat-footed. An attack so deflected deals no damage to you.
Definitely says "as long as you have one free hand." Was he concerned that the intent here was to allow you to fight while holding a beer?
You use your defensive abilities to make overpowering counterattacks.
Prerequisites: Crane Style, Crane Wing, Dodge, Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +8 or monk level 7th.
Benefit: You take only a –1 penalty on attack rolls for fighting defensively. Whenever you use Crane Wing to deflect an opponent's attack, you can make an attack of opportunity against that opponent after the attack is deflected.
Again, nothing at all about limitations here, other than those imposed by the other feats whose use activates it.
You're totally fine to use these feats in conjunction with a one-handed weapon.
right.
and even taking into account crane style's fluff of 'your unarmed fighting techniques',
you don't need to be unarmed in both hands to be able to use UAS:
you can do that just fine with kicks, head butts, etc, while holding weapons in your hands. (or beers)
there's other feats/abilities in the game that explicitly only work with UAS or explicitly exclude holding items/weapons, but this isn't one of them.
crack open a brew for your GM and one for yourself and enjoy.
right.
and even taking into account crane style's fluff of 'your unarmed fighting techniques',
you don't need to be unarmed in both hands to be able to use UAS:
you can do that just fine with kicks, head butts, etc, while holding weapons in your hands. (or beers)
there's other feats/abilities in the game that explicitly only work with UAS or explicitly exclude holding items/weapons, but this isn't one of them.crack open a brew for your GM and one for yourself and enjoy.
I do enjoy a good brew.
Alright So before I go back to my GM with this my question is, Is there anyone who believes Crane Style can not be used with a weapon?
You mean besides your GM? ;)
Yep that's what I mean!
Styles, as far as I can tell from the general description, are hand to hand feats. Mostly, monk feats.
I know I was wanting this for my Mobile Fighter, since it fit my idea of wanting to Riposte an attack, but the RAW limits it to hand-to-hand capabilities.
Sure, I am a two-handed fighter, but that also limited the concept of requiring an open hand to deflect the attack. I argued that you could just make some homebrew feats with the same rules, except utilizing a weapon, and I said you should be able to deflect and counter an attack with a weapon just as nicely as you can with an open hand, which I suggested with Stance type feats (since that's what a Style is depicted as for Pathfinder in regards to function and depiction; a stance).
But ultimately, I had to turn down the idea because Style feats are limited to Hand to Hand combat only(, and it was pretty silly thinking that a fighter should use style feats, even though it perfectly fits what they want to do for that character).
I hope that gives you a clear answer.
Alright, I need to point out some things here that it seems several people are mistaken on.
Crane Wing (Combat)
You move with the speed and finesse of an avian hunter, your sweeping blocks and graceful motions allowing you to deflect melee attacks with ease.
Prerequisites: Crane Style, Dodge, Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +5 or monk level 5th.
Benefit: Once per round while using Crane Style, when you have at least one hand free and are either fighting defensively or using the total defense action, you can deflect one melee weapon attack that would normally hit you. You expend no action to deflect the attack, but you must be aware of it and not flat-footed. An attack so deflected deals no damage to you.
1. It says, "Once per round while using Crane Style". That means that even though you can jump right into picking up Crane Style without having to meet the prerequisites you still can not use the feat unless you have Crane Style. The benefit that Unarmed Fighter gives by being able to take Style feats without needing to meet their prerequisites is NOT that you can take the feats further down in each style tree early, but that you do not have to meet the prerequisites to do so. For instance, you could Crane Style and Crane Wing at first level even if you did not pick up Dodge and even though you do not have a BAB of +5 or are a 5th level Monk.
Let me repeat that point for clarity: You can not use Crane Wing without first having Crane Style. All of the style feats are worded this way. It is purposeful.
2. It says, "when you have at least one hand free and are either fighting defensively or using the total defense action". You do not need to fight unarmed to use this feat. These are not only "hand to hand" feats. The feat gives the requirements right in the description. There is no need to make inferences.
Alright, I need to point out some things here that it seems several people are mistaken on.
Crane Wing (Combat)
You move with the speed and finesse of an avian hunter, your sweeping blocks and graceful motions allowing you to deflect melee attacks with ease.
Prerequisites: Crane Style, Dodge, Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +5 or monk level 5th.
Benefit: Once per round while using Crane Style, when you have at least one hand free and are either fighting defensively or using the total defense action, you can deflect one melee weapon attack that would normally hit you. You expend no action to deflect the attack, but you must be aware of it and not flat-footed. An attack so deflected deals no damage to you.
1. It says, "Once per round while using Crane Style". That means that even though you can jump right into picking up Crane Style without having to meet the prerequisites you still can not use the feat unless you have Crane Style. The benefit that Unarmed Fighter gives by being able to take Style feats without needing to meet their prerequisites is NOT that you can take the feats further down in each style tree early, but that you do not have to meet the prerequisites to do so. For instance, you could Crane Style and Crane Wing at first level even if you did not pick up Dodge and even though you do not have a BAB of +5 or are a 5th level Monk.
Let me repeat that point for clarity: You can not use Crane Wing without first having Crane Style. All of the style feats are worded this way. It is purposeful.
2. It says, "when you have at least one hand free and are either fighting defensively or using the total defense action". You do not need to fight unarmed to use this feat. These are not only "hand to hand" feats. The feat gives the requirements right in the description. There is no need to make inferences.
I get that, and it states in the general description that the tiers of the style feats can only be accessed if you have the previous tiers, no questions asked. Besides, the benefits only work while the style is active, so taking the style itself as a feat is a must to begin with.
The general description also states that the Style Feats are specifically meant for hand to hand combatants; meaning unarmed combat is a requirement, as implied by the Improved Unarmed Strike feat requirement for all style feats. They are designed to be hand to hand, because they were made for hand to hand combatants.
Can non hand to hand characters take some of these feats? Yeah. Is it worthwhile to bother with them? Not a chance in Hell.
Worthwhile would be subjective. A duelist or free hand fighter could definatly benifit from using crane style as a defensive option.
Worthwhile would be subjective. A duelist or free hand fighter could definatly benifit from using crane style as a defensive option.
Not sure what you mean; a Duelist or a Free Hand fighter would more likely be concerned with other feats, or hell, overlook Style feats. I know I would.
Honestly dude, I actually find the Crane Style feats to be some of the best Style feats ever. But the thing about Style feats is that they are severely limited as to what classes can and should take them. I truly respect the Crane Style and its capabilities, and it was evident I respected them, since I really wanted them for the type of gameplay I was looking for (a 2h Mobile Fighter tank who is capable of Riposting attacks); I talked it over with the DM/GM, and he stuck with the RAW down to the T, which pretty much says that it's Hand to Hand or no go. I even suggested that I should be able to parry/deflect attacks with my own weapon instead of absolutely requiring an open hand, and that the Style feats can easily be interchangable as something along the lines of Stance feats (especially since they function as one and the same), and I was still turned down.
I'm not giving up on the gameplay that I am looking for, but not having the same stats as the Crane Style, which is exactly what I was looking for in regards to my Riposte gameplay, really hurt my chances of executing it.
the statement that you MUST be using Unarmed Strike in a round where you have a style active is flat out wrong. That actually breaks the obvious intention of several of them, which give non-combat benefits while using the style. Furthermore, the rules actually make absolutely no reference to "hand-to-hand" combat. It is literally a statement with absolutely no rules meaning whatsoever. In order for your interpretation to have any validity whatsoever, a sentence something like the following would need to be in the rules: "You may not activate or maintain a style in any round in which you do not perform an unarmed strike attack."
I am not saying that the character using the style feat MUST attack each round. That actually defeats the entire purpose of the Crane Style itself, which relies on Fighting Defensively, or Full Defense (which doesn't allow the character to attack at all), and that doesn't really apply.
My point is that the player should be a hand to hand type of character for the styles to truly be effective; it even explicitly states in the general description for Style Feats that it is the more or less designed for those who master Martial Arts, which is primarily (if not fully) hand to hand combat.
|
My point is that the player should be a hand to hand type of character for the styles to truly be effective.And again, this means absolutely nothing in a rules context. "Martial Arts" is a very broad phrase. 'Kenjitsu' is an entire set of 'martial arts' that focuses entirely on katana in a combat setting. Most styles of martial arts include weapons training, with the only distinction being how advanced you have to be before you begin. Technically, "martial arts" can even cover the fighting styles of the European knights, who trained from a young age to wear armor as well as fight almost exclusively with weapons.
Again, you need to find a wording with some meaning in the rules and it's not there.
I suggest that everyone hit the FAQ button on the original post. Then maybe we can get an official answer. For the record eveyone I play with agrees that you can use the style feets while wielding a weapon. There is nothing in the wording of the feats that explicitly states that you can not use them while armed, and lots of wording that implies you can use them while armed.
My point is that the player should be a hand to hand type of character for the styles to truly be effective.And again, this means absolutely nothing in a rules context. "Martial Arts" is a very broad phrase. 'Kenjitsu' is an entire set of 'martial arts' that focuses entirely on katana in a combat setting. Most styles of martial arts include weapons training, with the only distinction being how advanced you have to be before you begin. Technically, "martial arts" can even cover the fighting styles of the European knights, who trained from a young age to wear armor as well as fight almost exclusively with weapons.
Again, you need to find a wording with some meaning in the rules and it's not there.
In terms of gameplay, yes, it should be explicitly stated for them.
Though, I am left to be interpreted that such a case is true, since nearly all (if not actually all) style feats do require Improved Unarmed Strike, plus some ranks in other subjects. Those characters may not be willing to spend their ranks and feat(s) in those style feats, or they have to spend their ranks and feat(s) in more important areas (first).
I mean, to be honest with you, I completely agree that Style Feats should most definitely be able to be accompanied by weapons, that's what I argued for me being able to use the Crane Style feat (that I shouldn't be restricted to have to use my hand, that I should be able to use my weapon to perform the actions in regards to the style's mechanics); however, the RAW for feats, and their requirements, plus some of their descriptions, lead me to believe otherwise, and easily discourages their intent and viability towards characters using weapons, compared to characters who do not.
The general description also states that the Style Feats are specifically meant for hand to hand combatants; meaning unarmed combat is a requirement, as implied by the Improved Unarmed Strike feat requirement for all style feats.
I think you do not understand what hand to hand means. Hand to hand does not mean unarmed. Hand to hand means melee combat, or fighting up close.
involving physical contact or close enough range for physical contact
Being at close quarters
at close quarters
If people fight hand-to-hand, they are very near or touching each other while they are fighting rather than firing guns at each other from a long way away.
So in other words hand to hand = not ranged.
You can fight with a manufactured weapon like a sword in hand to hand combat, or you can fight with your fists in hand to hand combat or you can fight with natural weapons in hand to hand combat. They are all hand to hand combat. You can not fight with a bow in hand to hand combat. Well... unless you whack someone with it as an improvised weapon or something.
Can non hand to hand characters take some of these feats? Yeah. Is it worthwhile to bother with them? Not a chance in Hell.
Well, I guess I would agree with you but I think what you meant when you said that is something different from what your words actually mean because I believe you were confused as to what "hand to hand" meant. If you mean that ranged characters can take the feats but wouldn't benefit much, I agree. However, if you meant that someone like a duelist wouldn't find it worthwhile to bother with them then I wholeheartedly disagree. These feats are awesome for duelists.
Not sure what you mean; a Duelist or a Free Hand fighter would more likely be concerned with other feats, or hell, overlook Style feats. I know I would.
I would not take advice from Darksol if he stands behind this. A Duelist or Free Hand Fighter gets a lot of benefit out of the Crane Style feats.
But the thing about Style feats is that they are severely limited as to what classes can and should take them. I truly respect the Crane Style and its capabilities, and it was evident I respected them, since I really wanted them for the type of gameplay I was looking for (a 2h Mobile Fighter tank who is capable of Riposting attacks); I talked it over with the DM/GM, and he stuck with the RAW down to the T, which pretty much says that it's Hand to Hand or no go.
But here is the thing, Darksol: your DM was wrong. When you are not swinging your two handed weapon you can switch to just holding it in one hand as a free action. Then when someone attacks you will have a hand free. The feat does not make any implication that the attack is deflected by your hand and it doesn't say that you can not deflect it with your weapon. How you deflect it is really just fluff. The only downfall to doing this is that you can not make any AoOs with the two handed weapon when it is being held in one hand.
I suspect that your DM had the same preconceived notion about "hand to hand" meaning "unarmed strike". It does not.
Though, I am left to be interpreted that such a case is true, since nearly all (if not actually all) style feats do require Improved Unarmed Strike, plus some ranks in other subjects. Those characters may not be willing to spend their ranks and feat(s) in those style feats, or they have to spend their ranks and feat(s) in more important areas (first).
Darksol, I think you are not reading what is actually wrote. Both in this thread, what is in the rules and honestly just some dictionary definitions of words. Please take a look at what TheRonin first posted. He said he was thinking of taking a level of Unarmed Fighter. Then go take a look at the Unarmed Fighter's first level ability:
Unarmed Style
At 1st level, a unarmed fighter gains the Improved Unarmed Strike feat and any single style feat as a bonus feat. The unarmed fighter need not meet all the prerequisites of the style feat he chooses, but style feats that grant additional uses of the Elemental Fist feat cannot be taken until the unarmed fighter has that feat.
This ability replaces the bonus feat at 1st level.
Bolding mine. That part I just bolded?... yeah, it sorta invalidates everything you just said. They do not need to meet all the prerequisites of the style feet.
...however, the RAW for feats, and their requirements, plus some of their descriptions, lead me to believe otherwise, and easily discourages their intent and viability towards characters using weapons, compared to characters who do not.
This is simply not true. Please stop posting personal opinion as RAW. The RAW on these feats are quiet clear and do not need any inference to define them any further. If you believe that some of the wording of any of these feats says that you are required to not be using a manufactured weapon then point out what this wording is.
The general description also states that the Style Feats are specifically meant for hand to hand combatants; meaning unarmed combat is a requirement, as implied by the Improved Unarmed Strike feat requirement for all style feats.I think you do not understand what hand to hand means. Hand to hand does not mean unarmed. Hand to hand means melee combat, or fighting up close.
involving physical contact or close enough range for physical contactBeing at close quartersat close quartersIf people fight hand-to-hand, they are very near or touching each other while they are fighting rather than firing guns at each other from a long way away.So in other words hand to hand = not ranged.
You can fight with a manufactured weapon like a sword in hand to hand combat, or you can fight with your fists in hand to hand combat or you can fight with natural weapons in hand to hand combat. They are all hand to hand combat. You can not fight with a bow in hand to hand combat. Well... unless you whack someone with it as an improvised weapon or something.
Can non hand to hand characters take some of these feats? Yeah. Is it worthwhile to bother with them? Not a chance in Hell.Well, I guess I would agree with you but I think what you meant when you said that is something different from what your words actually mean because I believe you were confused as to what "hand to hand" meant. If you mean that ranged characters can take the feats but wouldn't benefit much, I agree. However, if you meant that someone like a duelist wouldn't find it worthwhile to bother with them then I wholeheartedly disagree. These feats are awesome for duelists.
Not sure what you mean; a Duelist or a Free Hand fighter would more likely be concerned with other feats,I would not take advice from Darksol if he stands behind this. A Duelist or Free Hand Fighter gets a lot of benefit out of the Crane Style feats.
But the thing about Style feats is that they are severely limited as to what classes can and should take them. I truly respect the Crane Style and its capabilities, and it was evident I respected them, since I really wanted them for the type of gameplay I was looking for (a 2h Mobile Fighter tank who is capable of Riposting attacks); I talked it over with the DM/GM, and he stuck with the RAW down to the T, which pretty much says that it's Hand to Hand or no go.But here is the thing, Darksol: your DM was wrong. When you are not swinging your two handed weapon you can switch to just holding it in one hand as a free action. Then when someone attacks you will have a hand free. The feat does not make any implication that the attack is deflected by your hand and it doesn't say that you can not deflect it with your weapon. How you deflect it is really just fluff. The only downfall to doing this is that you can not make any AoOs with the two handed weapon when it is being held in one hand.
I suspect that your DM had the same preconceived notion about "hand to hand" meaning "unarmed strike". It does not.
Hand to Hand in a literal term would mean fist fights. Hand to Hand in a general term would obviously mean melee combat, yes. But the statement is ambiguous, and is left with interpretation. The feats requiring Improved Unarmed Strike as a feat, plus some of them requiring you to use your hand(s) directly (or having pre-reqs/actions involving them), does lead me to believe that the term Hand to Hand is more literal than it is general for definition of interpretation.
Never said a Duelist or Free Hand don't want these Style Feats. I said they would probably be more occupied with other, more important feats (AKA Pre reqs, at the bare minimum) than the Style feats. Even novice/beginner players might look over/avoid them due to misleading definitions, bothersome pre-reqs, orthodox/newbie playstyles, etc.
I already said personally that I absolutely loved the Crane Style, and that I wanted the hell out of it. I wasn't even that concerned about the Pre Reqs that much, since the only thing I needed was Improved Unarmed Strike (which I argued was a little ridiculous, since I would be performing the actions with my weapon, and not my hands), and that I shouldn't have to use a hand if I am going to counter it with my weapon and not my hand. Sure, I have a buckler with my 2h, and yes, the DM/GM allowed me to use a Buckler with my Greatsword, but I don't understand why he's being so RAW down to the T with the Style feats, but not so much with how I want to gear/set up my character?
I even argued that it could've just been a Stance type of feat, but he insisted something more ridiculous. I'm still saying he's wrong in not allowing me to use the style, and I am hoping to maybe convince him at some point to let me take the Feat and its mechanics (assuming we revise it some, of course), instead of me having to come up with this weaker, more limiting version of the feat.
Though, I am left to be interpreted that such a case is true, since nearly all (if not actually all) style feats do require Improved Unarmed Strike, plus some ranks in other subjects. Those characters may not be willing to spend their ranks and feat(s) in those style feats, or they have to spend their ranks and feat(s) in more important areas (first).Darksol, I think you are not reading what is actually wrote. Both in this thread, what is in the rules and honestly just some dictionary definitions of words. Please take a look at what TheRonin first posted. He said he was thinking of taking a level of Unarmed Fighter. Then go take a look at the Unarmed Fighter's first level ability:
Unarmed Style
At 1st level, a unarmed fighter gains the Improved Unarmed Strike feat and any single style feat as a bonus feat. The unarmed fighter need not meet all the prerequisites of the style feat he chooses, but style feats that grant additional uses of the Elemental Fist feat cannot be taken until the unarmed fighter has that feat.
This ability replaces the bonus feat at 1st level.
Bolding mine. That part I just bolded?... yeah, it sorta invalidates everything you just said. They do not need to meet all the prerequisites of the style feet.
...however, the RAW for feats, and their requirements, plus some of their descriptions, lead me to believe otherwise, and easily discourages their intent and viability towards characters using weapons, compared to characters who do not.This is simply not true. Please stop posting personal opinion as RAW. The RAW on these feats are quiet clear and do not need any inference to define them any further. If you believe that some of the wording of any of these feats says that you are required to not be using a manufactured weapon then point out what this wording is.
If the guy wants to take a level of Unarmed Fighter, then that is up to him. I will admit I did not see that part come from him, the Unarmed Fighter only came to me from somebody other than the OP. So my mistake on that.
However, a character who doesn't take a level of Unarmed Fighter or Monk (or some other oddball archetype with a similar effect that I don't know about) will be screwed on that regard, meaning it's requirements or bust. I am in that category right now.
Is it RAW that I say it is preferred among unarmed type combatants? No. I never said that the preferences and playstyles of characters/players selecting feats were RAW.
RAW is what it is, and if it requires Improved Unarmed Strike to take the Style Feat (which every Style Feat does, as far as I know; if there isn't, then my apologies), then it requires that feat. It is my inference, and my implication alone that says the stuff I say, and we draw that sort of stuff from how the creators word feats and descriptions. I said that RAW is what it is, and the requirements are there for a reason, and that we correlate them in regards to that.
Because the RAW states within each Style Feat's own description (the primaries, not the secondary tiers and such) that the character must have Improved Unarmed Strike and to perform some of the feats that they must be in the style and have this or that kind of set up, we can infer that the feat was obviously designed with that sort of build. And yes, I get the whole "Need not meet all prereqs" ordeal, but I am stating the RAW as it stands for characters/classes who do not have that feature.
Hand to Hand in a literal term would mean fist fights.
That is NOT true. There is no definition in the Pathfinder rules or otherwise that means this. You are trying to make it mean something other than it does. Hand to hand does not mean that you have to use your fists. Look, I tried to do this the nice way and post definitions from 4 independent sources. But it seems you are being deliberately combative about something you are just plain dead wrong on. You are wrong, Darksol, and if you insist that hand to hand means something other than the definitions that I posted then you are going to need to bring something other than personal opinion to the table.
...but I don't understand why he's being so RAW down to the T with the Style feats...
But he isn't being RAW, Darksol. I pointed that out. It seems that your DM is under the same misinterpretation on Crane Style as you are. Hand to hand does NOT mean Unarmed Strikes. If he were being RAW down to the T then it is allowable with a weapon. Even a two handed weapon that is being held in one hand.
It is my inference, and my implication alone that says the stuff I say, and we draw that sort of stuff from how the creators word feats and descriptions.
You got that right. You are drawing inferences about RAW that do not need to be drawn. The feat spells out how it can be used and the feat says that you only need to have one hand free. Period. It doesn't say that you have to fight with Unarmed Strikes. And you are mistaken about the definition of what hand to hand means.
...we can infer that the feat was obviously designed with that sort of build.
Stop. You do not need to make any inferences about who the feat was "obviously designed" for. You know who the feat was obviously designed for? It was designed for someone who meets the prerequisites and, "have at least one hand free and are either fighting defensively or using the total defense action" and wants to "deflect one melee weapon attack that would normally hit".
And thats it. Thats it, Darksol. Anything else is you reading into things that are not there just like your DM is. It doesn't matter whether you have a weapon in your hand or not. Why? Because the feat says that. It says it right in the feat. Seriously, it does. Read the feat. It says you only need one hand free. Its like you purposefully want to be blind to what the RAW actually says.
...I understand why you are frustrated with your DM's ruling but it seems as if you are being hypocritical in that regard.
Hand to Hand in a literal term would mean fist fights.That is NOT true. There is no definition in the Pathfinder rules or otherwise that means this. You are trying to make it mean something other than it does. Hand to hand does not mean that you have to use your fists. Look, I tried to do this the nice way and post definitions from 4 independent sources. But it seems you are being deliberately combative about something you are just plain dead wrong on. You are wrong, Darksol, and if you insist that hand to hand means something other than the definitions that I posted then you are going to need to bring something other than personal opinion to the table.
...but I don't understand why he's being so RAW down to the T with the Style feats...But he isn't being RAW, Darksol. I pointed that out. It seems that your DM is under the same misinterpretation on Crane Style as you are. Hand to hand does NOT mean Unarmed Strikes. If he were being RAW down to the T then it is allowable with a weapon. Even a two handed weapon that is being held in one hand.
It is my inference, and my implication alone that says the stuff I say, and we draw that sort of stuff from how the creators word feats and descriptions.You got that right. You are drawing inferences about RAW that do not need to be drawn. The feat spells out how it can be used and the feat says that you only need to have one hand free. Period. It doesn't say that you have to fight with Unarmed Strikes. And you are mistaken about the definition of what hand to hand means.
...we can infer that the feat was obviously designed with that sort of build.Stop. You do not need to make any inferences about who the feat was "obviously designed" for. You know who the feat was obviously designed for? It was designed for someone who meets the prerequisites and, "have at least one hand free and are either fighting defensively or using the total...
I understand why Hand to Hand and Melee Combat can get confused. I use the two separate terms to differentiate, since I was under the impression that Melee Combat included the use of artificial weapons, whereas Hand to Hand was only limited to just what the literal wording is; fists/natural attacks only.
While the phrase "hand-to-hand" appears to refer to unarmed combat, the term is generic and may include use of striking weapons used at grappling distance such as knives, sticks, batons, or improvised weapons such as entrenching tools
I never disagreed with you saying that Hand to Hand applies to melee weapons as well; I said this:
...the statement is ambiguous, and is left with interpretation.
I'll re-read the basic description of Style Feats and such again, but if the terminology is the same as I recall, then the definition of "Hand to Hand" would have to be house ruled by the DM, since there is no explicit definition. I say it's lame that he has me require the use of my hands directly (sure, the RAW says that one hand must be free, though I don't understand why I must use my hand to deflect the attack when I can use my buckler or my sword instead, but I can't just because the RAW says so), but if that's the rules he enforces, then I'll have to deal with it and find another way.
I'll talk with him again about it, but if he is so stubborn, then I'll have to abandon the idea of the Style Feat altogether, and use the dumbed down Ready Action version, which defeats the purpose of me obtaining Vital Strike feats and such.
Can non hand to hand characters take some of these feats? Yeah. Is it worthwhile to bother with them? Not a chance in Hell.
I would highly disagree with this statement. Someone posted a Swordlord build that greatly benefited from feats and that used a sword. I also personally built a goblin mobile fighter that used the roll with it feat along with the first monkey style feat. Granted I only took monkey style and not monkey moves or shine, but thats all I needed. This allowed me to literally 'bounce' between people attacking me, ignoring all damage I took from melee. This also made me quite immune to ranged combat (try striking someone lying prone in melee with a bow :P ) Altho I still only got a standard action after being sent flying, getting hit from one goon to the next until I hit that wizard in the back was good times. Fun fact: with monkey style you can crawl out of aoo range then stand up as a swift action and keep moving as crawling does not provoke. Monkey style literally made this build possible while using a weapon and I quite liked killing someone from the ankles up ;]
Dragon style is also good for someone looking for a more mobile toon. being able to charge from the second rank and ignore difficult terrain means you almost always get the charge off. A cavalier would greatly appreciate this (especially one focused on teamwork feats) via corordinated charge. Just one level of dragon fist is all you would take in this case.
Just realized this looking through the style feats, but Kirin style and especially Kirin strike is actually incredibly potent for a bombing mindchemist. A mindchemist gains perfect recall, allowing him to add his intelligence to all knowledge checks twice, cognatogen, giving him a +4 bonus to his intelligence and targeted bomb admixture, giving his bombs int X2 (X3 with Kirin Strike). On top of that, he gains knowledge (arcana and nature) as class skills so the skill prerequisites are easily taken care of. These synergize so well, im actually quite liking this! A human with 16 int base and cognatogen up has an int of (16 +2 +4) 22 quite easily gaining a 6 int bonus on skills (doubled to 12!) thats huge, thats like walking around with a int score of 34... Agreed its only for certain things, but you get my idea. I dunno how good Kirin path is, probably just skip that (flanking I guess? who flanks with a ranged bomber? Plus side, you can move 30 feet with it and it does not provoke) Also thinking of getting one level of lore warren just to have all knowledge skills as class skills. Then just dump a whole level of skills into one each of each int skill.
Those are a few ideas that you can use with styles and still use a weapon, now if you willing to play unarmed, your options are alot greater even if your not a monk.
There, food for thought, and I'm really liking that mindchemist idea. Mix it with internal chemist or Beastmorph and volia! gotta be intresting.
...whereas Hand to Hand was only limited to just what the literal wording is; fists/natural attacks only.
There you go again. You are claiming that the literal interpretation of hand to hand is unarmed strikes or natural attacks. This is not true. You can say it all you want but it is not true. There is no definition anywhere that supports your claim.
I never disagreed with you saying that Hand to Hand applies to melee weapons as well; I said this:
...the statement is ambiguous, and is left with interpretation.
Actually you did. You said this:
The general description also states that the Style Feats are specifically meant for hand to hand combatants; meaning unarmed combat is a requirement...
And I responded to that just a couple of posts up. Remember? It is there for posterity. Go read it if you'd like.
I'll re-read the basic description of Style Feats and such again, but if the terminology is the same as I recall, then the definition of "Hand to Hand" would have to be house ruled by the DM, since there is no explicit definition.
WTF do you mean there isn't an explicit definition? Of course there is. I posted 4 of them from 4 different sources. The rule books do not need to define every word they have in the book. For most words that are in the book it is assumed that you are using the dictionary definition of the word.
Pick one. The dictionary definition of hand to hand is the same. I posted them above. I recommend reading them. You know what?... let me post them again just for simplicity:
involving physical contact or close enough range for physical contact
Being at close quarters
at close quarters
If people fight hand-to-hand, they are very near or touching each other while they are fighting rather than firing guns at each other from a long way away.
I say it's lame that he has me require the use of my hands directly (sure, the RAW says that one hand must be free, though I don't understand why I must use my hand to deflect the attack when I can use my buckler or my sword instead, but I can't just because the RAW says so)...
Darksol, as I have repeatedly pointed out, your DM is NOT following RAW. Nowhere in the feat does it say that you block the attack with your hand. It. Does. Not. Say. That. Your DM is making an assumption on the rules based on something that is not there. Very much like you are making an assumption that hand to hand for some reason means that you are fighting with unarmed strikes or natural weapons only. There is absolutely nothing in the rules or dictionary that supports this view point. I, personally, have no idea where you are even getting that from.
If you must know where I get it from, it's because it beckons to question the difference between Hand to Hand Combat and Melee Combat. Why make the discrepency if they are one and the same? They're not synonyms or anything. I guess I've been wrong on what Hand to Hand meant for close to 20 damn years now.
I guess it irks me because I always learned that Hand to Hand was just as it literally is worded (just context, no definition or anything); human limb(s) against human limb(s). The discrepency I made was Melee Combat, because the involvement of weaponry would indicate that it was more than just human limb(s) against human limb(s), that it was different from that. That is why I say Hand to Hand involved what it involved, and I didn't know any better because I was under the guise that subject matter separate from the natural body does not fall under the same categories.
But I am digressing on something that isn't important anymore. I'm talking with him tomorrow, and that's that. I'm heading to bed, and hopefully I will convince him this time.
Btw Darksol the Painbringer, there is something I think you should read, Its a feat that requires Improved unarmed strike as a preresiquite and cannot be used with unarmed strikes. it is Perfect Strike.
For those that dont want to follow the hyperlink, heres a breakdown;
Perfect Strike (Combat)
When wielding a monk weapon, your attacks can be extremely precise.Prerequisites: Dex 13, Wis 13, Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +8.
Benefit: You must declare that you are using this feat before you make your attack roll (thus a failed attack roll ruins the attempt). You must use one of the following weapons to make the attack: kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, and siangham. You can roll your attack roll twice and take the higher result. If one of these rolls is a critical threat, the other roll is used as your confirmation roll (your choice if they are both critical threats). You may attempt a perfect attack once per day for every four levels you have attained (but see Special), and no more than once per round.
Special: A weapon master monk or zen archer monk receives Perfect Strike as a bonus feat at 1st level, even if he does not meet the prerequisites. A monk may attempt an perfect strike attack a number of times per day equal to his monk level, plus one more time per day for every four levels he has in classes other than monk.
And to the bottom-right there is this FAQ blurb;
Can I use Perfect Strike with unarmed strikes?
As written, you can only use the feat with the specific weapons mentioned in the feat description.So why does the feat have Improved Unarmed Strike as a prerequisite, if you can't actually use it with unarmed strikes?
Because the feat is intended to be a cool thing that monks can do, and monks get Improved Unarmed Strike automatically (barring an archetype that replaces that feat), so having Improved Unarmed Strike as a prerequisite means it's easy for monks to learn Perfect Strike but more difficult for other classes. The prerequisite could have been "monk level X," but that would mean that only monks could take the feat (prohibiting even other martial arts classes or archetypes). Note that the zen archer archetype allows you to use the feat with a bow, which means there's a precedent for creating an unarmed-combat archetype that modifies the feat for use with other weapons.
And finally here is the source.
Also because this is relevant here is the unarmed attacks from the combat section.
Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:Attacks of Opportunity: Attacking unarmed provokes an attack of opportunity from the character you attack, provided she is armed. The attack of opportunity comes before your attack. An unarmed attack does not provoke attacks of opportunity from other foes, nor does it provoke an attack of opportunity from an unarmed foe.
An unarmed character can't take attacks of opportunity (but see "Armed" Unarmed Attacks, below).
"Armed" Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks).
Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity).
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 shed light (for purposes of two-weapon attack penalties and so on).
Dealing Lethal Damage: You can specify that your unarmed strike will deal lethal damage before you make your attack roll, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll. If you have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, you can deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike without taking a penalty on the attack roll.
If you must know where I get it from, it's because it beckons to question the difference between Hand to Hand Combat and Melee Combat. Why make the discrepency if they are one and the same? They're not synonyms or anything. I guess I've been wrong on what Hand to Hand meant for close to 20 damn years now.
They ARE one and the same. They ARE synonyms. You have been wrong for the last 20 years. That is what I have been saying for the past 6 posts.
But hey, its not all bad news for you: your DM has been wrong about it for the last 20 years too.
I could complain about your use of the word "literally" because it is a pet peeve of mine that people use that word for the wrong meaning all the fricken time ("I am like going to like LITERALLY kill her later, omigawd!"), but since you have backed off from you point and realize that you misinterpreted the meaning of hand to hand, I too will digress.
PS: You may want to bring a dictionary with you to speak with your DM. Hopefully he will benefit from it in the same way you did. ...eventually. If not at least you can strike him soundly over the head with it. For me. You know... cause maybe it will speed the process of osmosis along if you use force.
I suggest that everyone hit the FAQ button on the original post. Then maybe we can get an official answer. For the record eveyone I play with agrees that you can use the style feets while wielding a weapon. There is nothing in the wording of the feats that explicitly states that you can not use them while armed, and lots of wording that implies you can use them while armed.My point is that the player should be a hand to hand type of character for the styles to truly be effective.And again, this means absolutely nothing in a rules context. "Martial Arts" is a very broad phrase. 'Kenjitsu' is an entire set of 'martial arts' that focuses entirely on katana in a combat setting. Most styles of martial arts include weapons training, with the only distinction being how advanced you have to be before you begin. Technically, "martial arts" can even cover the fighting styles of the European knights, who trained from a young age to wear armor as well as fight almost exclusively with weapons.
Again, you need to find a wording with some meaning in the rules and it's not there.
Still reading and catching up on the thread, but Yes everyone please do this. Especially since I can see this has been asked before, and has come up before and a simple sentence or two would clear it up forever.
As for being worth it? (answering a previous poster) I am not concerned that there may be better feats. My Character was raised on the rapier, She is an arcane duelist and fights with one hand. She is also in a society that values the martial arts (one of the nations in the Ghostwalk Campaign setting from 3.5) and is traveling with a Monk. Also her Uncle who trained her in hand to hand as she was never as good in magic as sorceresses (Another campaign setting quick, high born lasses become sorceresses, lads become martial artists, bards are looked down upon as not having 'real' magic) was himself a 'monk' a martial artist.
In the course of her travels she would be learning more about martial arts and adapting them to her flashy swashbuckling fighting style, this would be represented by her taking a level in unarmed fighter, giving her improved unarmed strike (should she ever need to fight with her hands) and a style feat. Crane Style. (All of which she meets the requirements for anyways) Further down the road she'd probably pick up crane wing and the final style feat along with a number of other unrelated feats that improve other aspects of the character.
So thus my question.
And what i'd really be curious to find out is if this is legal in Pathfinder Society Play. (Could not find an answer!)
TheRonin, just ignore everything Darksol typed and you should be fine. This isn't a shot at him he is just clouding the issue with incorrect statements, I assume it is due to his extensive 3.5 knowledge not transferring over to pathfinder quite yet.
Simply, if you have a rapier, and your other hand is open in a defensive posture, you can use it to push away an attack and stab with the rapier in response. Via the three crane feats.
And what i'd really be curious to find out is if this is legal in Pathfinder Society Play. (Could not find an answer!)
By RAW there is nothing wrong with it being in PFS.
|
|
Just to chime back in, yes, you can use the Crane Style feats while wielding a weapon, and yes, it is legal to do so for PFS play. There is a free pdf you can download for organized play if you need to verify that. PFS lists the exceptions they make for organized play. You couldn't find anything on whether using Crane Style with a weapon was legal in PFS because they've had no reason to make it illegal. Much earlier in this thread I posted the entire chain of Crane Style feats showing that they can clearly, unambiguously, be used while wielding a melee weapon in one hand. Just like Perfect Strike, they have the Improved Unarmed Strike prereq because they're cool things that monks were meant to get easily, but other classes needed to invest a little to get.
If you couldn't use these while wielding a weapon, it wouldn't stipulate you need one free hand it would say they can only be used when fighting unarmed. One free hand means the feat doesn't care what you're doing with that other hand, whether it be wielding a weapon, readying a potion, or, as I mentioned previously, drinking a beer.
I'll click FAQ for the OP as well, but I wouldn't expect too much, since this feat really doesn't need clarification. It is very clearly written, and it is only a few people's inferences of how they think this feat should work that are clouding the issue.
Well Thank you all. I do appreciate the answers. I will take all of this back to my GM.