What rules in particular?I don't know if all authors of a book read exactly every word in the book in it's final version, but regardless of that, again, it just means that NPC is wrong compared to the rules.As I noted, Jason Bulmahn, and Sean K Reynolds, are credited as Authors of the book in which this NPC is statted.
This means they saw the NPC, and his noted tactics, and approved.
If it is TWFing with a THW and armor spikes then it breaks the TWF rules as clarified in the FAQ.
|
If it is TWFing with a THW and armor spikes then it breaks the TWF rules as clarified in the FAQ.What rules in particular?I don't know if all authors of a book read exactly every word in the book in it's final version, but regardless of that, again, it just means that NPC is wrong compared to the rules.As I noted, Jason Bulmahn, and Sean K Reynolds, are credited as Authors of the book in which this NPC is statted.
This means they saw the NPC, and his noted tactics, and approved.
Threatening with a Polearm and Armor Spikes, and the ability to make AoO with either, is not two weapon fighting.
Two weapon fighting is a specific full attack action.
Ah. Thought you meant the NPC TWF'd with them. Well then, ignore my posts ><
|
*hypothetical stuff about primary and secondary weapon attacks*These unwritten rules of declaration, and wielding limits are simply an extrapolation of desires, random unrelated quotes, and an imaginative "reading between the lines".
Well, I declare, my independence from these unwritten rules, that change, and contradict written rules, along with themselves.
I'm not saying that's the way it works. I'm saying that if that's how the devs meant it to work, that's how they should have phrased it.
This all looks to me a bit like the devs suddenly changing their minds about allowing a combat style that they should have seen coming, what with armour spikes having existed in 3E for years. Especially if there's an NPC who fights with both.
Additional question raised:
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.
Does this mean that a monk using UAS, and only a monk using UAS, would be exempt from any rulings indicating that hands-free weapons occupy a "hand"/the "off hand"? (I must admit that until I joined the messageboards I assumed that the text about monks striking with parts other than their fists implied that all other unarmed fighters were restricted to the fists only, and that using UAS with your hands full was intended to be a special monk power.)
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.Does this mean that a monk using UAS, and only a monk using UAS, would be exempt from any rulings indicating that hands-free weapons occupy a "hand"/the "off hand"? (I must admit that until I joined the messageboards I assumed that the text about monks striking with parts other than their fists implied that all other unarmed fighters were restricted to the fists only, and that using UAS with your hands full was intended to be a special monk power.)
I think so. I would say the words "this means" also implies that if you get an attack from somewhere else on your body, you can make it with hands full. Apparently this is not true.