As long as it does not require two hands to use you can still do pretty much anything. You take a -2 to all attack rolls or combat maneuver checks (unless it is to break or escape the grapple).
You could, for example, attack with a shield bash, or attack with a longsword, or you could TWF and attack with both.
A Grapple in Pathfinder isn't like it used to be in older versions of D&D. It's really more of the grappler having a hold of you...not necessarily having your armed twisted behind you.
...or you could TWF and attack with both.
This is questionable, since the full round action of TWF does require two hands. It depends on whether "no action that requires two hands to perform" refers to the individual attacks made, or the action as a whole.
I agree it's questionable, but it doesn't require a second hand to shield bash...you could have a buckler strapped on and it is technically on your arm. :)
But I know what you mean.
You can TWF just fine, so long as you don't need to use both hands.
Short sword + armour spikes, for example.
But you can't 2H TWF with Armor Spikes...
Sorry couldn't resist :)
I guess my bigger question was the ability to make a full attack using Two Weapon Fighting, so it would be good to have clarification on that. I know that if the TWF in our party gets grappled, he's going to argue that he should be able to full attack with his two weapons.
This will fall entirely upon the GM to decide which way he wants to interpret that line about "no actions that require two hands". I'm not aware of any official statements to clarify it.
As Quantam Steve noted a weapon that requires a single hand and a weapon that requires no hands should be fine. The only part of the questionable TWF is two weapons that are each wielded in a hand.
I guess a GM could interpret a way of fighting with two short swords that doesn't require two hands, but I can't fathom one.
I guess a GM could interpret a way of fighting with two short swords that doesn't require two hands, but I can't fathom one.
I can't either, but I've seen it argued in these boards recently - the basis being that each individual attack only requires one hand. Examples were given that grapple doesn't specifically say an arm is tied up, so a person could wield a one handed sword and still get shield benefits, so why can't they attack one with arm, then attack with the other? Shrug.
So, now there is at least one thing the Alchemist has left to be able to do with four arms.
Grapple, and hit with a two handed weapon.
That would make an intriguing houserule. I'll have to consider it.
|
That would make an intriguing houserule. I'll have to consider it.So, now there is at least one thing the Alchemist has left to be able to do with four arms.
Grapple, and hit with a two handed weapon.
Well, if you are not going to let them use their two free hands, then you should give them a bonus to grapple.
Seems fair.
I think the general point of the "no 2 hand" rule is that such weapons tend to be very large and unwieldy. I mean, there is a reason why short and long swords were more popular despite the fact that spears where generally better weapons. They could be used indoor or in close quarters fairly easily.
Imagine A spearman being grappled. Can you picture him easily getting the pointy end between them without being far enough away to not be 'grappled'?
Of course, this can all be made moot with a feat. Hamatula strike is a feat used solely with piercing weapons that 1.) lets you roll a grappled check on a successful strike to see if you impaled your opponent (after which it works fairly much like a normal grapple) and 2.) adds rules for damaging with a weapon at a penalty (which would normally only be needed for 2handed weapons.)