2=Handed Weapon, TWF + Unarmed Strikes

[Stynkk]

Hey everyone, just catching up on the latest FAQ rulings and I noticed that there was a very firm FAQ ruling about 2-Handed Weapons and armor spikes recently, so I got to thinking...

Pathinder Core Rules FAQ wrote:

Armor Spikes: Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?

No.
Likewise, you couldn't use an armored gauntlet to do so, as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks.

Does this concept of handed-ness also apply to Unarmed Strikes (kicks or headbutts)? That is to say, can you TWF with a 2-hander and an unarmed strike?

It seems like you would not be, but I thought I'd bring it up for discussion.

[Cheapy]

Oh boy. I recommend searching for this topic, rather than reigniting it...

[Skylancer4]

Agreed, numerous and comprehensive posts about it, the search function is there for a reason.

[blahpers]

At one point no, then later yes, then yet later no again. Something something metaphorical hands something words.

I think that about sums it up.

[Xaratherus]

Rather than avoid the topic (I know it's inflammatory; that doesn't mean someone can't summarize it):

The designers stated that one of their basic concepts was that 1st level characters were not intended to get more than 1.5 times their STR (without taking into account anything like feats or class features).

This means that they can either make a single attack wielding a weapon two-handed (and thereby gaining 1.5 times their STR in bonus damage) or they can make a primary-hand weapon attack with 1 times STR, and an off-hand attack with .5 times STR.

Making a two-handed weapon attack and then combining it with two-weapon fighting to make an off-hand attack gives you an effective 2 times STR in bonus damage (1.5 from the two-handed weapon attack and .5 from the off-hand attack) - and was not intended to be allowed, whether it's with armor spikes or an unarmed strike.

Note that the FAQ was only meant to apply to two-weapon fighting and two-handed weapons, not to iterative attacks from BAB.

[Kazaan]

Ergo, the general rule is that an attack with an off-hand weapon will subsume your next potential off-hand attack if you have one, though you can still make two-handed attacks even if you don't have further off-hand attacks to subsume. The benefit of non-handed weapons like Unarmed Strike, Armor Spikes, Boot Blade, etc. is that you can use an item in your other hand (ie. shield) and still be able to TWF with a weapon in one hand plus a non-handed weapon. It doesn't get around the principal that your two-handed weapon attack "eats" an off-hand attack.

And, before anyone suggests it, they've already addressed making your off-hand attacks first to try to exploit the fact that you can still make 2-h attacks even without potential off-hand attacks to eat. If you make an off-hand attack first, you accrue a sort of "TWF debt" where you're obligated to make a one-handed main-hand attacks to balance out the off-hand attacks you made before you can switch to two-handed attacks. So, for example, if you have 2 offhand attacks and 4 main-hand attacks using a Longsword and Unarmed Strikes, you can make your two off-hand Unarmed Strikes, but must follow them with two one-handed Longsword attacks before you can wield the Longsword two-handed for your third and fourth iterative attacks. Likewise, your two-handed attacks eat potential off-hands one at a time so you could make a 2-h attack first which eats your first off-hand, but you still have your BAB-5 off-hand attack available to make.

[blackbloodtroll]

Basically, written rules allow, and unwritten rules disallow, sometimes.

It's the unwritten rules that will get you.

[Durngrun Stonebreaker]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Basically, written rules allow, and unwritten rules disallow, sometimes.

It's the unwritten rules that will get you.

Or

The current staff's interpretation differs from the interpretation used by a different staff.

[blackbloodtroll]

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Basically, written rules allow, and unwritten rules disallow, sometimes.

It's the unwritten rules that will get you.

Or

The current staff's interpretation differs from the interpretation used by a different staff.

No, they explicitly noted unwritten rules when they gave reasoning for Armor Spikes.

[Durngrun Stonebreaker]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Basically, written rules allow, and unwritten rules disallow, sometimes.

It's the unwritten rules that will get you.

Or

The current staff's interpretation differs from the interpretation used by a different staff.

No, they explicitly noted unwritten rules when they gave reasoning for Armor Spikes.

No they explicitly noted there were unwritten rules when it came to game design and they used them as guidelines to write the rules.

[blackbloodtroll]

Unwritten rules are not RAW.

RAW = Rules as Written.

[Durngrun Stonebreaker]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Unwritten rules are not RAW.

RAW = Rules as Written.

Rules you refuse to read =/= unwritten rules.