Can a character wield two weapons without incurring the normal penalties for TWFing?
For example: Dwarven Ranger has Chain Flail master, allowing her to wield a Chain Flail one-handed. Can she (without penalty) wield a heavy spiked steel shield in the main hand, use a shield as her primary attack (not TWFing) and still make AoOs (and threaten 10') with the Chain Flail?
Side question that I just thought of: When you trip someone using an AoO, where do they end up prone? In the square they left or in their destination square?
So long as you do not take the extra attack, you do not take the TWF penalties.
Chain Flail Master uses a Dwarven Chain Flail as a one-handed weapon.
Side question. It sounds like your target provoked for leaving a threatened square. It is in that square (the one they are leaving) that the AoO takes place and in that square that they will fall prone if you indeed trip them.
So long as you do not take the extra attack, you do not take the TWF penalties.
Side question. It sounds like your target provoked for leaving a threatened square. It is in that square (the one they are leaving) that the AoO takes place and in that square that they will fall prone if you indeed trip them.
Thanks for the speedy response. I figured as much, but just wanted some clarification.
As for the side question. In my brain that creates a paradox, even if correct rules-wise. Bad guy leaves threatened square and provokes. AoO is a trip attempt and is successful. If that bad guy ends up prone in the current square instead of the destination square then he never left that square, thus never provoking an AoO in the first place. Just seems weird.
It's not successfully leaving that provokes, it's attempting to leave. Think of it that way.
As for the side question. In my brain that creates a paradox, even if correct rules-wise. Bad guy leaves threatened square and provokes. AoO is a trip attempt and is successful. If that bad guy ends up prone in the current square instead of the destination square then he never left that square, thus never provoking an AoO in the first place. Just seems weird.
Well each square represents 5 by 5 foot space right? So imagine if Bad Guy tried to turn and move away from you. As soon as you saw an opening you took the chance to trip Bad Guy before he could move more than a foot or so away. So Bad Guy never left the square because he was on the ground before he could actually leave the space.
Yeah, the moment the bad guy glances off to the side to see if the way is clear and where to step, you smack them in the face (or ankle in this case).
So long as you do not take the extra attack, you do not take the TWF penalties.
Side question. It sounds like your target provoked for leaving a threatened square. It is in that square (the one they are leaving) that the AoO takes place and in that square that they will fall prone if you indeed trip them.
Thanks for the speedy response. I figured as much, but just wanted some clarification.
As for the side question. In my brain that creates a paradox, even if correct rules-wise. Bad guy leaves threatened square and provokes. AoO is a trip attempt and is successful. If that bad guy ends up prone in the current square instead of the destination square then he never left that square, thus never provoking an AoO in the first place. Just seems weird.
It is weird.
It helps me to think of it as "attempting the action" that provokes, not "completing the action". So attempting to move out of a threatened square provokes the AoO. The AoO is resolved before the provoking action, so when you trip him for your AoO, you drop him in the square before he actually gets a chance to leave it.
In the same vein, can someone wield a two handed reach weapon and still threaten within 5' using spiked armor?
Thanks again
In the same vein, can someone wield a two handed reach weapon and still threaten within 5' using spiked armor?
Thanks again
Yes, though there's a bit of interwebs rage involved in that discussion so YMMV.
You can make iteratives with both a 2H weapon and armor spikes. You just cannot TWF with a 2H weapon and armor spikes.
There shouldn't be anything to prevent you from threatening with both.
|
Multiple Weapons, Extra Attacks, and Two-Weapon Fighting: If I have extra attacks from a high BAB, can I make attacks with different weapons and not incur a two-weapon fighting penalty?
Yes. Basically, you only incur TWF penalties if you are trying to get an extra attack per round.
Let's assume you're a 6th-level fighter (BAB +6/+1) holding a longsword in one hand and a light mace in the other. Your possible full attack combinations without using two-weapon fighting are:
(A) longsword at +6, longsword +1
(B) mace +6, mace +1
(C) longsword +6, mace +1
(D) mace +6, longsword +1
All of these combinations result in you making exactly two attacks, one at +6 and one at +1. You're not getting any extra attacks, therefore you're not using the two-weapon fighting rule, and therefore you're not taking any two-weapon fighting penalties.
If you have Quick Draw, you could even start the round wielding only one weapon, make your main attack with it, draw the second weapon as a free action after your first attack, and use that second weapon to make your iterative attack (an "iterative attack" is an informal term meaning "extra attacks you get from having a high BAB"). As long as you're properly using the BAB values for your iterative attacks, and as long as you're not exceeding the number of attacks per round granted by your BAB, you are not considered to be using two-weapon fighting, and therefore do not take any of the penalties for two-weapon fighting.
The two-weapon fighting option in the Core Rulebook specifically refers to getting an extra attack for using a second weapon in your offhand. In the above four examples, there is no extra attack, therefore you're not using two-weapon fighting.
Using the longsword/mace example, if you use two-weapon fighting you actually have fewer options than if you aren't. Your options are (ignoring the primary/off hand penalties):
(A') primary longsword at +6, primary longsword at +1, off hand mace at +6
(B') primary mace at +6, primary mace at +1, off hand longsword at +6
In other words, once you decide you're using two-weapon fighting to get that extra attack on your turn (which you have to decide before you take any attacks on your turn), that decision locks you in to the format of "my primary weapon gets my main attack and my iterative attack, and my off hand weapon only gets the extra attack, and I apply two-weapon fighting penalties."
FAQ addressed. This also means you don't get weapon bonuses for all weapons you "wield" as another thread is trying to weasel its way through to accepting. You can "wield" as many weapons as you have hands, but you don't WIELD them (in the game sense) until you attack with them. Then they get THEIR OWN bonuses... not a amalgam of all the bonuses from every weapon you wield (likewise wielding a +5 longsword doesn't grant your mace in the FAQ a +5 bonus to attack).
Regarding the one item for 5' and the one item for reach - YES, you can threaten both areas if your BAB is high enough AND you can make an attack with each weapon. Simply holding a weapon (or wearing it) in a hand grants no threaten bonus. If you only have one attack you have to chose which you are using. If you have more than one, you can theoretically attack with each, and thus threaten each.
Wielding a Nine-Section whip grants an additional +1 to AC while fighting defensively, prevents being tripped, and provides a +2 bluff to feint. You need not use the Nine-Section whip in melee to gain its benefits.
Wielding a Tekko-Kagi - treat it like a buckler when not attacking with it, +2 to sunder and disarm slender blades and swords, disarming does not provoke attack of opportunity.
snip...
So now we have contradicting opinions from different users. Where do you get your ruling from? I saw that FAQ and found it didn't exactly address what I was asking, and I don't see anything defining "wielding" in the game. All I care about is using a shield to attack with and a reach weapon to threaten. Where does it state I need to make an attack with a weapon to be wielding it? Not being combative just trying to make sense of contradicting information now.
Edit: just realized you were talking about the armor bash and two handed thing, not shield and one handed weapon. Makes a little more sense now.
|
|
Stoolpigeon, I edited my post a bit. Nowhere does it say you have to make an attack with a weapon to threaten with it. You have to BE ABLE TO ATTACK with it to threaten. Which means, as a GM, I would ask you which weapon you were going to attack with. If you have a BAB +5 or less, you get 1 option. If you have a BAB +6 or more, you could say "Mr. GM, I am going to attack the close guy and anyone who moves out of close range with my right hand weapon, and the far guy and anyone who moves out of far range with my left hand weapon." As such, a GM would and should allow you to threaten both ranges if your BAB was +6 or more (allowing two attacks). Further, if you had a tail you could use to attack, and a BAB of 11 or more, you could throw in a whip to threaten the 15' range (provided you had the feats/abilities to do so).
ps. "wielding" is sort of defined as "more than holding" by Brass Knuckles which state: "You may hold, but not wield, a weapon or other object in a hand wearing brass knuckles."
Though someone is both wielding a shield and wielding a one handed weapon at the same time, correct? Disregarding the ac bonus, one is still wielding the chain flail in one hand and wielding the shield in the other hand. Unless I am misinterpreting what you're saying.
Also I found a post from skr saying that wielding isloosely defined but being ABLE to attack with it is good enough .
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding the one item for 5' and the one item for reach - YES, you can threaten both areas if your BAB is high enough AND you can make an attack with each weapon.
Thankfully this is not indicated in the text.
You do not need to make an attack in order to threaten. That is absolutely nonsense. By that logic, if you do not make an attack on your turn you do not threaten which is pointedly untrue. The only text regarding threatening is if you are able to make attacks of opportunity. No text precludes you from using whatever weapon you like for that attack of opportunity whether it's your Sword, Shield, Armor Spikes, Gauntlet, Unarmed Strike or Bootblade. All of which do not preclude each other.
And I really hate when people bring up that FAQ and then try to use it to justify their statements when it has nothing to do with it. By maouse's logic, Dueling weapons simply don't work.
Glad I'm not the only one confused by that logic.
|
|
You do not need to make an attack in order to threaten. That is absolutely nonsense. By that logic, if you do not make an attack on your turn you do not threaten which is pointedly untrue. The only text regarding threatening is if you are able to make attacks of opportunity. No text precludes you from using whatever weapon you like for that attack of opportunity whether it's your Sword, Shield, Armor Spikes, Gauntlet, Unarmed Strike or Bootblade. All of which do not preclude each other.
And I really hate when people bring up that FAQ and then try to use it to justify their statements when it has nothing to do with it. By maouse's logic, Dueling weapons simply don't work.
I didn't say you needed to make an attack. I said per RAW, you need to BE ABLE TO MAKE AN ATTACK. There is a HUGE difference there. HUGE. (one only applies after you attack, the other, quite rightly to all the RAW, applies before you attack and counts between turns, etc...) If a GM asks you which weapon you are using, and your BAB is <6, you have to pick one.
One could argue that you simply go around with one weapon of each range threat kind and CAN make an attack with any of them (at a penalty, but still able to, right?). Which is what you are arguing, basically. As a Gm and a player, I would simply say no. Unless your BAB is high enough to actually attack 3 times, you can't threaten with three weapons.
Read another way; your BAB +1 fighter is asked what he is wielding in a fight. He says "a sword". OK. Attack, AoO, etc... with it. The way you would answer is "a sword, a whip, and a spiked shield, as well as his pistol, his long spear and any other weapon he is carrying because I took quick draw at level 1." Um. No. Simply no.
Read another way; your BAB +1 fighter is asked what he is wielding in a fight. He says "a sword". OK. Attack, AoO, etc... with it. The way you would answer is "a sword, a whip, and a spiked shield, as well as his pistol, his long spear and any other weapon he is carrying because I took quick draw at level 1." Um. No. Simply no.
No he doesn't since he can't take free actions on other people's turns.
He'd only threaten with a Sword and Whip, Sword and Shield, or Whip and Shield.
Atleast get your examples right.
|
|
Read another way; your BAB +1 fighter is asked what he is wielding in a fight. He says "a sword". OK. Attack, AoO, etc... with it. The way you would answer is "a sword, a whip, and a spiked shield, as well as his pistol, his long spear and any other weapon he is carrying because I took quick draw at level 1." Um. No. Simply no.No he doesn't since he can't take free actions on other people's turns.
He'd only threaten with a Sword and Whip, Sword and Shield, or Whip and Shield.
Atleast get your examples right.
Yes, but according to your theory, he CAN attack in any given round with any weapon he is carrying, therefore he CAN threaten with any of them... as I said, no. simply no. Remember, he doesn't HAVE TO ATTACK (you said it was absolute nonsense) with a weapon according to this theory, only be able to. Again. No.
Nowhere does it say that threatening is based on "inbetween rounds" when you can't take free actions. It is RAW that it is based on what you can do in one of your turns (whether you do it or not). (I'd also note that nowhere in RAW does it say you can't take free actions, such as talking, on other people's turns)
Read another way; your BAB +1 fighter is asked what he is wielding in a fight. He says "a sword". OK. Attack, AoO, etc... with it. The way you would answer is "a sword, a whip, and a spiked shield, as well as his pistol, his long spear and any other weapon he is carrying because I took quick draw at level 1." Um. No. Simply no.No he doesn't since he can't take free actions on other people's turns.
He'd only threaten with a Sword and Whip, Sword and Shield, or Whip and Shield.
Atleast get your examples right.
Yes, but according to your theory, he CAN attack in any given round with any weapon he is carrying, therefore he CAN threaten with any of them... as I said, no. simply no. Remember, he doesn't HAVE TO ATTACK (you said it was absolute nonsense) with a weapon according to this theory, only be able to. Again. No.
Nowhere does it say that threatening is based on "inbetween rounds" when you can't take free actions. It is RAW that it is based on what you can do in one of your turns (whether you do it or not).
Citation?
Personally it makes far more sense to adjudicate it by, "What could I feasibly attack with only one standard action?"
|
|
BAB doesn't enter considerations regarding threatening. If you have a weapon that can attack a target square, you threaten that square with said weapon. You don't need BAB+6 or higher to threaten with two different weapons because you don't, in any manner, need to be able to make iterative attacks to threaten with multiple weapons. By "can make an attack" it means you have the weapon available and aren't afflicted with any kind of adverse status that prevents you from attacking (ie. paralyzed). It, in no way refers to having made an attack on your turn or having the capacity to attack with both weapons on your turn by having BAB+6 or higher.
In short, a character, even with +0 BAB, wielding a Longspear and Armor Spikes threatens 5' with the spikes and 10' with the spear. Period. Full_stop. End of story.
And if he has quickdraw and a whip he could claim that in any given round he can threaten 15' feet as well. Since in any given round he COULD threaten 15'. I mean, honestly, its rules mongering at this point, but RAW it is what is allowed. And I guess, as GM, I simply don't run it this way because it seems kind of silly. You can use one item a round, unless someone moves through a threatened square, then you can hit them with any array of weapons. Meh, I might relent if their entire character were based on this... but as a general rule, no I don't want all my wizards, rogues, fighters, witches, et al every class in the game doing this just to get the benefit of threatening. That I guess, is what I see as being silly.
|
|
Citation?
Personally it makes far more sense to adjudicate it by, "What could I feasibly attack with only one standard action?"
"You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn."
Pure and simple... quick draw would qualify as allowing you to make a melee attack... and as such, it would allow you to threaten with undrawn weapons. In fact, any weapons anyone carries would qualify as threatening because, in theory you could always drop and draw as a move action... One might also argue that free actions (quick draw) can be used on other people's turns, since free action "speaking" is allowed.
(again, this is all according to your theory that you can hold any number of weapons and threaten with them all, RAW, which is true enough, but as a GM I don't ascribe to as logical or convincing in its realism in combat)
Citation?
Personally it makes far more sense to adjudicate it by, "What could I feasibly attack with only one standard action?"
"You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn."
Pure and simple... quick draw would qualify as allowing you to make a melee attack... and as such, it would allow you to threaten with undrawn weapons. In fact, any weapons anyone carries would qualify as threatening because, in theory you could always drop and draw as a move action... One might also argue that free actions (quick draw) can be used on other people's turns, since free action "speaking" is allowed.
(again, this is all according to your theory that you can hold any number of weapons and threaten with them all, RAW, which is true enough, but as a GM I don't ascribe to as logical or convincing in its realism in combat)
No Quick Draw wouldn't. By that statement alone it does not allow you to draw a weapon even as a free action when it isn't your turn. The game does not allow you to do it by the action economy required. The free action speaking is allowed as an exception.
My "theory" is weapons that are wielded by wearing them. A sheathed sword is not wielded. A Bootblade is. Armor Spikes are. Unarmed Strikes are always ready.
I don't see how swinging your sword and being unable to kick someone as your attack of opportunity is anything but illogical.
What about swinging your sword prevents you from kicking someone?
|
@maouse: Threatening has NOTHING to do with your BAB, but everything to do with your ability to make an attack with a weapon, usually held, and whether that weapon "threatens".
If you have a good Dex, and Combat Reflexes, you can make multiple AoOs, no matter what your BAB is.
If your weapon does not include text that says it doesn't threaten (standard whips, for example, include such text), you threaten an area within that weapon's reach.
So, if you still have at least one AoO option left, and are holding a weapon in a usable fashion, you threaten and can take an AoO.
So, it is possible for a 1st level PC, even with a BAB of 0, to be able to take multiple AoOs.
Rogue, Dex 20 (18 +2 racial), COmbat Reflexes feat, gets to take up to 6 AoOs at first level.
He can even be hold two weapons, one in each hand, that can allow him to take AoOs at both 5' and 10' range.
(Using a Small polearm, as a Medium PC, you can use it one-handed, but it remnains a reach weapon, albeit at a -2 to attack rolls)
Also note that, as level goes up, along with certain feat chains, PCs can gain an option to threaten with some fairly odd weapons, likes whips (Whip Mastery feat chain) and longbows (Snap Shot feat chain).
Not off topic, since my original question involved a one handed reach weapon and a one handed shield being wielded.
Another question. When bull rushing what limitations are there on what direction you bull rush? The text says "straight back," which is open to interpretation. Does anything change if you are usingthe shield slam feat instead?
Thanks
I somewhat loosely define wielding as "able to make an attack without needing any other action to ready the weapon". It gets a little hazy with projectile weapons, but since (for example) drawing an arrow from a quiver is a free action that is part of the action used to attack with it, I'm pretty comfortable.
That eliminates the Quickdraw problem, and happily allows multi-distance threatening (which I have no problem with since it's almost always sub-optimal).
1) is slightly wrong. You can wield both in a full attack action without penalty as long as you don't make more attacks than your iteratives.
What about Bull Rushing from standing still, ie Shield Slam?
Also regarding Shield Slam. I wanna make sure I understand it correctly. When I hit with my shield I am forced to also make the free Bull Rush attempt, correct? But I can choose to limit it to just 5' and don't have to push it further if I exceed it's CMD by 5 or more.
edit:
And regarding being sub-optimal. I mostly just want something to do with my other hand since, whether RAW-legal or not not, I find dual-wielding or 2-handing a shield to be in poor taste.
I don't think you can threat with a two handed weapon and armor spike due to the whole 2 invisible hand thing at the same time. and having to constantly change grip only on your turn. same issuse with quick draw. But since the OP has ability to use a two handed weapon reach weapon as a one hand one, he can threaten with both, the reach and 5ft adjacent to himself also as other pointed out you can’t quick draw for an AOO and whips require special feats to threaten.
That FAQ was only relevant to TWF with a THW and a "non-handed" weapon.
So why don't all monks use a spear for AoOs? It's practically free.
FAQ TWF only applies while TWF. You can attack with armor spikes when your hands are full so you still threaten with armor spikes.
A spear wielding monk sounds like an appealing option to me. At least one possible disadvantage is if you have both hands on your spear, you may NOT deflect arrows. So it does introduce a vulnerability to ranged attacks.
Not to mention very thematic.
|
Sadly, a Monk is not proficient with a longspear, or with any other reach weapon. Monks ought to be proficient with all Simple weapons, but are not. The Qiang (longspear) is one of the traditional 'big four' ancient chinese battlefield weapons, and was a staple of Shaolin monks.
Well you don't have to be proficient in the weapon to make AoOs. (But as a houserule, my group has always given monks proficiency with spears and made spears monk weapons so they can flurry with them.)