Is there anything preventing a character from changing their grip from two hands to one during a full-attack, thus freeing up a limb to use a claw or punch someone or whatever? I can't think of any reason it wouldn't work...
There is an FAQ that might be helpful to some that goes into a wizard two handing a quarter staff I think, and casting spells. It talks about free action to let go of the weapon to have a free hand to cast, and then later on a free action to grip the staff again. The FAQ says that 2 free actions in this matter are "fair", and that it's GM discretion to limit how many one can do. Not the most helpful FAQ to use in this matter.
I say two handing a sword attack, then free action hand to secondary attack claw, then free action to re-grip, then free action other hand to do other secondary attack, then free action to re-grip is legit. It's lengthy to explain, and I think that's why people get all bothered by it, and I think that's ridiculous.
Thing to keep in mind is that it's a free action, and you should go to the rules for free actions and make use your best judgement.
You cannot use a limb you have already used in a full-attack to attack with a natural weapon. Natural Attacks wrote: You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used for each attack. For example, you cannot make a claw attack and also use that hand to make attacks with a longsword. You can take a hand off to claw, but only if you don't use that hand to attack with a weapon.
As for taking a hand off to punch, that works (though it's easier to kick/headbutt). Unless we get into metaphorical hands, then you can only have two metaphorical hands (or as many as your species has) used in any full attack, and so you either get to full attack with a two-handed weapon or two weapons that only use one hand, but never once with a two-handed and once with something that uses one hand. I'm still trying to figure out how to work in the transitive verb crackers.
Bob Bob Bob, thanks for enlightening me on the rules with natural attacks. I recently had in PFS a creature do what I described to myself and my allies all level 1, and I'll reference this next time to make sure it doesn't happen again.
Also, I suggest saying you are attacking with "unarmed strike" and then for flavor say whatever part of the body you want, regardless of what you're holding in either or both hands.
Well, 'punch' becomes relevant if you're making use of something like a Cestus. At least it should...
Anyhow that settles the natural attack question, thanks to the blanket-ness of the natural attacks entry.
Assuming you can change grip during a full-attack, it would seem that you can use two-weapon fighting and a two-handed weapon, but only to make a single extra attack: Punch(offhand), *changegrip*, Greatsword(mainhand) iteratives. Would be fun on a Barbarian with Greater Brawling, depending on how you interpret Greater Brawling... sigh. Why does so much fun creative fighting style stuff have to be so 'controversial'?
Because anyone with a natural attack is only allowed to be a martial artist. Bite/Claw/Claw/Kick/Kick/Kick/Kick/Kick/Kick/Kick is easy and perfectly legal.
If you want an easy way to build for Claw/Claw/Manufactured Weapon/"/"/" then you need to headbutt repeatedly, chin them to death, dagger-kick them, or stab them with your armor.
There is an FAQ where you can't TWF with a two handed weapon. I believe they talk about spiked armor with a THW and a gauntlet with a THW.
Cestus modifies your unarmed strike, so it's just "unarmed strike" when you attack, and not "punch".
Here's the full explanation based on a discussion I had with one of the Devs during the TWF FAQ discussion (I forget if it was SKR or JB).
When you deliver a two-handed attack, it "eats" the next potential off-hand attack you could make as well as any natural attacks that involve the arms used to make the two-handed attack. So Claws, Smashes, etc. are right out the moment you use your Greatsword. Your single standard off-hand attack is also subsumed by the 2-h attack. However, what happens if you're wielding, say, a Longsword that need not be wielded one-handed. Lets say, for the sake of example, you have two off-hand attacks (ITWF) and 2 main-hand attacks. You make a two-handed attack with your Longsword at full BAB and this subsumes your full BAB off-hand attack. Now if you made another two-handed attack, it would also eat your second off-hand attack. However, if you switched to one-handed, you'd preserve your off-hand attack and could use an off-hand Unarmed Strike. So your pattern, in this case, would be as follows: Longsword(2h) BAB/Longsword(1h) BAB-5/Unarmed Strike(offhand) BAB-5. On the flip-side, if you make an off-hand attack, you earn "debt" in terms of attack economy; you're obligated to make a one-handed main-hand attack for each off-hand attack you've made before you can make two-handed attacks. To illustrate, lets say you lead off with an off-hand Unarmed Strike this time. You cannot just use your Longsword two-handed immediately in this case; you are obligated to make a one-handed attack to match the one off-hand attack you made and then you can attack with the Longsword two-handed (again, at the expense of your next off-hand attack). I lined all this out and the Dev I spoke to said it was mechanically correct, though very complicated and most players would likely do better to simply pretend you can't do this and that 2-h + twf just don't mix.
Furthermore, "off-hand" doesn't just mean a weapon wielded by hand. Making a 2-h attack subsumes your off-hand attack economy regardless of the limb actually used to make the attack so a 2-h attack would subsume your next off-hand, regardless of whether it involves release and punch, boot blade, armor spikes, etc. However, you can easily make these as iterative attacks with no issue. If you have 3 iteratives, you could do Greatsword BAB/Unarmed strike BAB-5/Greatsword BAB-10 with absolutely no issue.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
