| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Can a character make an unarmed strike while also holding a two-handed weapon?
I'm thinking of Attacks of Opportunity while holding a reach weapon (like a longspear) into adjacent zones not threatened by the weapon.
I'm also thinking of times when you'd rather deliver a touch spell (with an Improved Unarmed Strike) than hit with your two-handed weapon. I assume this is possible, but can we also assume that you get to grab your weapon (with both hands) after making such an attack? This would be handy for opportunity attacks, especially if you just dropped the mook with a touch spell.
Yes, unarmed strikes can be made with other body parts.
A monk or brawler can, as they both have abilities which allow them to make unarmed strikes with their hands full. A character with just the Improved Unarmed Strike feat does not get such a benefit.
Non monk/brawler characters still have a primary and offhand for unarmed strike, which equates to the same hands that would be used to wield weapons.
I'm talking more "hold spear in one hand while make punch and then grab spear again." Much like a cleric will pop a melee weapon into weapon holding shield to cast a spell and then transfer again.
Although, yeah, a kick should do it, right? Shouldn't even give a neg if I'm not making more than one attack.
As I said, only monk/brawler get the unarmed strike ability which allows them to make unarmed strikes with any part of their body.
If you only have IUS then you can't kick as an attack. Your only Unarmed strike attacks are from either your main hand or off hand (at the appropriate penalties).
My reading is that you could choose whether to hold the spear ready or drop it from one hand to have IUS ready while not your turn, but not both. Additionally, if you stopped wielding the spear in both hands, you would have to take a move action to ready it again on your next turn.
Hmm. I agree that IUS should let you attack with things other than your hands. I missed that part. I would consider everything not your "main hand" punching to be an off-hand attack and only get ½ str bonus to damage however. (Unless you're a monk/brawler whose unarmed strike ability gives you full 1x str bonus).
No you main hand punch and use other hand to hold the weapon. if it's the only weapon you're attacking with it's a main hand. Off-hand only exists when talking about two-weapon fighting.
Off-Hand Weapon: When you deal damage with a weapon in your off hand, you add only 1/2 your Strength bonus. If you have a Strength penalty, the entire penalty applies.
From the damage section. You have one main-hand. If the attack is not part of that main-hand, then it is off-hand.
Also:
Light: A light weapon is used in one hand. It is easier to use in one's off hand than a one-handed weapon is, and can be used while grappling (see Combat). Add the wielder's Strength modifier to damage rolls for melee attacks with a light weapon if it's used in the primary hand, or half the wielder's Strength bonus if it's used in the off hand. Using two hands to wield a light weapon gives no advantage on damage; the Strength bonus applies as though the weapon were held in the wielder's primary hand only.
Unarmed strikes are considered Light weapons. Which add full strength damage for primary hand, and half strength for off hand.
DetectiveKatana: Why do monks and brawlers get a special ability which grants them full strength damage on all unarmed strikes as well as allowing them to make them with their hands full?
Unarmed Strike: At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. 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.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but off-hand attacks only exist in relation to primary attacks when you're full attacking (getting more than one attack), yes?
Those "hands full" rules you cite are under the heading of the Improved Unarmed Strike section of the Monk's listing.
Off-Hand Weapon: When you deal damage with a weapon in your off hand, you add only 1/2 your Strength bonus. If you have a Strength penalty, the entire penalty applies.From the damage section. You have one main-hand. If the attack is not part of that main-hand, then it is off-hand.
Also:
Light: A light weapon is used in one hand. It is easier to use in one's off hand than a one-handed weapon is, and can be used while grappling (see Combat). Add the wielder's Strength modifier to damage rolls for melee attacks with a light weapon if it's used in the primary hand, or half the wielder's Strength bonus if it's used in the off hand. Using two hands to wield a light weapon gives no advantage on damage; the Strength bonus applies as though the weapon were held in the wielder's primary hand only.Unarmed strikes are considered Light weapons. Which add full strength damage for primary hand, and half strength for off hand.
DetectiveKatana: Why do monks and brawlers get a special ability which grants them full strength damage on all unarmed strikes as well as allowing them to make them with their hands full?
Unarmed Strike: At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. 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.
Monks can two-weapon fight with any body part and have full str because it's their class feature. A normal person without that feature can two-weapon fight with "at least some" body parts and have full on the first and half on the second.
Since you are only taking one attack for the AoO whatever you use is your main weapon, so if you use your fist it's your main weapon. Off-hand only comes into play if you Two-Weapon fight. So if you're not gaining extra attacks you are not using two-weapon fighting and have no off hand.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but off-hand attacks only exist in relation to primary attacks when you're full attacking (getting more than one attack), yes?
Those "hands full" rules you cite are under the heading of the Improved Unarmed Strike section of the Monk's listing.
Off hand only exists when using a full attack and TWO-WEAPON FIGHTING. if you aren't TWF then you have no off-hand. If you're not using a full attack you have no off-hand.
I assume that's a clarification so that people playing monks have all of their rules in one place, instead of having to reference Chapter 8.
Here's what the rules say about Unarmed Strikes:
1. Unarmed Strikes can be made with any part of the body.
2. Unarmed Strikes deal full strength damage.Unarmed strikes are not wielded weapons, so primary hand and off-hhand rules don't apply.
unarmed strikes are light weapons, so only the monk and brawler and anyone else that says they do get full str on all attacks. All the other classes would have .5 str for off-hand attacks. Which would only happen if they were two-weapon fighting and making a full attack with Two-weapon fighting.
I assume that's a clarification so that people playing monks have all of their rules in one place, instead of having to reference Chapter 8.
Here's what the rules say about Unarmed Strikes:
1. Unarmed Strikes can be made with any part of the body.
2. Unarmed Strikes deal full strength damage.Unarmed strikes are not wielded weapons, so primary hand and off-hhand rules don't apply.
Monks specifically treat all unarmed attacks as primary handed and get full strength bonus on all unarmed strike damage.
Primary and off-hand definitely can apply to unarmed strike attacks.
Chess Pwn: I think I'm mixing up my gaming systems. You're right, pathfinder only has off-hand during a full-round TWF action. A fighter with 2 weapons can make an AOO with either one (fighters choice) without offhand penalties as long as both weapons were ready.
So, in short, yes you can have a long spear and IUS (or armor spikes) and threaten both 10' and 5' around yourself, and would get normal bonuses to those AOOs. Sorry for the confusion.
So, to get back to my OP:
Cleric has Improved Unarmed Strike. Casts Inflict Light Wounds, then runs (really, takes normal 30' movement while howling) at mook waving the spear around. Opts not to hit with spear but instead comes all the up to mook and smacks him with fist for d3+Strength+d8+1. At the end of his turn, grabs spear with other hand, snarls in grim determination.
On GM's turn, a different mook leaves a threatened square adjacent to cleric. Cleric lets it go because he wants to hit first mook when first mook tries to run away, for more damage (now that his spell is discharged).
First mook takes a five foot and then does a thing. A spell or a ranged attack. Can Cleric whack him with the spear, or is he frozen in a moment in time where he punched somebody and must wait for his turn to grab his spear again?
Alternatively, let's say that cleric's wizard buddy finished off first mook. Can cleric smack at second mook (one that left a square threatened by punch and not spear), or are his hands glued to the spear because he grabbed it at the end of his turn?
Off-Hand Weapon: When you deal damage with a weapon in your off hand, you add only 1/2 your Strength bonus. If you have a Strength penalty, the entire penalty applies.From the damage section. You have one main-hand. If the attack is not part of that main-hand, then it is off-hand.
Also:
Light: A light weapon is used in one hand. It is easier to use in one's off hand than a one-handed weapon is, and can be used while grappling (see Combat). Add the wielder's Strength modifier to damage rolls for melee attacks with a light weapon if it's used in the primary hand, or half the wielder's Strength bonus if it's used in the off hand. Using two hands to wield a light weapon gives no advantage on damage; the Strength bonus applies as though the weapon were held in the wielder's primary hand only.Unarmed strikes are considered Light weapons. Which add full strength damage for primary hand, and half strength for off hand.
DetectiveKatana: Why do monks and brawlers get a special ability which grants them full strength damage on all unarmed strikes as well as allowing them to make them with their hands full?
Unarmed Strike: At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. 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.
"Off hand" has no meaning outside of two-weapon fighting. For example, a 16th level fighter can wield a longsword in one hand and a mace in the other and make four attacks with any combination of the two weapons with no off-hand penalties. It is only when using the two-weapon-fighting action (or an equivalent) that the term "off hand" becomes meaningful.
Note that the damage section you quote does not state that you have one main hand.
First thing; cleric doesn't have to let go of the spear to make an unarmed strike. He can do a kick or headbutt. That solves all the spear grab/let go questions.
So, to get back to my OP:
Cleric has Improved Unarmed Strike. Casts Inflict Light Wounds, then runs (really, takes normal 30' movement while howling) at mook waving the spear around. Opts not to hit with spear but instead comes all the up to mook and smacks him with fist for d3+Strength+d8+1. At the end of his turn, grabs spear with other hand, snarls in grim determination.
On GM's turn, a different mook leaves a threatened square adjacent to cleric. Cleric lets it go because he wants to hit first mook when first mook tries to run away, for more damage (now that his spell is discharged).
First mook takes a five foot and then does a thing. A spell or a ranged attack. Can Cleric whack him with the spear, or is he frozen in a moment in time where he punched somebody and must wait for his turn to grab his spear again?
Alternatively, let's say that cleric's wizard buddy finished off first mook. Can cleric smack at second mook (one that left a square threatened by punch and not spear), or are his hands glued to the spear because he grabbed it at the end of his turn?
I'm not completely sure about the grab and ungrab, but you don't ever have to let go with IUS, so do your kick and use your longspear. With mechanics you definitely can use your longspear regardless of the way you say you did your attack.
Just to emphasize, I'd like to point out that you could even carry a dagger in each hand and attack with both without TWF penalties if you were only using iterative attacks (+6/+1 for example). TWF and associated penalties only come into play when gaining extra attacks during a full-attack.
Can one deliver a touch spell via kick?
Its under the same category so I don't see why not:
"“Armed” Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks)."
Gloves don't block delivery of touch spells through hands, so I don't see why shoes/boots would block it through feet.
This is why someone with lots of natural attacks can get off lots of attacks with spells. I cast fridged touch, my next 6 attacks have the spell. If I use 5 natural attacks they can use 5 of the charges.
This is why someone with lots of natural attacks can get off lots of attacks with spells. I cast fridged touch, my next 6 attacks have the spell. If I use 5 natural attacks they can use 5 of the charges.
Not sure how you're casting six spells in one round, friend. As I see it, only the first attack would discharge the spell. And you only get that as part of a full attack if you had cast it the round before.
Might have meant chill touch. That one gives you multiple touch attacks with no "one per round" restriction.
I meant chill touch. I knew it was cold related. but I didn't take the time to look up the spell for sure.
|
First thing; cleric doesn't have to let go of the spear to make an unarmed strike. He can do a kick or headbutt. That solves all the spear grab/let go questions.
If he was holding a charge from a spell he cast, he would. Because otherwise he'd cast Inflict Light Wounds on his spear when he put his hand back on it. D:
I'm not 100% on whether he could deliver the touch spell through a kick or headbutt, because it's still technically an unarmed strike, but he wouldn't be wielding the spear until the spell was discharged and he gripped it again.
unarmed strikes are light weapons, so only the monk and brawler and anyone else that says they do get full str on all attacks. All the other classes would have .5 str for off-hand attacks. Which would only happen if they were two-weapon fighting and making a full attack with Two-weapon fighting.I assume that's a clarification so that people playing monks have all of their rules in one place, instead of having to reference Chapter 8.
Here's what the rules say about Unarmed Strikes:
1. Unarmed Strikes can be made with any part of the body.
2. Unarmed Strikes deal full strength damage.Unarmed strikes are not wielded weapons, so primary hand and off-hhand rules don't apply.
Light weapons get full Str mod unless being used as an off hand weapon. They also get 2x from Power Attack unless used as an off hand weapon. And off hand only exists when gaining extra attacks from additional limbs.
I feel like mentioning, since it was glazed over, only the monk and brawler can make unarmed strikes with their hands full.
I feel like mentioning, since it was glazed over, only the monk and brawler can make unarmed strikes with their hands full.
Citation please
My reading is that you could choose whether to hold the spear ready or drop it from one hand to have IUS ready while not your turn, but not both. Additionally, if you stopped wielding the spear in both hands, you would have to take a move action to ready it again on your next turn.
Releasing or re-grasping THW's are free actions per FAQ:
Two-Handed Weapons: What kind of action is it to remove your hand from a two-handed weapon or re-grab it with both hands?
Both are free actions. For example, a wizard wielding a quarterstaff can let go of the weapon with one hand as a free action, cast a spell as a standard action, and grasp the weapon again with that hand as a free action; this means the wizard is still able to make attacks of opportunity with the weapon (which requires using two hands).
As with any free action, the GM may decide a reasonable limit to how many times per round you can release and re-grasp the weapon (one release and re-grasp per round is fair).
Also, from PRD:
Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM.
Since an AoO is an immediate action, and free actions can be performed "while taking another action normally", you can release or re-grasp a THW (possibly both) during your AoO.
My reading is that you could choose whether to hold the spear ready or drop it from one hand to have IUS ready while not your turn, but not both. Additionally, if you stopped wielding the spear in both hands, you would have to take a move action to ready it again on your next turn.Releasing or re-grasping THW's are free actions per FAQ:
Two-Handed Weapons: What kind of action is it to remove your hand from a two-handed weapon or re-grab it with both hands?
Both are free actions. For example, a wizard wielding a quarterstaff can let go of the weapon with one hand as a free action, cast a spell as a standard action, and grasp the weapon again with that hand as a free action; this means the wizard is still able to make attacks of opportunity with the weapon (which requires using two hands).
As with any free action, the GM may decide a reasonable limit to how many times per round you can release and re-grasp the weapon (one release and re-grasp per round is fair).
Also, from PRD:
Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM.
Since an AoO is an immediate action, and free actions can be performed "while taking another action normally", you can release or re-grasp a THW (possibly both) during your AoO.
^This.
Is what I made this thread to find. Thanks for doing my FAQ FU for me. That'll do, Bacondale.
A move action. Jeebuzz...
I feel like mentioning, since it was glazed over, only the monk and brawler can make unarmed strikes with their hands full.Citation please
only monk and brawler unarmed strike mention this as a benefit. I'm sorry, but usually I have fun defending this point, but right now i don't feel like doing it. simply note, that normal IUS or normal US doesn't actually say that the "light weapon" unarmed strike, precludes the use of your physical hands. every non-hand weapon states when it can be used and how with your hands full.
US says you can headbutt and what not, but doesn't actually say that headbutting allows you to ignore needing to have a free hand to attack with.
basically, weapons are wielded in physical hands unless otherwise stated, and US is the vaguest at doing this, so it's fun to argue it might be RAW. but honestly it's not RAI.
so yeah, the monk/brawler saying they can attack with their hands free, every other weapon needing to specifically state that they don't need a free hand to not need one. but it's obvious that this is like pummeling strike and doesn't actually need a faq.
It does not need to. Where is the rule supporting your stance?
Since an AoO is an immediate action, and free actions can be performed "while taking another action normally", you can release or re-grasp a THW (possibly both) during your AoO.
AoO's are not defined as any kind of action, and they are definitely not immediate actions as immediate actions are a specific kind of swift action allowed outside of your turn.
AoO's are an action in the common English use of the word action, but the game does not define them as a specific action type in game mechanics. Whether they are intended to be or not is debatable.
The idea that taking an action outside of your turn while taking some other action outside of your turn is also debatable (though most on these forums don't seem to agree with my own perspective on it).
You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally.
Most read that as free license that you can take a free action any time you are taking another action. I read that as normally you can only take actions on your turn, and while doing so you can take free actions. But I also feel that things like trip/grab tacked onto many monster attacks during an AoO should still trigger (which is the reason many call out being able to take free actions when taking other actions outside of your turn). So I get to the same end result as RAI, I just don't agree with their RAW reading.
|
1) Off-hand exists only, during the full attack action, to two weapon fight. It otherwise does not exist.
2) Anyone, even the Commoner without the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, can hold something in both hands, and kick someone. This requires no special skill, or training, and RAW supports this stance.
In regards to #2, to even suggest that it does not work this way, defies RAW, defies Logic, defies immersion, and follows the path of slamming one's own head against a wall until they bleed to death from stupid.
Seriously.
1) Off-hand exists only, during the full attack action, to two weapon fight. It otherwise does not exist.
2) Anyone, even the Commoner without the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, can hold something in both hands, and kick someone. This requires no special skill, or training, and RAW supports this stance.
In regards to #2, to even suggest that it does not work this way, defies RAW, defies Logic, defies immersion, and follows the path of slamming one's own head against a wall until they bleed to death from stupid.
Seriously.
I know why he is saying it. :)
I just want him to provide the quote before I counter his interpretation. Hopefully in the process of copying and pasting he will see his error. :)
I don't think he is trolling. Sometimes rules have reminder text or text that should be common sense, but he is seeing it as saying "monks can do this because they are monks". Actually the text is saying because of X, Y can take place.
What he does not realize is that X and Y apply to everyone, and nowhere in the rules does it say because a monk is involved that only he can do this. It is just saying what a monk can do and then why, but that "why" is not because it is a monk doing it.
This is exactly how I just slipped up. I'm sure he just did the same thing and will see it just like I did.
nah, it's more like I know the RAI is that anyone can run around kicking while holding ostrich eggs in both hands. it's just the tends to require you to need to wield a weapon in your hand unless specified. Like a sea knife or a barbazu beard says explicitly when it's an exception.
Monks/brawlers have this exception, normal unarmed strikes do not.
like I said, it could be RAW, but I know it's not RAI.
in fact, I can't find where a normal US says you can use any part of your body either. I only use d20pfsrd, so if it's different in the book that could explain some of this.