|
| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
There is a difference of interpretation at our table, and TBH, although I have an opinion, the wording would seem to support either case:-
...In addition, grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform.
So, I'm grappled. I'm wearing a pair of spiked gauntlets. I want to use TWF to full attack with both. Can I?
• no, because a full attack with weapons held in both left and right hands constitutes an 'action that requires two hands to perform', the 'action' in question being a full attack with TWH
• yes, because each attack only uses one hand
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would say that you cannot use a weapon in your off-hand, but you can TWF with a weapon and an unarmed strike (like a kick). But, not sure on the RAW.
If You Are Grappled: If you are grappled, you can attempt to break the grapple as a standard action by making a combat maneuver check (DC equal to your opponent's CMD; this does not provoke an attack of opportunity) or Escape Artist check (with a DC equal to your opponent's CMD). If you succeed, you break the grapple and can act normally. Alternatively, if you succeed, you can become the grappler, grappling the other creature (meaning that the other creature cannot freely release the grapple without making a combat maneuver check, while you can). Instead of attempting to break or reverse the grapple, you can take any action that doesn't require two hands to perform, such as cast a spell or make an attack or full attack with a light or one-handed weapon against any creature within your reach, including the creature that is grappling you. See the grappled condition for additional details. If you are pinned, your actions are very limited. See the pinned condition in Conditions for additional details.
Just so we have the full quote. It says, "with a light or one-handed weapon" not "with light or one-handed weapons" so I'm gonna go with 1 weapon can make an attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For a long thread on this with lots of input and no final consensus, see Two light weapons in a grapple.
(And the offer to bathe my cat to experience an animal making a full attack while grappled is still open.)
|
So, I'm grappled. I'm wearing a pair of spiked gauntlets. I want to use TWF to full attack with both. Can I?
Your TWF full attack action with two spiked gauntlets requires two hands, so no you cannot attack with both.
Now, if you were a monk and wanted to attack with one fist and one knee, I do not see a problem with that.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since the RAW can reasonably read both ways, the way forward is to try and make sense of it.
If the interpretation is that you can't use two hands in concert, but each can be used independently as long as they don't work together like attack with a two handed weapon, what does this represent? It must represent that the grapple is preventing both hands working together: you can't get the leverage for a two handed attack. I can buy that explanation. It would mean that two handed weapons would be unuseable, but TWF is okay because every single attack in that full attack only uses one hand for that attack.
If the interpretation is that a TWF full attack is 'an action that uses both hands', then what does that represent? What would be the consequences of that interpretation?
If that were the case, being grappled would represent being held by one arm, so that arm remains unusable for the duration of the grapple.
Sounds reasonable, but what would be the consequences?
Well, you've grappled me; good for you, but by which arm? Who chooses, you or me? According to the rules, there is no provision for who makes the choice, or when. In fact, the choice is never made! When it's the grappled creature's turn, as soon as he attacks with one arm, at that point, his other arm is the one that is held (under this interpretation). Yet, next turn, he could attack with his other arm and his first arm (which was free to attack last turn) is suddenly the arm he can't use! What is this, Schrödinger's Arm? If the grappled creature can swap which arm is held between turns, why can't he do it during a turn?
When two interpretations of the RAW are equally plausible (in terms of the meaning of the words), then RAW doesn't help us choose which is meant. So we choose the interpretation that makes sense over the one that doesn't.
Being grappled in such a way that you can't use a two handed weapon makes sense. Deciding which arm is being held being a matter of quantum uncertainty doesn't.
Per the rules as written I don't think TWF works while grappled. If you're considering house rules for the sake of "realism" I could imagine a DM going either way. Based on the many boxing and MMA matches I've watched I'd say that fast, clean combination punching rarely happens while clinching or grappling. Opinions will surely vary.
|
When you're grappled, one hand is unavailable.Which hand?
Sorry, "hand" was supposed to be in air quotes.
But I, as well, believed for the longest time that you could still TWF while grappled, until I read Jason Bulmahn's response.
|
|
Per the rules as written I don't think TWF works while grappled. If you're considering house rules for the sake of "realism" I could imagine a DM going either way. Based on the many boxing and MMA matches I've watched I'd say that fast, clean combination punching rarely happens while clinching or grappling. Opinions will surely vary.
Even if you can TWF while grappled, the other penalties suffered while being grappled still apply, so that accounts for why those punches seem less fast/clean.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When you're grappled, one hand is unavailable.
This answers the OP's question.
It's probably less that one hand is being held, and more that one arm is otherwise occupied while trying to attack with the other. Temporarily held, or pushing/grabbing the enemy to allow for the other hand to attack. Hence why you can 'change' which hand is grappled.
|
|
When you're grappled, one hand is unavailable.Which hand?Sorry, "hand" was supposed to be in air quotes.
But I, as well, believed for the longest time that you could still TWF while grappled, until I read Jason Bulmahn's response.
My dissatisfaction with that stance is that he didn't think it through.
As I outlined above, if the stance is that you're grabbed by one arm, the rules reflect this alarmingly poorly. It means that at the beginning of your turn while grappled, you have a completely free choice about which arm to use, which doesn't gel with the stance that one arm is already grappled.
In fact, the one being grappled choses which arm is grappled, chooses it on his own turn rather than when he is first grappled, and he can change his mind about which arm is grappled on his next turn, without needing to make any roll whatsoever!
Any one of us could make a rule which better simulates having one arm grappled! Simply establish which arm it is when the grapple roll first succeeds; who chooses it is a separate issue.
As is, the grappled one can choose to switch arm is grappled; why can't he do this during his turn rather than the start of his turn? Common sense has already left the building at this point! This means that you could take all of your primary hand attacks, switch which arm is grappled, then take all of your off hand attacks. In this interpretation, the grappled one can already switch which arm is grappled just by his own choice!
So this interpretation is poorly thought out, and doesn't satisfy. The alternate interpretation, where you can't use two hands in concert (attacking with a weapon in two hands), makes sense and satisfies the 'no action that takes two hands to perform' clause.
|
|
It's probably less that one hand is being held, and more that one arm is otherwise occupied while trying to attack with the other. Temporarily held, or pushing/grabbing the enemy to allow for the other hand to attack. Hence why you can 'change' which hand is grappled.
In that case, I'll take all of my main hand attacks, switch which arm is grappled, then take all of my off hand attacks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's probably less that one hand is being held, and more that one arm is otherwise occupied while trying to attack with the other. Temporarily held, or pushing/grabbing the enemy to allow for the other hand to attack. Hence why you can 'change' which hand is grappled.In that case, I'll take all of my main hand attacks, switch which arm is grappled, then take all of my off hand attacks.
Right--this was my thought as well.
It's also important to remember that the "one hand is unavailable" ruling was from 2009. Since the new "monks can flurry with one hand" ruling, this question has become mind-bogglingly complicated. (See the discussions on the thread I linked for dozens of exceptions and corner cases.)
As a GM, I need the rules to be pretty cut and dry. This particularly ruling is the opposite of that. Now, I'll follow it in organized play (and my Tetori is really glad, too!), but I'm hoping we can get this whole mess reconsidered soon.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
ugh
It's probably less that one hand is being held, and more that one arm is otherwise occupied while trying to attack with the other. Temporarily held, or pushing/grabbing the enemy to allow for the other hand to attack. Hence why you can 'change' which hand is grappled.In that case, I'll take all of my main hand attacks, switch which arm is grappled, then take all of my off hand attacks.
Can you address why the rules speak to only being able to use one weapon? It says A light or one-handed weapon (not plural). This implies you can only choose to use one weapon during the attack, presumably because you can't use two hands in an action.
Instead of attempting to break or reverse the grapple, you can take any action that doesn't require two hands to perform, such as cast a spell or make an attack or full attack with a light or one-handed weapon against any creature within your reach, including the creature that is grappling you.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see it rather simply.
One "hand" (notice the air quotes) is unavailable.
This is not the first time we've had debates about metaphorical hands in Pathfinder (cue Blackbloodtroll's entrance).
Don't even bother with trying to determine which hand/arm/limb is being held.
The rules don't cover it, so don't make them up.
Just ask yourself: is what I'm trying to do accomplishable with only one "hand"?
If the answer is " no", then you can't do it.
As someone who wrestled in High School, a grapple is dynamic. One moment you've got them by the leg, and then the arm, and maybe even the head. Or you've immobilized them so they can only reach you with one hand.
My real-life explanation is only meant to describe how combat in Pathfinder is likewise dynamic. In 6 seconds you're not swinging your sword once, and that's it. You're constantly moving and trying to assail your opponent.
It's the same thing with Grappling.
You're not just walking up and grabbing them by the right arm above the elbow. You're grappling with them and trying to immobilize them.
Don't try to complicate something that can really be handled simply.
Coming from someone who looked at this completely differently at one time, I sympathize with your frustration.
But it really doesn't need to be frustrating.
just listen to nefreet and stop making this terrible
|
|
In that case, I'll take all of my main hand attacks, switch which arm is grappled, then take all of my off hand attacks.
That is unrealistic and unreasonable and kind of trolly.
The rules do not specify what is grappled, only that actions that require two hands cannot be done. That's it. If you can make TWF work within the rules, then fine. If you cannot, then you cannot.
You cannot just decide to 'switch' which 'hand' is grappled because you interpret the rules to mean that an arm is grappled. You cannot use TWF with weapons in both hands without using both hands (although I believe monk can flurry with one hand I I recall correctly).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But then let's consider a someone with Improved Unarmed Strike, but not a monk. They can two weapon fight with their unarmed strikes because they don't necessarily need to use two hands. Or does it deny a "hand". Which is it? Is it both?
Honestly, in all the time I've ever played, the way I read the restriction was that it basically only prevented using a two-handed weapon in a grapple (or anything else that required to hands to be used together of which I can think of no other examples).
I would say that you cannot use a weapon in your off-hand, but you can TWF with a weapon and an unarmed strike (like a kick). But, not sure on the RAW.
+1
But then let's consider a someone with Improved Unarmed Strike, but not a monk. They can two weapon fight with their unarmed strikes because they don't necessarily need to use two hands. Or does it deny a "hand". Which is it? Is it both?
Non-monks can still headbutt and kick. They don't need to use a "hand" to make unarmed attacks either.
But then let's consider a someone with Improved Unarmed Strike, but not a monk. They can two weapon fight with their unarmed strikes because they don't necessarily need to use two hands. Or does it deny a "hand". Which is it? Is it both?Non-monks can still headbutt and kick. They don't need to use a "hand" to make unarmed attacks either.
That's what I was trying to point out.
So could those people TWF in a grapple since they don't need to use both physical hands? Or can they not because one "hand" is restricted?
But then let's consider a someone with Improved Unarmed Strike, but not a monk. They can two weapon fight with their unarmed strikes because they don't necessarily need to use two hands. Or does it deny a "hand". Which is it? Is it both?Non-monks can still headbutt and kick. They don't need to use a "hand" to make unarmed attacks either.That's what I was trying to point out.
So could those people TWF in a grapple since they don't need to use both physical hands? Or can they not because one "hand" is restricted?
TWF with unarmed strike doesn't require any "hands", so you can TWF with unarmed strikes while in a grapple.
It's probably less that one hand is being held, and more that one arm is otherwise occupied while trying to attack with the other. Temporarily held, or pushing/grabbing the enemy to allow for the other hand to attack. Hence why you can 'change' which hand is grappled.In that case, I'll take all of my main hand attacks, switch which arm is grappled, then take all of my off hand attacks.Right--this was my thought as well.
It's also important to remember that the "one hand is unavailable" ruling was from 2009. Since the new "monks can flurry with one hand" ruling, this question has become mind-bogglingly complicated. (See the discussions on the thread I linked for dozens of exceptions and corner cases.)
As a GM, I need the rules to be pretty cut and dry. This particularly ruling is the opposite of that. Now, I'll follow it in organized play (and my Tetori is really glad, too!), but I'm hoping we can get this whole mess reconsidered soon.
Bulmahn's quote mentions Monk's not needing both hands to flurry, so it seems that he was answering this question with that intent, anyway. The one-weapon flurrying FAQ wouldn't change this, but rather reinforce it.
TWF with unarmed strike doesn't require any "hands", so you can TWF with unarmed strikes while in a grapple.But then let's consider a someone with Improved Unarmed Strike, but not a monk. They can two weapon fight with their unarmed strikes because they don't necessarily need to use two hands. Or does it deny a "hand". Which is it? Is it both?Non-monks can still headbutt and kick. They don't need to use a "hand" to make unarmed attacks either.That's what I was trying to point out.
So could those people TWF in a grapple since they don't need to use both physical hands? Or can they not because one "hand" is restricted?
TWF with unarmed strikes does require "hands", just like TWF with anything else.
Flurrying doesn't require two separate weapons. While unarmed strike is "one weapon" for your entire body, it doesn't necessarily follow that the intent was to allow you to punch twice with the same hand for TWF purposes.
So, if you are prohibited from TWF with other weapons for some reason (like being grappled), you should be prohibited just the same from TWF with unarmed strikes. Flurrying is different because Monks can explicitly Flurry with one weapon.
TWF with unarmed strikes does require "hands", just like TWF with anything else.
Flurrying doesn't require two separate weapons. While unarmed strike is "one weapon" for your entire body, it doesn't necessarily follow that the intent was to allow you to punch twice with the same hand for TWF purposes.
So, if you are prohibited from TWF with other weapons for some reason (like being grappled), you should be prohibited just the same from TWF with unarmed strikes. Flurrying is different because Monks can explicitly Flurry with one weapon.
It requires a main/off hand to be chosen, but unarmed strikes themselves do not require "hands" to be used. You can unarmed strike without 2 hands free, which is the clause required for actions in a grapple.
|
|
Can you address why the rules speak to only being able to use one weapon? It says A light or one-handed weapon (not plural). This implies you can only choose to use one weapon during the attack, presumably because you can't use two hands in an action.
I get five attacks. My main hand gets three: two at +6 (because haste) and one at +1. my off hand gets two: one at +6 and one at +1 (because Improved TWF).
Every single one of these attacks only requires a single hand. Three of them only require my right hand and the other two only require my left, but not a single one of them requires both!
Can you address why the rules speak to only being able to use one weapon? It says A light or one-handed weapon (not plural). This implies you can only choose to use one weapon during the attack, presumably because you can't use two hands in an action.I get five attacks. My main hand gets three: two at +6 (because haste) and one at +1. my off hand gets two: one at +6 and one at +1 (because Improved TWF).
Every single one of these attacks only requires a single hand. Three of them only require my right hand and the other two only require my left, but not a single one of them requires both!
During the full-attack action however, you are using both hands because you are attacking with both of them. Unarmed strike is not used in a hand, and so you do not have to use both hands to make multiple TWF unarmed strikes.
|
When you're grappled, one hand is unavailable.Which hand?
I would say that it is both hands, and neither hand. One round is six seconds long and just like an attack represents more then just one swing of an axe but how many "effective" swings you may make in six seconds (which is quite a while in a fight) a grapple represents more then just one 'hold'. During this time that you are held it is in a chain of successive holds that prevents you effectively using two handed actions.
|
|
Can you address why the rules speak to only being able to use one weapon? It says A light or one-handed weapon (not plural). This implies you can only choose to use one weapon during the attack, presumably because you can't use two hands in an action.I get five attacks. My main hand gets three: two at +6 (because haste) and one at +1. my off hand gets two: one at +6 and one at +1 (because Improved TWF).
Every single one of these attacks only requires a single hand. Three of them only require my right hand and the other two only require my left, but not a single one of them requires both!
Indeed but the rules interpretation is that they are not individual attacks anyway. So why count them as such. To make those five (effective) attacks is a full round action requiring both hands, does it not? Then as a full round action using both hands it is not allowed.
|
|
Indeed but the rules interpretation is that they are not individual attacks anyway.Can you address why the rules speak to only being able to use one weapon? It says A light or one-handed weapon (not plural). This implies you can only choose to use one weapon during the attack, presumably because you can't use two hands in an action.I get five attacks. My main hand gets three: two at +6 (because haste) and one at +1. my off hand gets two: one at +6 and one at +1 (because Improved TWF).
Every single one of these attacks only requires a single hand. Three of them only require my right hand and the other two only require my left, but not a single one of them requires both!
You're making a logical fallacy here. I think it's called 'begging the question'.
The question being posed is that a TWF full attack is:-
EITHER
One single action which requires two hands to perform
OR
A series of attacks, each of which only requires a single hand
You're saying that if you choose the first interpretation, then the first interpretation is correct, so we must follow that. True, but totally unhelpful! We could just as easily say that the second interpretation is correct, therefore we must follow that!
Your argument doesn't help us decide which interpretation is correct, just assumes that the first one is and then uses that as evidence that it's correct!
Begging the question means "assuming the conclusion (of an argument)", a type of circular reasoning. This is an informal fallacy where the conclusion that one is attempting to prove is included in the initial premises of an argument, often in an indirect way that conceals this fact.
|
|
When you're grappled, one hand is unavailable.Which hand?I would say that it is both hands, and neither hand. One round is six seconds long and just like an attack represents more then just one swing of an axe but how many "effective" swings you may make in six seconds (which is quite a while in a fight) a grapple represents more then just one 'hold'. During this time that you are held it is in a chain of successive holds that prevents you effectively using two handed actions.
Which supports the idea that you can take all of your attacks with one hand, then the hold gets changed allowing you to take all of your off hand attacks with the other hand.
|
|
I'm rather flabbergasted that it is even a question that using two weapons requires two hands.
Using a weapon in my right hand is not something that requires both hands.
Using a weapon in my left hand is not something that requires both hands.
At no instant in my turn did I require both bands to make any of those attacks. Each attack required only one hand.
A full-attack is a single action. This isn't even up for debate. It's listed in the table. If that action requires two hands, then you can't do it while grappled. You're better off going with the headbutt/kick argument.
|
|
A full-attack is a single action. This isn't even up for debate. It's listed in the table. If that action requires two hands, then you can't do it while grappled. You're better off going with the headbutt/kick argument.
This is begging the question again.
In the first case (see above), 'action' refers to things that are 'actions' in the game economy. In the second case, 'action' is meant in the more literal sense: any 'act', like executing an attack.
If you assume it means the action economy type, then you're assuming the first case is correct as the argument that the first case is correct; thus, the fallacy.
Further, if you assume it refers to the kind of actions in action economy, then a grappled creature could use both hands to nock an arrow to a bow, because that is not an 'action' in game economy terms. This is almost as absurd as 'Schrödinger's Arms'!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Action only has one definition in the rules text. There is no basis to use another.