Do you threaten at both 5' and 10' when using a reach weapon with a Brawler / Monk?


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 127 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

BigNorseWolf wrote:
The staff isn't going to answer every question. You can try to FAQ it , but when you see this much agreement on a topic with a clear answer they're likely to flag it as no response required.

Sadly that leaves both sides coming away thinking they are right.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I mean, you do realize that two-weapon fighting, and the two-weapon fighting feat, have no effect on what one can, and cannot wield?


It looks like team yes.. and straph. Thats not usually sides.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Where is this "wield limit"?

There isn't one listed. You can only hold as many weapons as you can carry with your load limit. The question is can you use them all at the same time. I highly doubt it. Though you cannot use that weapon with IUS during a full round attack unless it's a monk weapon.

My intention was to illustrate that there is nothing saying you can use a non monk two handed-weapon and IUS at the same time. It's a technicality but still I want to know what Paizo intended for the Monk. A free reach weapon 10' AOO with any two hand-weapon while still being able to use IUS full attack.

The same "it doesn't say I can't" thought process is coming into play.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
It looks like team yes.. and straph. Thats not usually sides.

Just because many people agree something is right, is not an indication of being correct.

500 years ago team yes thought the world was flat.

Today the majority of people think global warming isn't a thing, however they are not correct.

Yes I'm on my own side. Still makes it two sides.


Straph wrote:
It does say in IUS that you can hold something in your hands and still use IUS. It doesn't say that you can use, or be armed with those items in the hands.

So let's think this through.

FAQ on Monk flurry wrote:
You can make all of your attacks with a single monk weapon. Alternatively, you can replace any number of these attacks with an unarmed strike. Read it here

And

FAQ on Unarmed Strike wrote:
However, there's no game mechanic specifying what body part a monk has to use to make an unarmed strike (other than if the monk is holding an object with his hands, he probably can't use that hand to make an unarmed strike) Read it here

Let's collate that:

A monk can hold a weapon in his hand. If he does, he probably cannot make unarmed strikes with that hand. He can use his Flurry of Blows and use any body part and/or use his weapon, so if he gets 3 attacks when flurrying, that could be weapon/weapon/weapon, or weapon/kick/headbutt, or elbow/knee/kick, or whatever he wants.

The point is, he can mix his unarmed strikes with his weapon strikes.

So, clearly, monks using "monk" weapons can easily make unarmed strikes AND armed strikes in the same round.

Does this only apply to "monk" weapons? To answer that, we must know what a monk weapon is. Specifically, a "monk" weapon is one that allows monks to use it with Flurry of Blows. But monks don't have to flurry if they don't want to - they can still just use ordinary iterative strikes. If so, then they can do that with any weapon they want: head, fist, foot, knee, elbow, or wielded non-"monk" weapon - as long as he's not flurrying he doesn't need a "monk" weapon.

So the only question remaining is whether this only applies to monks? Simple answer: no, it applies to everyone. See this:

FAQ on Using Two Weapons wrote:
Yes. Basically, you only incur TWF penalties if you are trying to get an extra attack per round. Read it here

Adding that to the previous collation means:

Anybody of any class can hold a weapon in his hand. If he does, he probably cannot make unarmed strikes with that hand. He can make as many attacks as he is allowed and use any body part and/or use his weapon, so if he gets 3 attacks when making a full-round attack, that could be weapon/weapon/weapon, or weapon/kick/headbutt, or elbow/knee/kick, or whatever he wants.

If that weapon in his hand has reach, then he threatens squares 10' away as per the rules of reach.

If he has Improved Unarmed Strike, then the guy can count his unarmed strikes as armed, so he can threaten adjacent squares as per the description of the feat.

Presto!

Straph wrote:
My misunderstanding of the 5 foot step also makes the above less broken. As you can't continually trip them after taking multiple 5 foot steps each round with a full attack. So it balances slightly better than I thought. Thus I agree that you could do it. As it isn't as broken as I thought it was.

Multiple 5' steps? How are you doing this? I don't understand this part of your post at all.

Straph wrote:
However would still love to have Paizo come in and say if that was their intention with IUS, and holding a two handed-weapon that isn't a monk weapon. Can the monk/brawler get an AOO with both weapons if there is someone threatened at 5' with IUS, and someone threatened at 10' with a reach weapon during the same enemy turn due to two enemies standing up from prone?

Now you don't need a dev since everything I quoted came from devs.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

I mean, you do realize that two-weapon fighting, and the two-weapon fighting feat, have no effect on what one can, and cannot wield?

Yes I realize this. I'm just wondering if Paizo intended this with IUS as it would seem monks/brawler are the only class able to threaten both 10' and 5' squares during the same turn.


Straph wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

I mean, you do realize that two-weapon fighting, and the two-weapon fighting feat, have no effect on what one can, and cannot wield?

Yes I realize this. I'm just wondering if Paizo intended this with IUS as it would seem monks/brawler are the only class able to threaten both 10' and 5' squares during the same turn.

Why would you say that? Anyone and everyone with Improved Unarmed Strike OR Armor Spikes OR a natural weapon OR a Beard Blade thing, OR a Tail weapon OR a Boot Blade OR any other number of weapons AND a reach weapon threatens at both 5' and 10'.

Any weapon that is ready to fight with "wielded" so to speak, threatens. One person is only limited by the number of weapons they can attache to themselves in the proper manner. For normal, CRB races, this usually includes one in each hand OR both hands combined, one armor spikes, one beard weapon, one helmet weapon and two boot blades as well unlimited amount associated with Improved Unarmed Strike, which again, anyone can take.

Another important point that you might not realize is that fighting with two weapons does not have to be "Two Weapon Fighting. It is only "Two Weapon Fighting" if you gain extra attacks because of it.


Straph wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

I mean, you do realize that two-weapon fighting, and the two-weapon fighting feat, have no effect on what one can, and cannot wield?

Yes I realize this. I'm just wondering if Paizo intended this with IUS as it would seem monks/brawler are the only class able to threaten both 10' and 5' squares during the same turn.

Au contraire. Regardless of class, if someone has, for example armour spikes and a reach weapon they threaten at both 5 and 10 feet. Assuming that they can make multiple AoO they can attack anyone who provokes at either 5 or 10 ft. A medium creature enlarged to large size has natural reach such that they threaten anything within 10ft so they can take AoO on any provocation at both 5 or 10 ft. Both these examples are class irrelevant.


DM_Blake wrote:
Straph wrote:
It does say in IUS that you can hold something in your hands and still use IUS. It doesn't say that you can use, or be armed with those items in the hands.

So let's think this through.

FAQ on Monk flurry wrote:
You can make all of your attacks with a single monk weapon. Alternatively, you can replace any number of these attacks with an unarmed strike. Read it here

And

FAQ on Unarmed Strike wrote:
However, there's no game mechanic specifying what body part a monk has to use to make an unarmed strike (other than if the monk is holding an object with his hands, he probably can't use that hand to make an unarmed strike) Read it here

Let's collate that:

A monk can hold a weapon in his hand. If he does, he probably cannot make unarmed strikes with that hand. He can use his Flurry of Blows and use any body part and/or use his weapon, so if he gets 3 attacks when flurrying, that could be weapon/weapon/weapon, or weapon/kick/headbutt, or elbow/knee/kick, or whatever he wants.

The point is, he can mix his unarmed strikes with his weapon strikes.

So, clearly, monks using "monk" weapons can easily make unarmed strikes AND armed strikes in the same round.

Does this only apply to "monk" weapons? To answer that, we must know what a monk weapon is. Specifically, a "monk" weapon is one that allows monks to use it with Flurry of Blows. But monks don't have to flurry if they don't want to - they can still just use ordinary iterative strikes. If so, then they can do that with any weapon they want: head, fist, foot, knee, elbow, or wielded non-"monk" weapon - as long as he's not flurrying he doesn't need a "monk" weapon.

So the only question remaining is whether this only applies to monks? Simple answer: no, it applies to everyone. See this:

FAQ on Using Two Weapons wrote:
Yes. Basically, you only incur TWF
...

That's a lot to digest. Though most of it doesn't make sense.

Multiple 5' steps over multiple rounds (no more than 1 per round as long as another movement isn't made). Hope that clears up what I meant.

The only way to use weapons with IUS is during flurry of blows. So most of your argument is invalid. At least unless you wanted to take some nice massive penalties. You know two AOO, and the negatives from two weapon fighting if you use a weapon/knee/kick. If you aren't a monk, or have IUS, TWF, and FOB.

I'd rather leave the actual ruling to a dev since they can errata or not anything they want without a house rule.


rosie_187 wrote:


Au contraire. Regardless of class, if someone has, for example armour spikes and a reach weapon they threaten at both 5 and 10 feet.

That ones a little iffy in pathfinder and leads towards no. In 3.5 it definitely worked, but the devs in pathfinder feel that armor spikes is used via punching, which means having to let go of your weapon to use.

Linky

Quote:
Assuming that they can make multiple AoO they can attack anyone who provokes at either 5 or 10 ft. A medium creature enlarged to large size has natural reach such that they threaten anything within 10ft so they can take AoO on any provocation at both 5 or 10 ft. Both these examples are class irrelevant.

Just an asterix to remember that moving is one action, no matter how many threatened squares you leave you only get one whap of opportunity. Though if you do something really silly like move up and then cast a spell you can be whapped twice.


Each attack of opportunity is a discrete occurrence which is made using your normal attack bonus, regardless of whether you have already attacked that turn. There is no carryover of TWF penalty. If someone at 5' stands up, provoking an AoO you kick them in the face using IUS at your normal attack bonus, the provoker then finishes acting. If the next thing that happens is that someone stands up 10' away, you can stab them with a longspear AT YOUR NORMAL ATTACK BONUS. The previous AoA is irrelevant.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Are you suggesting, that only a Monk can threaten with a reach weapon, and an unarmed strike, at the same time, but only during flurry?

I am having a very hard time seeing how you came to any conclusion, that even resembles that.


Straph wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
It looks like team yes.. and straph. Thats not usually sides.

Just because many people agree something is right, is not an indication of being correct.

500 years ago team yes thought the world was flat.

Today the majority of people think global warming isn't a thing, however they are not correct.

Yes I'm on my own side. Still makes it two sides.

But it doesn't make the question frequently asked. It just means you're asking.

You also have no real backup in terms of rules. Your ideas aren't in the rules, and don't drop out of .. anything really.

Also, look at the attack line for the babau

Melee 2 claws +12 (1d6+5), bite +12 (1d6+5) or longspear +12/+7 (1d8+7/×3), bite +7 (1d6+2)

If the babau can attack with both its spear and its bite, then it by definition threatens the area covered by both its spear and its bite.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I am making an effort to see how this, conclusion, came to be.

It is very difficult.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Straph wrote:


Yes I'm on my own side. Still makes it two sides.

Existence doesn't imply anything about equivalency of the sides, though. Certainly not as far as the validity of the viewpoints they present.


Straph wrote:
That's a lot to digest. Though most of it doesn't make sense.

How can it not make sense. I directly quoted the rules and FAQs.

Straph wrote:
Multiple 5' steps over multiple rounds (no more than 1 per round as long as another movement isn't made). Hope that clears up what I meant.

Fair enough.

Straph wrote:
The only way to use weapons with IUS is during flurry of blows.

Where do you get that?

I directly quoted the FAQ (and provided a link to it) that says a guy with a longsword and a mace can make attacks with each one at no penalty as long as he doesn't make EXTRA attacks. So he drops his mace and has a longsword and a fist. How is the rule any different?

It's not. He still has two weapons, his longsword and his fist. The FAQ still applies; he can fight with both of them.

Note that he doesn't even need IUS to fight with both of them, though without it, he provokes when he attacks with his fist and without it he cannot threaten with his fist so no AoOs with the fist.

Straph wrote:
So most of your argument is invalid.

Based on what? Based only on your premise that "the only way to use weapons with IUS is with flurry of blows." But your premise is completely wrong. Get over it. Read the FAQs I linked, especially the third one.

Straph wrote:
At least unless you wanted to take some nice massive penalties. You know two AOO, and the negatives from two weapon fighting if you use a weapon/knee/kick. If you aren't a monk, or have IUS, TWF, and FOB.

Again, you NEED TO ACTUALLY READ THE FAQs I LINKED.

You explicitly do NOT need to take TWF penalties to wield two weapons - READ THE FAQ.

You won't take any AoOs if you have IUS. You won't take any attack penalties if you're not using TWF to gain an extra attack. So no penalties at all. Even if you DID use TWF to make an extra attack and applied your penalties, those penalties end when your turn ends and don't apply to your AoOs.

Which means, if I'm armed with a reach weapon and also armed with a non-reach weapon (which includes IUS, gauntlets, boot blades, etc.), then I can absolutely use my reach weapon to attack (not even TWF, just attacking). If I want to make some of my ordinary number of attacks with my other armed weapon, I can do so with no penalties, or I can TWF to get an extra attack but I have to take penalties on all attacks if I do this. And because I'm armed with a reach weapon and a non-reach weapon, I threaten at both ranges.

Straph wrote:
I'd rather leave the actual ruling to a dev since they can errata or not anything they want without a house rule.

Good luck. They're busy working on new stuff to sell for profit to keep their company solvent and to keep Pathfinder a great game with constant new material. You know, developing new stuff (it's why they're called "devs" after all).

Too busy, in fact, to come to this thread and answer a question that they've already answered before.

Which is a good thing.

So open your mind; lots of people in this thread have given you the answer you seek but you seem to NOT want to hear it. I've directly quoted and linked DEV answers for you and you haven't read them.

You really do have your answer already.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Straph wrote:

I just view the rules differently than most looking at them logically from the standpoint of it doesn't say you can so you can't. ...

It does say in IUS that you can hold something in your hands and still use IUS. It doesn't say that you can use, or be armed with those items in the hands.

Other things that IUS doesn't say you can do and still use IUS:

Wear armor
Be prone
Fight defensively
Charge
Full-attack
Use combat maneuvers
Be shaken, dazzled, sickened, or fatigued

You say that you look at the rules logically. Logically, if "IUS doesn't say you can benefit from it while doing X, so you can't" is true, then it's true for any value of X. If it's not true for every value of X, then your statement isn't true and must be amended or discarded.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Well, it doesn't say I can use unarmed strikes, and wear clothing, so I guess I can't.


Jiggy wrote:
Straph wrote:

I just view the rules differently than most looking at them logically from the standpoint of it doesn't say you can so you can't. ...

It does say in IUS that you can hold something in your hands and still use IUS. It doesn't say that you can use, or be armed with those items in the hands.

Other things that IUS doesn't say you can do and still use IUS:

Wear armor
Be prone
Fight defensively
Charge
Full-attack
Use combat maneuvers
Be shaken, dazzled, sickened, or fatigued

You say that you look at the rules logically. Logically, if "IUS doesn't say you can benefit from it while doing X, so you can't" is true, then it's true for any value of X. If it's not true for every value of X, then your statement isn't true and must be amended or discarded.

Or speaking, or seeing, or hearing, or breathing.

So maybe using IUS means you must also be deaf, dumb, and blind, and suffocating.

Dang.

They really should have made the IUS rules much more clear - who wants to become handicapped - and suffocate - just to use this feat?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Straph wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
It looks like team yes.. and straph. Thats not usually sides.

Just because many people agree something is right, is not an indication of being correct.

500 years ago team yes thought the world was flat.

Today the majority of people think global warming isn't a thing, however they are not correct.

Yes I'm on my own side. Still makes it two sides.

There is a difference between a 'following the crowd' group saying something, and a group of people who are well educated on a subject telling you something. In this instance you are getting feedback from a group that is well educated on the subject telling you how it works.

The regular posters on the rules forums are well versed in the rules. We have our disagreements about certain aspects and nuances, but when the collective group tells you you've got it wrong, 99.9% chance you've got it wrong (and I only say 99.9 instead of 100 because none of them are the actual game designers, so there is a theoretical chance that collectively the rules have been misunderstood by the overwhelming majority for this issue).

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Straph, you seem to be fixed on the idea that someone can only be "armed" with one weapon unless they are using TWF or flurry of blows.

That's not true. There's no rule that says it, and really none that even imply it.

You are "armed" with as many weapons as you are carrying, as long as you're carrying them in ways that lets you use them. Unarmed strikes are, obviously, "carried" in this fashion, but they are not the only ones that you can be armed with while your hands are full with a weapon. Natural attacks, weapons that don't use hands (armor spikes, Chelish bearded devil weirdness, dwarven boulder helmets), and so on all qualify.


Komoda wrote:
Straph wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

I mean, you do realize that two-weapon fighting, and the two-weapon fighting feat, have no effect on what one can, and cannot wield?

Yes I realize this. I'm just wondering if Paizo intended this with IUS as it would seem monks/brawler are the only class able to threaten both 10' and 5' squares during the same turn.

Why would you say that? Anyone and everyone with Improved Unarmed Strike OR Armor Spikes OR a natural weapon OR a Beard Blade thing, OR a Tail weapon OR a Boot Blade OR any other number of weapons AND a reach weapon threatens at both 5' and 10'.

Any weapon that is ready to fight with "wielded" so to speak, threatens. One person is only limited by the number of weapons they can attache to themselves in the proper manner. For normal, CRB races, this usually includes one in each hand OR both hands combined, one armor spikes, one beard weapon, one helmet weapon and two boot blades as well unlimited amount associated with Improved Unarmed Strike, which again, anyone can take.

Another important point that you might not realize is that fighting with two weapons does not have to be "Two Weapon Fighting. It is only "Two Weapon Fighting" if you gain extra attacks because of it.

Interesting point with the tail weapon. There are I'm sure many ways to get both 10' and 5' squares threatened in the same round using monster rules, or some other not normal means available to custom builds using races not normally played.

However that takes a feat to accomplish and a tail. It's also a natural weapon. Which means at 1st level you still wouldn't be able to accomplish what I'm asking unless a monk/brawler with combat reflexes.

To be specific we are talking about 1st level monk/brawler holding a two handed-weapon and using IUS to accomplish this threatening of 10' and 5' in the same turn when multiple enemies get up from being tripped provoking AOO on each one at different ranges. Using combat reflexes to gain more than 1 AOO.

Those are some nice weapons that have interesting applications. Though not what we are talking about at all. I apologize for the lack of being specific enough for you without you having to go back and read some of the previous posts.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Actually, any PC, with a Longspear, and the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, can threaten at 10' and 5'.


bbangerter wrote:

The regular posters on the rules forums are well versed in the rules. We have our disagreements about certain aspects and nuances, but when the collective group tells you you've got it wrong, 99.9% chance you've got it wrong (and I only say 99.9 instead of 100 because none of them are the actual game designers, so there is a theoretical chance that collectively the rules have been misunderstood by the overwhelming majority for this issue).

The last time i saw this much agreement between posters was on flurry of blows and the 10 foot squares for reach so.... :)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Well, that and the "3 free actions" debacle.


Straph wrote:
Komoda wrote:
Straph wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

I mean, you do realize that two-weapon fighting, and the two-weapon fighting feat, have no effect on what one can, and cannot wield?

Yes I realize this. I'm just wondering if Paizo intended this with IUS as it would seem monks/brawler are the only class able to threaten both 10' and 5' squares during the same turn.

Why would you say that? Anyone and everyone with Improved Unarmed Strike OR Armor Spikes OR a natural weapon OR a Beard Blade thing, OR a Tail weapon OR a Boot Blade OR any other number of weapons AND a reach weapon threatens at both 5' and 10'.

Any weapon that is ready to fight with "wielded" so to speak, threatens. One person is only limited by the number of weapons they can attache to themselves in the proper manner. For normal, CRB races, this usually includes one in each hand OR both hands combined, one armor spikes, one beard weapon, one helmet weapon and two boot blades as well unlimited amount associated with Improved Unarmed Strike, which again, anyone can take.

Another important point that you might not realize is that fighting with two weapons does not have to be "Two Weapon Fighting. It is only "Two Weapon Fighting" if you gain extra attacks because of it.

Interesting point with the tail weapon. There are I'm sure many ways to get both 10' and 5' squares threatened in the same round using monster rules, or some other not normal means available to custom builds using races not normally played.

However that takes a feat to accomplish and a tail. It's also a natural weapon. Which means at 1st level you still wouldn't be able to accomplish what I'm asking unless a monk/brawler with combat reflexes.

To be specific we are talking about 1st level monk/brawler holding a two handed-weapon and using IUS to accomplish this threatening of 10' and 5' in the same turn when multiple enemies get up from being tripped provoking AOO on each one at different ranges. Using combat...

I know what the specific OP question was. I was trying to point out that it works the same way with all these other weapons. 5' a 10' threatening is not something special to the monk/brawler. And you can't just stay in the CRB and have Brawler. I think it is the APG that gives the Half-Orc Toothy.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

A 1st Level Commoner, can have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, and threaten 10' and 5', with a Longspear and unarmed strike.


Agreed.


bbangerter wrote:
Straph wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
It looks like team yes.. and straph. Thats not usually sides.

Just because many people agree something is right, is not an indication of being correct.

500 years ago team yes thought the world was flat.

Today the majority of people think global warming isn't a thing, however they are not correct.

Yes I'm on my own side. Still makes it two sides.

There is a difference between a 'following the crowd' group saying something, and a group of people who are well educated on a subject telling you something. In this instance you are getting feedback from a group that is well educated on the subject telling you how it works.

The regular posters on the rules forums are well versed in the rules. We have our disagreements about certain aspects and nuances, but when the collective group tells you you've got it wrong, 99.9% chance you've got it wrong (and I only say 99.9 instead of 100 because none of them are the actual game designers, so there is a theoretical chance that collectively the rules have been misunderstood by the overwhelming majority for this issue).

"Concepts which have proved useful for ordering things easily assume so great an authority over us, that we forget their terrestrial origin and accept them as unalterable facts. They then become labeled as 'conceptual necessities,' etc. The road of scientific progress is frequently blocked for long periods by such errors." Einstein

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

So, what to you, is the difference between threatening with two daggers, and threatening with a Longspear, and an unarmed Strike?

Grand Lodge

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Wait.

Is this an April Fool's joke?

Silver Crusade

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Wait.

Is this an April Fool's joke?

Probably. See post #39. Something about a Paizo Law Of Arguments.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Curious to hear a response to my earlier post. Hope it didn't get missed.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I feel that ignoring evidence, that does not support one's view, is a key part of the confusion here.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Wait.

Is this an April Fool's joke?

I f%++ing hate this day so f**&ing much. Who decided a day that gives random people the impetus to be giant jerkwads was a good idea?

Liberty's Edge

Straph wrote:

It does say in IUS that you can hold something in your hands and still use IUS. It doesn't say that you can use, or be armed with those items in the hands.

This rule specifically works around that concept of it doesn't say you can't. Even though technically you can't wield both weapons without a feat (multiweapon fighting), and multiple arms.

My misunderstanding of the 5 foot step also makes the above less broken. As you can't continually trip them after taking multiple 5 foot steps each round with a full attack. So it balances slightly better than I thought. Thus I agree that you could do it. As it isn't as broken as I thought it was.

You clearly don't understand the rules regarding AOO if you're still arguing this. IUS does several things for a character: namely, the ability to deal lethal damage with unarmed attacks and to be considered armed when not holding a weapon. The feat (or monk/brawler class ability) does not convey the ability to perform an unarmed strike while holding items in both hands. Anybody can do so, but the damage will be non-lethal without the feat or class ability. Your fighter can always opt to kick something rather than swinging his greatsword at it in combat, but it's such an inferior option that why would you ever do it? Okay so far?

Now, all the commentary about flurry of blows has no bearing on AOO whatsoever. FOB is a full-round action, and therefore has nothing to do with AOO, which is a free action in response to an enemy moving through a square that you threaten.

Similarly, TWF has no bearing, because it simply lessens the penalties of attacking with weapons in both hands. It does not convey the ability to do this, it simply makes it easier by lessening the penalties on attack rolls. Again, just as with unarmed strikes, anybody can do this without the feat. Multiweapon fighting goes even a step beyond this, because you need three or more arms to even take the feat. Similar to two-weapon fighting, it makes it easier for a character to attack with multiple weapons, but they can still do it without the feat! If you're holding a weapon that you can potentially swing, even if you're not proficient or it's an improvised weapon, you are still wielding it!

It's ridiculous to assert that if a monk is holding a weapon or weapons, they are not considered to be "armed" with them. That's exactly the opposite of how it works. It's actually part of what makes playing a monk versus creatures with different types of damage-typed DR so great. You can be wielding a pair of slashing or piercing monk weapons (which incidentally, the only thing that the monk special does on a weapon is let you use FOB with it, which as stated above when I was talking about FOB, has nothing at all to do with AOO) and still do bludgeoning damage instead by using kicks or elbow strikes (or even headbutts if that's what you want to use for flavor) with IUS.

Now, getting to the point of all of this: the reason that IUS lets you threaten adjacent squares is that you're considered armed with your unarmed strikes (while those without the feat/class feature are not). Therefore, you can threaten with unarmed strikes. A fighter holding a reach weapon only threatens the squares that are at the reach distance (say 10' for a medium-sized fighter), but not the adjacent (5' away) squares, because while he can still kick or otherwise attack with an unarmed strike, he's not considered armed while using them and therefore does not threaten with them. However, with IUS or the class feature equivalents, you do threaten with unarmed attacks, and therefore you would still threaten adjacent squares, regardless of whatever the monk is wielding any weapons or not. I don't think this is the point that's been disputed. However, if the monk is wielding a reach weapon, he still threatens those adjacent squares in addition to the squares he can attack with the reach weapon. He's obviously wielding the reach weapon, and therefore threatening with it, and he's always wielding unarmed strike by definition. He can't not be considered armed with his unarmed attacks, and he can always use them.

I don't get how this could ever be considered broken, because AOO is a single attack free action that you can only do a limited number of times per turn. You can't move during it, you can't do anything but make a single attack. This just makes it more difficult for an enemy to close in on a monk to attack it, because it can always use the withdraw action to take no AOOs. Please, please, please explain to me why an increased threatened area on a monk is broken? Large creatures with reach have the exact same threatened area!

I'm going to stop now before my head explodes...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Is the argument here "monks can't threaten at 5' and 10', because it might make them good."?


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Wait.

Is this an April Fool's joke?

*beep*

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I believe the argument is "no one can threaten at 5' and 10', because I don't like it".

Liberty's Edge

Straph wrote:
The only way to use weapons with IUS is during flurry of blows. So most of your argument is invalid. At least unless you wanted to take some nice massive penalties. You know two AOO, and the negatives from two weapon fighting if you use a weapon/knee/kick. If you aren't a monk, or have IUS, TWF, and FOB.

This is exactly where you're completely coming from the wrong direction. Where does the idea that you can only use weapons attacks and unarmed strikes together using flurry come from? Frankly, it's ridiculous. Any character can do it, but you would provoke attacks of opportunity if they use unarmed strikes during a full attack without having the improved unarmed strike feat.

In fact, a monk doesn't even have to use flurry to use a weapon and an unarmed strike. It still falls under the two-weapon fighting rules, so your premise that his argument is invalid is invalid.

And why in the heck would you take two-weapon fighting penalties on an attack of opportunity? It's a single attack action. You can't use two weapons on it, so you will never take that type of penalty on those attacks. Each AOO is a separate action that lets you make a single attack with any weapon you are currently wielding (including unarmed strikes). You've got a very flawed understanding of the AOO rules. You are literally not using anything but the weapon you're attack with, so this idea of "you can't do that because you're also using another weapon" doesn't hold water anyway.


Yeah, I was going to post the April Fools thing, but then I read the second page of posts and saw that Blackbloodtroll beat me....with both his 5 and 10 foot reach....


Straph wrote:


"Concepts which have proved useful for ordering things easily assume so great an authority over us, that we forget their terrestrial origin and accept them as unalterable facts. They then become labeled as 'conceptual necessities,' etc. The road of scientific progress is frequently blocked for long periods by such errors." Einstein

This is an interesting quote when applied to understanding the universe.

However, it really doesn't apply to a very finite system, or more specifically to a handful of well understood rules in that very finite system.

If you want to still insist the world is flat though, be my guest. We can show you the facts that the world is indeed not flat, but we can't make you accept them :)


Straph wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

I mean, you do realize that two-weapon fighting, and the two-weapon fighting feat, have no effect on what one can, and cannot wield?

Yes I realize this. I'm just wondering if Paizo intended this with IUS as it would seem monks/brawler are the only class able to threaten both 10' and 5' squares during the same turn.

#EnlargePerson

#Lunge
#NaturalAttacks


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Wait.

Is this an April Fool's joke?

Yes, it was. You caught on the fastest, and even before It was April fools. Guess it was only right you picked up on the fact that it was April fools.

I apologize for any confusion or heartache I caused to get this internet prank going. It was worth the time and effort. Remember to not take things so seriously folks after all April fools could be right around the corner.

Thanks for all your patient replies and dedication to this forum and to those whom actually don't know the rules, and need honest opinions on things they truly don't understand.

Best forum ever~

Dark Archive

Straph wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Wait.

Is this an April Fool's joke?

Yes, it was. You caught on the fastest, and even before It was April fools. Guess it was only right you picked up on the fact that it was April fools.

I apologize for any confusion or heartache I caused to get this internet prank going. It was worth the time and effort. Remember to not take things so seriously folks after all April fools could be right around the corner.

Thanks for all your patient replies and dedication to this forum and to those whom actually don't know the rules, and need honest opinions on things they truly don't understand.

Best forum ever~

Adding sarcasm to "the rules don't work the way they work because I say so" is not going to make your argument any less incorrect. The reason it was assume that this is an April Fool's/troll thread is because you are actively going out of your way to deny solid proof and instead cling to a misinformed and incorrect supposition.

Grand Lodge

Straph wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Wait.

Is this an April Fool's joke?

Yes, it was. You caught on the fastest, and even before It was April fools. Guess it was only right you picked up on the fact that it was April fools.

I apologize for any confusion or heartache I caused to get this internet prank going. It was worth the time and effort. Remember to not take things so seriously folks after all April fools could be right around the corner.

Thanks for all your patient replies and dedication to this forum and to those whom actually don't know the rules, and need honest opinions on things they truly don't understand.

Best forum ever~

Starting such a "joke" three days before April Fools makes it a really, really bad one. It already was a bad "joke", but that takes it down even further.

It also makes some people, such as myself, believe that it was never intended to be a joke, you're just now backpedaling and claiming it was one all along, despite it having been 100% serious on your part.


Seranov wrote:
Straph wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Wait.

Is this an April Fool's joke?

Yes, it was. You caught on the fastest, and even before It was April fools. Guess it was only right you picked up on the fact that it was April fools.

I apologize for any confusion or heartache I caused to get this internet prank going. It was worth the time and effort. Remember to not take things so seriously folks after all April fools could be right around the corner.

Thanks for all your patient replies and dedication to this forum and to those whom actually don't know the rules, and need honest opinions on things they truly don't understand.

Best forum ever~

Adding sarcasm to "the rules don't work the way they work because I say so" is not going to make your argument any less incorrect. The reason it was assume that this is an April Fool's/troll thread is because you are actively going out of your way to deny solid proof and instead cling to a misinformed and incorrect supposition.

You want me to say you were right? Okay you are right, as is the OP. Duh. Jeez man chill it was a joke.

Dark Archive

...Wait, you're serious? That's even worse. I can only hope nobody who actually is curious about this finds this thread and gets confused.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Someone please delete this thread...

51 to 100 of 127 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Do you threaten at both 5' and 10' when using a reach weapon with a Brawler / Monk? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.