|
Looking at the Free Hand Fighter archetype and the Snapping Turtle Style Feat.
Does an Unarmed Strike qualify as a "free hand" in the case of either of the above?
Furthermore, does an Improved Unarmed Strike qualify as a melee weapon for the Free Hand Fighter? Like, if one hand is fighting and the other is "free" do I qualify as being equipped with a melee weapon and a free hand?
|
|
An unarmed strike is any attack without weapons. It is not limited to a punch with your fist. The combat chapter lists punches, kicks, and head-butts. You do not need to be a monk to kick someone.
I got that bit, I'm just unclear on the "free hand" concept. It isn't actually defined very well in either description.
In particular, if have a melee weapon (like a knife) in one hand and my hand is empty (unarmed strike), Can I attack with the empty hand and still retain the bonus for being free hand + melee weapon?
What I'm looking into, is if I can have a fighter PC that specializes in alternating between unarmed strike and a one-handed melee weapon. I'm trying to figure out if the unarmed strike can be a free hand while it attacks, as the improved unarmed strike makes it pretty clear that any body part becomes a weapon.
no, if you attack with your free hand it's no longer free.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Free hand" is a vague concept. The closest thing to a definition is this:
You must have at least one hand free (holding nothing) to use this feat.
This interpretation has been confirmed by SKR on the forums while he was still employed, but not as an official FAQ answer.
However, there seems to be two ideas about what a "free hand" is: Either a hand holding nothing, or a hand doing nothing. For the defensive, off-turn abilities, "a hand holding nothing" seems to be the intent, whereas the Singleton archetype ability or Dervish Dance seem to have meant "a hand doing nothing", but failed to write that.
Paizo has tried to move away from even using the "free hand" concept in later books, but it's still not solved. For example, Slashing Grace needed new rules for the FAQ that were in no way stated in the feat.
Suggested solution: While making an unarmed attack, your main hand is considered to be "holding a weapon". If you make an unarmed attack as an off-hand attack, or as part of a Flurry of Blows or similar ability, your off-hand is considered to be holding a weapon. This applies regardless of what you're actually holding, and regardless of which body part is actually making the attack. It applies from the beginning of your action until the end. It also applies to natural attacks made with slams, claws or anything else assigned to a hand.
Free hand=holding nothing.
You can attack with it and still have it count as 'free'.
|
|
no, if you attack with your free hand it's no longer free.
Casual Viking get's it, the concept is vague.
Though actually, when thinking further about it, the answer to my particular dilemma has an easy solution. Improved Unarmed strike does not require the use of "hands" while the free hand does require the "hands" to be free.
So I could have a melee weapon and an empty hand, then kick/elbow/knee/headbash for my unarmed strikes. Or better yet, I could take that Dwarven helmet weapon, and have two free hands....
Doesn't answer the "free hand" vagueness, but it's a working answer for my issue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If attacking makes your hand 'not free' somehow, then simply declare all of your unarmed attacks to be kicks and headbutts. Problem solved.
Also, slap your GM, cause that would be stupid.
While not a brawler, his open hand is as much a weapon as a bow or blade.
So.. yes. The entire point is to use that free hand as a weapon
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you need a free hand while attack then attacking with your hand makes it not free.
If you need a free hand outside your turn then attacking during your turn doesn't effect the status of free.
Take a look at Slashing Grace for an idea on what free hand is actually meant to be. That was the original wording, then they errated it to be more clear. That's clearly the RAI with free hand fighter as well. The archetype is designed for using a single one-handed weapon, not TWFing with IUS as a work around to the RAW restrictions.
I don't see a raw or RAI restriction around using a weapon and punching, that in fact seems to be the entire point of the archtype.
I don't see a raw or RAI restriction around using a weapon and punching, that in fact seems to be the entire point of the archtype.
Take a look at Slashing Grace for an idea on what free hand is actually meant to be. That was the original wording, then they errated it to be more clear. That's clearly the RAI with free hand fighter as well. The archetype is designed for using a single one-handed weapon, not TWFing with IUS as a work around to the RAW restrictions.
"While not a brawler, his open hand is as much a weapon as a bow or blade."
Quoted straight from the archetype.
I gotta side with BNW on this one, nothing in that archetype even vaguely implies that you CANNOT use that hand, but it DOES say that you CAN. :D
|
|
The "free hand" is intended to be used with the move action Combat maneuvers the archetype provides. The archetype is not intended for TWFing with a non-hand wielded weapon. The design team has been fairly consistent about closing these kind of loop holes, and I wouldn't expect this one to be any different. I mean, its an absolutely horrible archetype, but that doesn't change the intent.
I love it when you say something's horrible, but you also have an odd interpretation of that thing that makes it worse than it really is.
And no, I'm not suggesting dual wielding. I agree, it's pretty clear the then intent is not dual wielding.
They did a bad job of describing it, and the concept is hard to describe within the pathfinder rules, but the intent is a fighting style where you have are attacking with only one hand's worth of weapons, and your secondary hand's worth of weapons is dedicated to parrying without an actual shield.
Really, it's 1hander archetype, as opposed to the 2hander archetype, the 2x1hander archetype, and the shield+1hander archetype. It's a matter of game mechanics, as the core game gives no benefit for playing as a lonely 1hander.
What I'm trying to do, is to to strike with the free hand, instead of the melee weapon. It's still 1hander in function, as I'm only attacking with a single hand's worth of weapon, and I still have an open hand and a hand holding a melee weapon.
As opposed to using two hands to wield 1 weapon, or attacking with two weapons at once.