Dunno where the text of the original post is, but yes a brawler can either perform a flurry using shield bashes (a shield is a close weapon) or using another weapon while a shield is wielded in the other. This is clear from the text of brawler's flurry I believe.
Yup, this is fine.
As long as you don't have any Brawler archetypes that modify the "close" weapons or brawler's flurry, then you're all good :)
The intention is likely for you to always take penalties as if the offhand weapon is light. But there’s nothing official about it. But you could just as easily argue that you take penalties as a non-light weapon or that you don’t take any penalties at all.
The main problem is that mainhand and offhand aren't really defined things. According to this FAQ, there is no dedicated off-hand until you use the TWF option to make an additional attack.
Since you don't gain any attacks using two weapons over what you could do with just one weapon, there should be no such thing as an off-hand attack while using Brawler's Flurry.
That should mean you can always designate unarmed strike as your off-hand (for the penalty), and use any allowed weapons in any combination you like.
OK, the actual main problem is that 'TWF with no "need to use two different weapons"' is an oxymoron, and the rules thus can't actually handle it.
It normally doesn't matter whether you count it as an off-hand weapon since you behave as though you have the two-weapon fighting feat (making the penalties the same for either hand) and since you always apply 1x your Strength modifier regardless of hand usage. Is there a reason that it matters for your case?
Edit: With regards to it counting as a light weapon, why would a heavy shield count as a light weapon in the first place? Heavy shields are one-handed weapons.
I’m pretty sure we’re talking about what penalties you take for two weapon fighting with the brawlers flurry: penalties for a non-light offhand, penalties for a light offhand, or no penalties at all.
If you're using Brawler's Flurry to make all attacks with one weapon, then there is no 'offhand' weapon. An offhand weapon is defined by being a second weapon you're wielding to gain extra attacks.
Original Monks use Flurry "as if using Two-Weapon Fighting", but I've never seen anyone suggest that a Monk takes a -4 if their flurry involves a non-light weapon. I don't see why Brawler would operate any differently.
Original monks have a table telling you what their penalties are. The brawler did not.
Original monks have a table telling you what their penalties are.
The Monk table is based on the fact that Flurry of Blows states "...taking a -2 penalty, as if using Two-Weapon Fighting Feat". Which is actually very screwed up, since technically you should have a -4 from TWF by default - typically a Monk doesn't even have an offhand weapon, let alone a light one.
Brawler's Flurry is also screwed up, since the text seems to think Two-Weapon Fighting gives you the extra attack. And technically, without an offhand to even be light, Brawler's Flurry should be all -4s.
So... people have to use their judgement.
Yeah, abilities like these make me think that they must be written on drugs. I mean, how could anyone ever have thought it was a good idea to use the rules for two weapons for something that only needs one weapon? We should consider ourselfes lucky Haste doesn't try to use TWF rules as well...
Let's do this step-by-step.
It already starts problematic, there are two different routes that I can see:
a) The "[the Brawler] does not need to use two different weapons to use this ability." line in Brawler's Flurry (BF) removes everything from the above extract except "you can get one extra attack per round".
b) That line in BF adds an exception, i.e. 'you do not need to wield two weapons, and can use your main hand weapon to make off-hand attacks'.
a) Default penalty -6, an off-hand penalty won't be relevant.
b) Just normal penalties.
For a), this is the problematic part - we actually need an off-hand to reduce the penalty, but an off-hand only exists when we use it to gain additional attacks over what we could make with just one weapon, which we can't since BF allows us to make the bonus attack(s) with the main weapon.
For b), this means the penalty depends on the MH weapon type.
We have the feat while using BF, so guaranteed reduced penalties.
Result:
a) With no actual way to make off-hand attacks, the default penalty modified by the feat applies, i.e. -4.
b) Penalty depends on the weapon, i.e. we really want a light weapon.
Huh. Not what I expected to find, nor what I think is intended. How ever did BF get through the playtest this way?
Original Monks use Flurry "as if using Two-Weapon Fighting", but I've never seen anyone suggest that a Monk takes a -4 if their flurry involves a non-light weapon. I don't see why Brawler would operate any differently.
That's because Flurry of Blows does not actually use the TWF rules: "When doing so, [a monk] may make one additional attack, taking a –2 penalty on all of his attack rolls, as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat." 'As if' being the important part. Oh, and, of course, the penalty is explicitly stated. Yes, the above quoted sentence should have an added "with a light off-hand weapon", but the stated penalty is more specific and thus overrides the more general TWF rules. Brawler's Flurry doesn't mention a penalty at all, which means the TWF rules are used for it.
Or alternatively.
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand... You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way.
The brawler isn’t fighting with a second weapon and thus isn’t fighting “this way” and not taking any penalty.
The ability text is really messed up. It’s one of those things that just doesn’t work RAW. So, we should play it how it is intended to work.
Although, giving the brawler a no-penalty flurry would be a welcomed decision. The class already suffers from being a full BAB class that does not have a built in method of improving its attack. I’m not sure why we ever got a class that would be flurry of misses 2.0.
It works fine. There's no off-hand, ergo there's no off-hand penalty.
|
Thanks for all your answers!
I know it depends on the GM, but just to clear it up a bit - Does this mean two-weapon fighting with one weapon and possible a shield in the other hand (not used with Brawlers flurry) with no penalty from the shield with just a one level dip?
And depending on how you read it two weapon fighting with a penalty of 0 to -4?
I’d say flurrying with a weapon while using a shield is 100% ok and will remain that way. As for what the penalties might be for that, we can’t say, but it will probably be the same as the monk takes.
It works fine. There's no off-hand, ergo there's no off-hand penalty.
Something I've missed to consider in my above post, Improved and Greater TWF only grant an additional attack with the off-hand weapon, meaning if there really is no off-hand, Brawler's Flurry could never grant more than one additional attack, as it only grants use of the respective feats.
As no one can tell me that that's the correct reading, the only remaining explanation is that there is an off-hand, but that you can use your main-hand as that off-hand weapon - otherwise, the "[the brawler] does not need to use two different weapons to use this ability." line in Brawler's Flurry would be untrue.
Improved and greater would still be affected by the flurry text, as they are also part of the flurry.
“She does not need to use two different weapons to use this ability.
A brawler applies her full Strength modifier to her damage rolls for all attacks made with brawler’s flurry, whether the attacks are made with an off-hand weapon or a weapon wielded in both hands.”
It works fine. There's no off-hand, ergo there's no off-hand penalty.Something I've missed to consider in my above post, Improved and Greater TWF only grant an additional attack with the off-hand weapon, meaning if there really is no off-hand, Brawler's Flurry could never grant more than one additional attack, as it only grants use of the respective feats.
As no one can tell me that that's the correct reading, the only remaining explanation is that there is an off-hand, but that you can use your main-hand as that off-hand weapon - otherwise, the "[the brawler] does not need to use two different weapons to use this ability." line in Brawler's Flurry would be untrue.
Brawler's flurry specifically overrides that requirement. Unless one wants to read brawler's flurry as "you can flurry with just one weapon, but it doesn't do anything"...?
Brawler's flurry specifically overrides that requirement. Unless one wants to read brawler's flurry as "you can flurry with just one weapon, but it doesn't do anything"...?It works fine. There's no off-hand, ergo there's no off-hand penalty.Something I've missed to consider in my above post, Improved and Greater TWF only grant an additional attack with the off-hand weapon, meaning if there really is no off-hand, Brawler's Flurry could never grant more than one additional attack, as it only grants use of the respective feats.
As no one can tell me that that's the correct reading, the only remaining explanation is that there is an off-hand, but that you can use your main-hand as that off-hand weapon - otherwise, the "[the brawler] does not need to use two different weapons to use this ability." line in Brawler's Flurry would be untrue.
People who make arguments like that give me indigestion. Please don't...