I have a player for an upcoming table building a bloodrager. They want to use a glaive for when not in rage, but for when they are their draconic bloodline kicks in and they wanna use their claws (and I think they're aiming Dragon Disciple, so there's gonna be a bit in there too methinks).
So he asked me if there were any feats that let you use a polearm one handed in conjunction with claws (clearly I think the combat style they have in mind, based on Impa or Ganondorf from Hyrule Warriors) and barring that what the action economy was like for a character to not be dropping their weapon, but be using their natural attacks.
mm, polearm onehanded, theres a dex based one handed polearm feat, let me find it.
there we go, bladed brush.
Quote: You know how to balance a polearm perfectly, striking with artful, yet deadly precision.
Prerequisite(s): Weapon Focus (glaive), must be a worshiper of the associated deity.
Benefit(s): You can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with a glaive sized for you, even though it isn’t a light weapon. When wielding a glaive, you can treat it as a one-handed piercing or slashing melee weapon and as if you were not making attacks with your off-hand for all feats and class abilities that require such a weapon (such as a duelist’s or swashbuckler’s precise strike).
As a move action, you can shorten your grip on the glaive, treating it as though it lacked the reach weapon property. You can adjust your grip to grant the weapon the reach property as a move action.
won't let you use two claws, really, unless you as the gm allow some sort of weapon juggling, but you'd be able to strike with a claw and the glaive. it also requires worshipping Shelyn, which you wont find on the pfsrd page.
Hope that helps!
edit: technically, you dont actually have to use weapon finesse with it. you CAN, but since he's a bloodrager, he probably won't want to. it would be an option, if he went urban bloodrager, but that's it.
Weapon trick (polearm) works too IIRC.
Dropping the pole is a free action. As long as he rages until the end of the fight, what else matters?
Both Bladed Brush and Polearm trick don't actually work.
Bladed Brush treats it as, but the second hand isn't actually free.
Polearm Trick has a caviat that they can't make attacks with the offhand at all while using the trick in question.
As for Java, they still want to partially use the glaive while raged. Likely for full attacking with Glaive + Glaive/Claw/Bite when they hit level 10 and get iterative off thrir BAB. As well, gaining a prestige class they're going to only have about 15 rounds of rage total ever available without feat supplements. I think he's also concerned about Cleave with the glaive being a reach weapon.
Java Man wrote: Dropping the pole is a free action. As long as he rages until the end of the fight, what else matters? As I understand it, he doesn't need to drop the polearm at all, and he doesn't need to do anything special. Removing one hand from a 2 handed weapon is Free Action. The example I found in the rules was of a Wizard removing one hand from his staff to cast a Spell.
If the Character intends to make Reach Attacks with his Lucerne Hammer and make Claw Attacks against adjacent targets, and not do both with the same Full Attack Action, the rules say there is no problem, no penalties.
If the character intends to do both in the same Full Attack Action, he can do that, too, but combining regular attacks with Natural Weapon Attacks downgrades the Claw Attacks to Secondary: -5 to attack and only 1/2 the St Mod to Damage.
Technically I think they could do it (polearm+claw) by taking three levels of Phalanx Soldier (fighter archetype) and also having a buckler. But: three levels, eek, and also an extra -1 to hit from the buckler. It's a lot easier just to drop the glaive and start clawing people.
A familiar or an Unseen Servant could pick the glaive up without the PC having to spend actions.
Failing that, holding onto the glaive with one hand (and not attacking) leaves them with a full attack of one claw plus any other (non-claw) natural attacks they've got going on (and when they have to use a standard action attack the glaive is available). Sadly the bloodrager doesn't seem to get Alter Self, but there's a magic helmet with a gore attack. I suppose they could also go for a full round routine of armour spikes or improved unarmed strike as a primary attack, with the claw and other natural attacks as secondaries. Honestly though it really seems like the arithmetic would favour dropping the glaive and getting a full natural claw-claw-bite-whatever on.
I seem to recall you could get a one-handed reach weapon by using a two-handed weapon sized for a creature smaller than you: In this case, a small sized Glaive is treated as a two-handed weapon by a halfling or gnome but as a one-handed weapon by a human or other medium sized creature and still has the reach property.
Whether or not this was 'too cheesy' was always a point of contention, and the attack penalties are a bit painful (-2 for the undersized weapon, -2 for dual wielding).
I don't know if this was every clearly stated as being a valid option or not.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Scott Wilhelm wrote: Java Man wrote: Dropping the pole is a free action. As long as he rages until the end of the fight, what else matters? As I understand it, he doesn't need to drop the polearm at all, and he doesn't need to do anything special. Removing one hand from a 2 handed weapon is Free Action. The example I found in the rules was of a Wizard removing one hand from his staff to cast a Spell.
If the Character intends to make Reach Attacks with his Lucerne Hammer and make Claw Attacks against adjacent targets, and not do both with the same Full Attack Action, the rules say there is no problem, no penalties.
If the character intends to do both in the same Full Attack Action, he can do that, too, but combining regular attacks with Natural Weapon Attacks downgrades the Claw Attacks to Secondary: -5 to attack and only 1/2 the St Mod to Damage. Yeah, see this is where most of the arguement and confusion is coming in. That free action, which is why I'm hunting (any) alternatives.
Essentially from everything I know about the rules, yes you could full attack or cleave with Glaive + Claws, however at the end of your turn you need to decide whether you're weilding the Glaive to threaten, or holding it 1-handed thus not weilding it and threatening with your claws.
Lucy_Valentine wrote: Technically I think they could do it (polearm+claw) by taking three levels of Phalanx Soldier (fighter archetype) and also having a buckler. He wouldn't have to settle for a Buckler with Phalanx Soldier. He could use a Light or Heavy Shield. But then he shouldn't use Claws as a close weapon. He should use Armor Spikes or Shield Bash. If he used a buckler, I would still not recommend Pike, Shield, and Claws.
Lucy_Valentine wrote: But: three levels, eek, and also an extra -1 to hit from the buckler. He could use the Shield Brace Feat. Cheaper, but with an extra Attack Penalty. Also, Pole Arm, Shield, and Claws, don't really go well together, as you were saying.
Lucy_Valentine wrote: It's a lot easier just to drop the glaive and start clawing people. By the way, I hinted at this before, but I should say it. I don't like Glaive. Unless the player has a special reason to use it, like it's his deity's favored weapon or something, there are better pole arms.
A Glaive does 1d10 Slashing and is a Reach Weapon. A Horsechopper is also a 1d10 Slashing Reach weapon, but it is also a Tripping Weapon. Everything you want in a Glaive and more.
I mentioned Lucerne Hammer earlier. It's also a Reach Pole Arm, but Leucerne Hammer is also a Brace Weapon. a Glaive does Slashing Damage, where a Lucerne Hammer gives you a choice between Blunt and Piercing. A Glaive does 1d10. A 'Hammer does 1d12. +1 Damage, 2 kinds of Damage instead of 1, and an extra tactical trick. Leucerne Hammers are comprehensively better than Glaives.
Lucy_Valentine wrote: Failing that, holding onto the glaive with one hand (and not attacking) leaves them with a full attack of one claw... Honestly though it really seems like the arithmetic would favour dropping the glaive and getting a full natural claw-claw-bite-whatever on. His character gets both Claw Attacks. Removing your hand from a 2 handed weapon is a Free Action. So he'd be essentially switching hands.
What kind of action is it to remove a hand from a 2 handed weapon?
Lucy_Valentine wrote: there's a magic helmet with a gore attack. I love Natural Attack Builds! I think the helmet you are thinking of is the Helm of the Mammoth Lord. The Animal Mask is cheaper, and it gives you a choice of Gore or Bite, but it has a duration and limited uses/day. He could also get a Ring of Ratfangs to get a bite Attack, and dip a level in White Haired Witch and get a Hair Attack. He could put on a Tentacle Cloak and get 2 Tentacle Attacks. I have a character build that calls for all that stuff. Mine is based on Warpriest using Sacred Weapon Damage instead of the regular damage. Also, mine doesn't use a Reach Pole Arm, but rather a longbow.
Lucy_Valentine wrote: I suppose they could also go for a full round routine of armour spikes or improved unarmed strike as a primary attack, with the claw and other natural attacks as secondaries. You could do that. The way I like to incorporate Armor Spike Damage with my Natural Attacks is with the Hamatula Strike Feat. When you wear Armor Spikes, any successful Grapple Attack has you inflicting Armor Spike Damage. Witch's White Hair Gives you a Free Grapple with every hit anyway. Hamatula Strike gives you a Free Grapple with every hit from a Piercing Weapon such as Gore or Bite. You take the Weapon Versatility Feat, and then your Claws can do Piercing Damage, too. Since this Armor Spike Damage is residual coming off of Free-Action Combat Maneuvers that come off of your Natural Attacks, they don't impose any of that Secondary-demotion--5 penalty stuff.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Isaac Zephyr wrote: Scott Wilhelm wrote: Java Man wrote: Dropping the pole is a free action. As long as he rages until the end of the fight, what else matters? As I understand it, he doesn't need to drop the polearm at all, and he doesn't need to do anything special. Removing one hand from a 2 handed weapon is Free Action. The example I found in the rules was of a Wizard removing one hand from his staff to cast a Spell.
If the Character intends to make Reach Attacks with his Lucerne Hammer and make Claw Attacks against adjacent targets, and not do both with the same Full Attack Action, the rules say there is no problem, no penalties.
If the character intends to do both in the same Full Attack Action, he can do that, too, but combining regular attacks with Natural Weapon Attacks downgrades the Claw Attacks to Secondary: -5 to attack and only 1/2 the St Mod to Damage. Yeah, see this is where most of the arguement and confusion is coming in. That free action, which is why I'm hunting (any) alternatives.
Essentially from everything I know about the rules, yes you could full attack or cleave with Glaive + Claws, however at the end of your turn you need to decide whether you're weilding the Glaive to threaten, or holding it 1-handed thus not weilding it and threatening with your claws. The description of Free Actions says they happen in your turn, but the convention within the rules and in practice is that Free Actions can also be made as part of other actions. For instance, if a Giant Octopus gets an Attack of Opportunity, it can also use it's Free Action Grapple granted from it's Grab Ability to start a Grapple, do its Constrict Damage, and then a Free Action to release again. So, again, taking his hand off or putting his hand back to the Polearm is a Free Action that can typically be done as part of an Attack of Opportunity. Given the choice, though, going inside the Reach of a Reach weapon is exiting a Threatened Square and that is what provokes an Attack of Opportunity. Unless the Bloodrager has some other AoO trigger, like Broken Wing Gambit or something, if he has to make a choice, the better choice is clearly to put both hands on the Glaive.
Meanwhile,
Isaac Zephyr wrote: I have a player for an upcoming table You are the GM, are you not? Just make the ruling.
Um, I recall a weapon accessory, a Weapon Cord or Wrist Cord? Maybe that would be helpful?
“You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used for each attack. For example, you cannot make a claw attack and also use that hand to make attacks with a longsword”
? I’m missing the ambiguity.
Scott Wilhelm wrote: You are the GM, are you not? Just make the ruling. I have drowned/kicked enough rules lawyers to know it's generally better for everyone if I have all the information.
That said, I've noticed another problem with this character (not that we'll hit the level where it'll be a problem), in that they will run out of bloodline feat options. By level 18, even if they delay every bloodline feat to levels he gains bloodline feats, he will have taken all of them. When there's no more feats to pick on a bonus feat list for a class, what do you do?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Scott Wilhelm wrote: Isaac Zephyr wrote: Scott Wilhelm wrote: Java Man wrote: Dropping the pole is a free action. As long as he rages until the end of the fight, what else matters? As I understand it, he doesn't need to drop the polearm at all, and he doesn't need to do anything special. Removing one hand from a 2 handed weapon is Free Action. The example I found in the rules was of a Wizard removing one hand from his staff to cast a Spell.
If the Character intends to make Reach Attacks with his Lucerne Hammer and make Claw Attacks against adjacent targets, and not do both with the same Full Attack Action, the rules say there is no problem, no penalties.
If the character intends to do both in the same Full Attack Action, he can do that, too, but combining regular attacks with Natural Weapon Attacks downgrades the Claw Attacks to Secondary: -5 to attack and only 1/2 the St Mod to Damage. Yeah, see this is where most of the arguement and confusion is coming in. That free action, which is why I'm hunting (any) alternatives.
Essentially from everything I know about the rules, yes you could full attack or cleave with Glaive + Claws, however at the end of your turn you need to decide whether you're weilding the Glaive to threaten, or holding it 1-handed thus not weilding it and threatening with your claws. The description of Free Actions says they happen in your turn, but the convention within the rules and in practice is that Free Actions can also be made as part of other actions. For instance, if a Giant Octopus gets an Attack of Opportunity, it can also use it's Free Action Grapple granted from it's Grab Ability to start a Grapple, do its Constrict Damage, and then a Free Action to release again. So, again, taking his hand off or putting his hand back to the Polearm is a Free Action that can typically be done as part of an Attack of Opportunity. Given the choice, though, going inside the Reach of a Reach weapon is exiting a Threatened Square and that is what provokes an... First thing, you are absolutely not allowed to take free actions on other creatures turns. You can only take free actions on your turn. Creatures that have grab linked to their attacks can use both as the same reaction for an AoO, but they can't choose to let go if they grab until it comes back to their turn. Creatures with a grab linked to their attack are allowed to not make the attempt if they choose not to. Also constrict is an attack action unless the creature has a special ability that says otherwise.
Also, what makes you think you can take an action in the middle of an action? You can't switch weapons in the middle of a full attack. When you start you get what you have, you don't suddenly get to change things up to get more attacks. If you did you'd have people arguing they can get full iterative attacks with a weapon, drop it and make a full set of natural attacks with no penalties because they aren't holding any manufactured weapons so they aren't making secondary attacks with their natural weapons. Or some guy with a returning mace will get his primary/first iterative with melee and then throw the mace for the second iterative and since it won't return to his hand until the end of the attack take his full natural attacks with both hands. No, that isn't how it works!
Lucy_Valentine wrote: Technically I think they could do it (polearm+claw) by taking three levels of Phalanx Soldier (fighter archetype) and also having a buckler. But: three levels, eek, and also an extra -1 to hit from the buckler. It's a lot easier just to drop the glaive and start clawing people.
A familiar or an Unseen Servant could pick the glaive up without the PC having to spend actions.
Failing that, holding onto the glaive with one hand (and not attacking) leaves them with a full attack of one claw plus any other (non-claw) natural attacks they've got going on (and when they have to use a standard action attack the glaive is available). Sadly the bloodrager doesn't seem to get Alter Self, but there's a magic helmet with a gore attack. I suppose they could also go for a full round routine of armour spikes or improved unarmed strike as a primary attack, with the claw and other natural attacks as secondaries. Honestly though it really seems like the arithmetic would favour dropping the glaive and getting a full natural claw-claw-bite-whatever on.
You don't get iterative attacks with natural weapons.
Meirril wrote: Also, what makes you think you can take an action in the middle of an action? The rules:
Quote: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. You can certainly free action drop a weapon, and free action quick-draw another weapon while taking a full round attack.
_Ozy_ wrote: Meirril wrote: Also, what makes you think you can take an action in the middle of an action? The rules:
Quote: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. You can certainly free action drop a weapon, and free action quick-draw another weapon while taking a full round attack. yeah, most ranged full attack sequences pretty much curl up and die if you don’t allow free actions during a full attack. But I think it’s also understood that most classes can’t two weapon fight with a single weapon, switching hands back and forth.
Lelomenia wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: Meirril wrote: Also, what makes you think you can take an action in the middle of an action? The rules:
Quote: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. You can certainly free action drop a weapon, and free action quick-draw another weapon while taking a full round attack. yeah, most ranged full attack sequences pretty much curl up and die if you don’t allow free actions during a full attack. But I think it’s also understood that most classes can’t two weapon fight with a single weapon, switching hands back and forth. That's because the two weapon fighting rules specify a 2nd weapon in the off hand, which disallows the same weapon in the off hand.
Lelomenia wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: Meirril wrote: Also, what makes you think you can take an action in the middle of an action? The rules:
Quote: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. You can certainly free action drop a weapon, and free action quick-draw another weapon while taking a full round attack. yeah, most ranged full attack sequences pretty much curl up and die if you don’t allow free actions during a full attack. But I think it’s also understood that most classes can’t two weapon fight with a single weapon, switching hands back and forth. I'm not talking about 2 weapon fighting with a single weapon. I'm talking about making Claw Attacks.
Scott Wilhelm wrote: His character gets both Claw Attacks. Removing your hand from a 2 handed weapon is a Free Action. So you want to go something like this:
* polearm in both hands
* declare attacking
* free action, drop polearm from right
* attack with right claw
* free action, re-grasp polearm with right
* free action, drop polearm from left
* declare attack is now a full attack
* attack with left claw
* attack with any other natural attacks
* (situationally) free action, re-grasp polearm in both hands to threaten with reach
The thing of it is, even if there's no specific rule about not doing that exact thing, the number of free actions you get in a round is GM dependant:
That FAQ answer you linked wrote: 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). So you can only do this attack routine if your GM lets you, and the guidance that exists also suggests they should not (since the minimum number of drops/regrasps is 2/1 and the advised number is 1/1). Personally, I would not allow it, and I think if you're recommending a build you should acknowledge this potential problem.
Meirril wrote: You don't get iterative attacks with natural weapons. I know, and that was not what I was suggesting. You can:
* full attack using all your natural weapons at once, with "primary" and "secondary" status being decided by the attacks themselves
* full attack using both your manufactured weapon(s) in their usual routine, and also any natural weapons you have that are not part of a limb you already used. Natural weapons here will all count as "secondary".
So if you're playing a BAB 6 half-orc with a greataxe, a bite attack, and a magic hat granting a gore attack, then you can full attack for greataxe/greataxe_iterative/bite/gore, with the bite and gore being secondary attacks. Or, if the same orc had Claws and also a longsword, they could go longsword/longsword_iterative/bite/gore/claw (but only one claw), with the natural attacks all secondary. Or they could drop the longsword and just use all four natural attacks, with primary/secondary status as per the attacks.
Lucy_Valentine wrote: Scott Wilhelm wrote: His character gets both Claw Attacks. Removing your hand from a 2 handed weapon is a Free Action. So you want to go something like this:
* polearm in both hands
* declare attacking
* free action, drop polearm from right
* attack with right claw
* free action, re-grasp polearm with right
* free action, drop polearm from left
* declare attack is now a full attack
* attack with left claw
* attack with any other natural attacks?
* (situationally) free action, re-grasp polearm in both hands to threaten with reach
The thing of it is, even if there's no specific rule about not doing that exact thing, the number of free actions you get in a round is GM dependant:
That FAQ answer you linked wrote: 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). So you can only do this attack routine if your GM lets you, and the guidance that exists also suggests they should not (since the minimum number of drops/regrasps is 2/1 and the advised number is 1/1). Personally, I would not allow it, and I think if you're recommending a build you should acknowledge this potential problem. Yes, well, the OP of this thread actually is the GM.
Yeah no.
I would allow on a full attack:
- player makes the full attack at reach with their glaive
- free action to release the grip for 1 claw
- 5 foot step if needed towards the target (since you can 5-foot mid full attack)
- secondary attacks with claw and/or bite if available
- free action to return hand to glaive to threaten if they wanted
Or alternatively:
- player declares attack, makes first attack with glaive
- free action to release grip for 1 claw
- make attacks with claw/bite
- free action return grip to glaive
- finish itterative attacks with glaive
If the player wanted to drop the glaive:
- player makes full attack with glaive
- free action to drop glaive
- secondary attacks with both claws/bite
If they're dropping the glaive entirely I would allow the 2nd secondary claw, only because you've ditched your options with the glaive and will need actions to pick it up again later.
Oh, there was one more outcome for allowance:
- open with secondary claw/bite
- free action to grasp your glaive
- full attack with the glaive
- free action to release the glaive if you want to end your turn threatening with claws
I do say open with secondary though. If the player at all intends to use the glaive then his natural attacks become secondary. This is in the Two-Weapon Fighting rules, in that even if you only end up making 1 attack and not full attacking (either because the target was defeated or you just changed your mind, maybe after DR or some sort of counter) you need to declare you're Two-Weapon Fighting and apply the penalties. If he atracks with the claw or bite as primary, not taking the penalties it locks out the glaive as an option for that full attack.
I thought this was against the unwritten rules regarding hands. If you use your 'offhand' to provide extra damage for two-handed attacks, then it can't be used for a two-weapon extra attack...or something like that.
You can at most get 1.5 str damage for non-iterative attacks, which is either 1.5 from 2handed, or 1 + 0.5 from two weapon.
I think the devs have talked about this somewhere.
_Ozy_ wrote: I thought this was against the unwritten rules regarding hands. If you use your 'offhand' to provide extra damage for two-handed attacks, then it can't be used for a two-weapon extra attack...or something like that.
You can at most get 1.5 str damage for non-iterative attacks, which is either 1.5 from 2handed, or 1 + 0.5 from two weapon.
I think the devs have talked about this somewhere.
Yeah, you're right. It isn't exactly unwritten. The RAW does say that you can't make a Claw Attack with the same hand as you make a Weapon Attack. There are some edgy exceptions. You can Full Attack with your weapons then make Attacks of Opportunity with your Natural Weapons. You can still make full attacks with your Glaive and your Bite, of course.
Another thing you could do is something like employ a Quickdraw Shield and the Quickdraw Feat, put away your Shield as a Free Action, Full Attack with your Claws, and then re-draw your shield as another Free Action, keeping your Shield Bonus to AC. I am pretty sure you get to keep your Shield Mod to AC.
Another, similar thing you can do is something like carry Long Sword and Shield, 2 Weapon Fight with your Sword and with Armor Spikes, and still keep your AC bonus with your Shield.
Isaac Zephyr wrote: Oh, there was one more outcome for allowance:
- open with secondary claw/bite
- free action to grasp your glaive
- full attack with the glaive
- free action to release the glaive if you want to end your turn threatening with claws
I do say open with secondary though. If the player at all intends to use the glaive then his natural attacks become secondary. This is in the Two-Weapon Fighting rules, in that even if you only end up making 1 attack and not full attacking (either because the target was defeated or you just changed your mind, maybe after DR or some sort of counter) you need to declare you're Two-Weapon Fighting and apply the penalties. If he atracks with the claw or bite as primary, not taking the penalties it locks out the glaive as an option for that full attack.
Since you don't want to allow the Free Actions to take 1 hand off the Glaive at a time to make 2 Claw Attacks, I'd recommend to your player a different Bloodline and some other way to get other Natural Attacks such as Bite, Gore, Tentacle, or White Hair. Or maybe he shouldn't bother with Natural Attacks at all and should just use his Reach Pole Arm and use Armor Spikes or Shield Bashing (via the Pike and Shield Phanlanx Soldier Fighter Archetype or the Shield Brace Feat) when his enemies get close. Or maybe just use Armor with Armor Spikes and carry a Bow, 2 weapon fighting with Armor Spikes as both your primary and off-hand weapon with enemies that close to melee.
Ooh, or maybe use Thrown Weapons instead of Reach Pole Arms and meleeing with Natural Attacks.
Scott Wilhelm wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: I thought this was against the unwritten rules regarding hands. If you use your 'offhand' to provide extra damage for two-handed attacks, then it can't be used for a two-weapon extra attack...or something like that.
You can at most get 1.5 str damage for non-iterative attacks, which is either 1.5 from 2handed, or 1 + 0.5 from two weapon.
I think the devs have talked about this somewhere.
Yeah, you're right. It isn't exactly unwritten. The RAW does say that you can't make a Claw Attack with the same hand as you make a Weapon Attack. There are some edgy exceptions. You can Full Attack with your weapons then make Attacks of Opportunity with your Natural Weapons. You can still make full attacks with your Glaive and your Bite, of course.
Another thing you could do is something like employ a Quickdraw Shield and the Quickdraw Feat, put away your Shield as a Free Action, Full Attack with your Claws, and then re-draw your shield as another Free Action, keeping your Shield Bonus to AC. I am pretty sure you get to keep your Shield Mod to AC.
Another, similar thing you can do is something like carry Long Sword and Shield, 2 Weapon Fight with your Sword and with Armor Spikes, and still keep your AC bonus with your Shield. I was actually looking through some other classes and found some weird archtypes and options that seem to encourage this 2-handed + off-hand fighting style. In particular the Thunderstriker fighter wants you to use 2-H with your buckler by removing penalties at 3, and that at 7 they give you the ability to shield bash with a buckler.
That to me says it wants you to TWF with a 2-H weapon with shield bash off-hand. Which would use the same action economy as the gain 1 claw from removing your hand from your 2-H weapon.
I could always be wrong though.
Isaac Zephyr wrote: Scott Wilhelm wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: I thought this was against the unwritten rules regarding hands. If you use your 'offhand' to provide extra damage for two-handed attacks, then it can't be used for a two-weapon extra attack...or something like that.
You can at most get 1.5 str damage for non-iterative attacks, which is either 1.5 from 2handed, or 1 + 0.5 from two weapon.
I think the devs have talked about this somewhere.
Yeah, you're right. It isn't exactly unwritten. The RAW does say that you can't make a Claw Attack with the same hand as you make a Weapon Attack. There are some edgy exceptions. You can Full Attack with your weapons then make Attacks of Opportunity with your Natural Weapons. You can still make full attacks with your Glaive and your Bite, of course.
Another thing you could do is something like employ a Quickdraw Shield and the Quickdraw Feat, put away your Shield as a Free Action, Full Attack with your Claws, and then re-draw your shield as another Free Action, keeping your Shield Bonus to AC. I am pretty sure you get to keep your Shield Mod to AC.
Another, similar thing you can do is something like carry Long Sword and Shield, 2 Weapon Fight with your Sword and with Armor Spikes, and still keep your AC bonus with your Shield. I was actually looking through some other classes and found some weird archtypes and options that seem to encourage this 2-handed + off-hand fighting style. In particular the Thunderstriker fighter wants you to use 2-H with your buckler by removing penalties at 3, and that at 7 they give you the ability to shield bash with a buckler.
That to me says it wants you to TWF with a 2-H weapon with shield bash off-hand. Which would use the same action economy as the gain 1 claw from removing your hand from your 2-H weapon.
I could always be wrong though. Thunderstrikers have special abilities that let them do things other characters can't do.
No, you can never be wrong. You are the GM. The GM is always right. If you think you are wrong, you are wrong.
Armor Spikes: Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?
No.
Likewise, you couldn't use an armored gauntlet to do so, as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks.
Note that you can't attack with off hand attacks when using a 2H weapon.
willuwontu wrote: Armor Spikes: Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?
No.
Likewise, you couldn't use an armored gauntlet to do so, as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks.
Note that you can't attack with off hand attacks when using a 2H weapon. That is a super-old FAQ. And things like the Thunderstriker really don't like it because it makes a lot of these Heavy Weapon + Other Thing feats and styles just not work with the rules.
Ironically though, in looking through stuff I found this tidbit from Thunder and Fang Style's normal section:
Thunder and Fang Style:
An earth breaker is a two-handed weapon, preventing the use of a klar in one hand without imposing penalties for using the earth breaker one-handed. A klar can be used either as a one-handed weapon or a shield; it does not grant a bonus to AC during rounds in which it is used as a weapon.
Where are these two-handed weapon one-handed penalties? They would have been the immediate answer to the original question I posed. Basically whether you could use a polearm one handed.
Isaac Zephyr wrote: Where are these two-handed weapon one-handed penalties? They don't exist, it's simply not possible without special exception via feat/class feature.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
