| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
How can we place any value on "strict RAW" if people in this thread can't even seem to agree on what the strict RAW actually is?How about this definition?
Strict RAW (strɪkt rɔː): the interpretation of an excerpt of written rules that makes the least sense with respect to the overall ruleset and basic common sense. E.g.: You need a free hand to kick.
I mean clearly, most animal companions are unable to attack because they don't have hands to hold their teeth, beaks and horns in... :P
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, failing to be able for find support for your position within the Rules, you resort to insults to do what exactly?
~
This is the Rules forum, so I mistakenly thought we were discussing the Rules.
Insult, no? Snarky, yes. I'm illustrating how your position can't be right on hands needed for unarmed attacks by pointing out that it negates most animal companions attacks... This shows how unreasonable it is to look at fist and use it to override logic: the rules tell us if an ambiguous rule looks too good, it's most likely not right: the reverse is also true. If one way of looking at it makes parts of the game not work [like creatures without hands NOT being able to attack], it's most likely not right.
So, if you think animal companions can't attack I'll disagree. I don't have to SHOW a stat block with 0 hands required on it for almost anyone to understand that that is how the game is expected to be read and played. You are looking at the exception, fist, and turning it into the default without showing any proof that it overrides the text on unarmed attacks.
Please explain how creatures without hands attack if you think I'm not right. One way explains it [unarmed attacks don't take up a hand UNLESS explicitly pointed out (ie fist)] while the other way short circuits wide swaths of attacks by making that unusable... IMO, the correct way to see it is clear.
Whilst I don't think there's any merit for the reading that [all] unarmed attacks need a free *hand* specifically, not least because of all the ways of getting attacks with other body parts just discussed...
I can see a sensible reading based on the typical "medium-sized bipedal humanoid with two hands" bias that often crops up that suggests that it is not intended for medium-sized two-handed bipedal humanoids to be "always threatening" [old shorthand, sorry] when their two hands are full of not-melee-weapons, absent some sort of ability that allows it.
That doesn't seem so crazy, and rationalises the nominally competing position around unarmed attacks (which only sometimes need a free hand) and the fist. But it also requires a deal of background assumptions to rules reading that we won't find explicit in the text.
Whilst I don't think there's any merit for the reading that [all] unarmed attacks need a free *hand* specifically, not least because of all the ways of getting attacks with other body parts just discussed...
I can see a sensible reading based on the typical "medium-sized bipedal humanoid with two hands" bias that often crops up that suggests that it is not intended for medium-sized two-handed bipedal humanoids to be "always threatening" [old shorthand, sorry] when their two hands are full of not-melee-weapons, absent some sort of ability that allows it.
That doesn't seem so crazy, and rationalises the nominally competing position around unarmed attacks (which only sometimes need a free hand) and the fist. But it also requires a deal of background assumptions to rules reading that we won't find explicit in the text.
I'll come clean and admit that I never liked that particular quark of PF1. The idea that you couldn't "flank" with a ranged attack, especially at point blank, has always been silly to me. Imo, flanking should be much looser than it is even in PF2.
The whole idea is that your target's attention, and thus it's ability to defend itself, is split between multiple opponents. Anyone who's ever been blind sided in a scrap could tell you how easy it is to have this happen, even if your opponents aren't on "opposite sides". But I understand why mechanically Paizo requires opposite angles, because it forces you use your movement to gain advantage rather than simply "ganging up" on an opponent. Unless you happen to be a Rogue anyway.
As to "typical medium sized bipedal humanoid with two hands" not being able to "threaten" while carrying a bow, or any other ranged weapon for that matter, that is also pretty silly imo. A person is virtually always capable of inflicting harm on another, hands or no. Kicks, headbutt's, shoulder slams, knees, elbows or just bashing you with whatever they have IN their hand is virtually always on the table unless they are physically, or magically in Pathfinder, bound. And bound well.
I'll come clean and admit that I never liked that particular quark of PF1. The idea that you couldn't "flank" with a ranged attack, especially at point blank, has always been silly to me. Imo, flanking should be much looser than it is even in PF2.
The whole idea is that your target's attention, and thus it's ability to defend itself, is split between multiple opponents. Anyone who's ever been blind sided in a scrap could tell you how easy it is to have this happen, even if your opponents aren't on "opposite sides". But I understand why mechanically Paizo requires opposite angles, because it forces you use your movement to gain advantage rather than simply "ganging up" on an opponent. Unless you happen to be a Rogue anyway.
As to "typical medium sized bipedal humanoid with two hands" not being able to "threaten" while carrying a bow, or any other ranged weapon for that matter, that is also pretty silly imo. A person is virtually always capable of inflicting harm on another, hands or no. Kicks, headbutt's, shoulder slams, knees, elbows or just bashing you with whatever they have IN their hand is virtually...
Sure. But we're drifting into combat design philosophy now & how much simulation vs. gamism. Maybe I'd rule similar, especially with +Level to attacks and everyone being Trained in Unarmed, whatever that means in real-world fighting analogues. Hasn't really come up yet at my table - my players seem to want a melee weapon in hand if they're fighting in close quarters. Seems rational to me!
My point was merely that remembering the bipedal 2 hands humanoid bias in the ruleset was a way to parse the rules sensibly to support a restrictive ruling if you wanted, without having to reach the farcical extremes of kicks & bites (which are definitely allowed at least by particular abilities etc.) needing a free hand.
I can see a sensible reading based on the typical "medium-sized bipedal humanoid with two hands" bias that often crops up that suggests that it is not intended for medium-sized two-handed bipedal humanoids to be "always threatening" [old shorthand, sorry] when their two hands are full of not-melee-weapons, absent some sort of ability that allows it.
I can't see a "sensible reading based on the typical "medium-sized bipedal humanoid with two hands" bias" as animal companions use the same rules: they have unarmed attacks with which they are proficient and get bonuses to those unarmed attacks. Once the players got an ability to have companions, the idea that you could section off unarmed to just them went out the door: you'd have to rework non-armed creatures to have 'totally NOT unarmed' unarmed attacks which would nonsensically would completely different from when an armed person used the same type of attack. I'd rather no go back to the days of 'virtual hands'...
Would anyone argue that monks wouldn't be able to kick while they were wielding a crossbow?
That IS what Tempest_Knight argument is, so not so much would they but have they already...
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Indeed. Apparently, regardless of whether you're a Raging Wereshark Barbarian, a Monk wielding a Crossbow, a Constrictor Snake Animal Companion or just an ordinary human carrying a barrel, the explanation that an unarmed attack "doesn't take up a hand" means nothing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's look at it this way, if collectively everyone participating in this discussion agrees that you can make an unarmed strike without having an empty hand (by doing something like a kick) then collectively we can simply ignore the person who disagrees.
If the majority share an interpretation of the rules with nary only a single detractor, the chances that the group is wrong is pretty low. If this were a more contentious point then there might be more reason to question it.
But honestly I haven't responded to this thread in a while because I just see no point in arguing with tempest knight. We repeat the same arguments and they repeat theirs. Ignore them and let's get on with it.
Assuming we can in fact make attacks with our hands full (such as a kick) there doesn't appear to be anything to limit flanking bonuses from not applying to ranged attacks, however that will require you be in range to threaten the enemy.
Maybe you could work out a situation with a giant instinct barbarian wielding a gnome flickmace and a hand crossbow (or something similar) to get 15ft reach with flanking bonuses applied to your ranged weapon...but most of the time your going to have someone with 5ft reach standing next to the target they're shooting. At that point I definitely see no reason to deny them the bonus to flanking on ranged attacks.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, claiming a flanking bonus because you could kick your foe feels like 'someone gave me an inch, so I'm taking a mile...'
It seems fairly clear to me that the intent was for flanking to only work with melee attacks (Maybe to avoid one character from granting a flanking bonus to 20 rogue archers? Maybe they felt melee needed a boost?). The actual RAW, well, is a bit of a mess.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, claiming a flanking bonus because you could kick your foe feels like 'someone gave me an inch, so I'm taking a mile...'
It seems fairly clear to me that the intent was for flanking to only work with melee attacks (Maybe to avoid one character from granting a flanking bonus to 20 rogue archers? Maybe they felt melee needed a boost?). The actual RAW, well, is a bit of a mess.
Part of the problem I think is that there are essentially two questions in this thread. Whether or not ranged characters can benefit from flanking bonuses and whether or not someone holding a crossbow loses the ability to kick people, with the latter argument being used as a sort of roundabout way to try to shut down the former issue.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, claiming a flanking bonus because you could kick your foe feels like 'someone gave me an inch, so I'm taking a mile...'
It seems fairly clear to me that the intent was for flanking to only work with melee attacks (Maybe to avoid one character from granting a flanking bonus to 20 rogue archers? Maybe they felt melee needed a boost?). The actual RAW, well, is a bit of a mess.
Why do you think so? Because I don't personally see anything in the rules that indicate that to be the case.
Quite the opposite really, the flanking rules say:
When you and an ally are flanking a foe, it has a harder time defending against you. A creature is flat-footed (taking a –2 circumstance penalty to AC) to creatures that are flanking it.
To flank a foe, you and your ally must be on opposites sides or corners of the creature. A line drawn between the center of your space and the center of your ally’s space must pass through opposite sides or opposite corners of the foe’s space. Additionally, both you and the ally have to be able to act, must be wielding melee weapons or able to make an unarmed attack, can’t be under any effects that prevent you from attacking, and must have the enemy within reach. If you are wielding a reach weapon, you use your reach with that weapon for this purpose.
Let's compare it to 1E flanking rules:
When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner.
When in doubt about whether two characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two attackers’ centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent’s space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked.
Exception: If a flanker takes up more than 1 square, it gets the flanking bonus if any square it occupies counts for flanking.
Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus.
Creatures with a reach of 0 feet can’t flank an opponent.
The PF1 version starts off by making it clear it only applies to melee by saying when you make a melee attack, the PF2 version doesn't mention anything like that.
The PF1 version then describes the kind of bonus you get, while the PF2 version points out the same (though it's causing flat-footed in this case).
Both version go on to explain what qualifies as flanking.
I can find no reason within the PF2 rules that flanking wouldn't apply assuming the individuals meet the position conditions for flanking and able to make a melee attack against the target.
If they had intended to be clear about not having flanking apply to ranged attacks they need to add a direct statement about it, like PF1 did.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Part of the problem I think is that there are essentially two questions in this thread. Whether or not ranged characters can benefit from flanking bonuses and whether or not someone holding a crossbow loses the ability to kick people, with the latter argument being used as a sort of roundabout way to try to shut down the former issue.Personally, claiming a flanking bonus because you could kick your foe feels like 'someone gave me an inch, so I'm taking a mile...'
It seems fairly clear to me that the intent was for flanking to only work with melee attacks (Maybe to avoid one character from granting a flanking bonus to 20 rogue archers? Maybe they felt melee needed a boost?). The actual RAW, well, is a bit of a mess.
The latter argument just seems disingenuous to me, that it's really an absurd position taken due to disliking the potential of flanking applying to ranged weapons and finding no other arguments to pursue as a means against.
I'm willing to listen to arguments about why flanking is perhaps not intended to apply to ranged weapons, but I'm personally going to ignore any arguments that say you can't make a bite attack or unarmed strike (kick) because your hands are currently occupied doing something else.
Obviously someone can wield a dagger and a hand crossbow and if they have a friend on the opposite side of the enemy with the same they definitely are flanking and can unquestionably apply those bonuses to their daggers. The only remaining question is if the same applies to their hand crossbows, and thus far I haven't seen any convincing arguments that it doesn't other than what amounts to "well this is a big change from PF1".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Indeed. Apparently, regardless of whether you're a Raging Wereshark Barbarian, a Monk wielding a Crossbow, a Constrictor Snake Animal Companion or just an ordinary human carrying a barrel, the explanation that an unarmed attack "doesn't take up a hand" means nothing.You seem to be intent on building a Strawman to attack in my stead...
Lets try this again...
Specific Unarmed strikes are not beholden to the 'Fist' entry, you know the one that REQUIRES 1 Hands.
If you are using a Generic Unarmed strike you ARE beholden to the 'Fist" entry.
~
I am waiting for RELEVANT rules to be quoted.
Wait. So.. An Animal instinct Barbarian using the Ape Fist attack doesn't use their fist to strike? Or the Bear Claw? Or the Cat Claw?
The Monk's Crane Wing, Falling Stone, Fire Talon, Lashing Branch, Shadow Grasp, Stumbling Swing or Tiger Claw attacks don't use their hands either?
Or is it possible, just possible mind you, that you can read between the lines and realize that the Fist entry is specific and not an example of the Only unarmed attacks your average character is capable of? Instead it's just the most common attack that most characters are likely to make?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sigh... No use beating a dead horse anymore. It makes me want to hit it with my ranged weapon as an improvised weapon... Something you can do and it's already in your hands, so you're still able to make a melee attack and bypasses a need to make an unarmed attack...
So... How about flanking? I vaguely recall that was the topic of the thread. ;)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, are you wielding that bow as an Improvised Melee Weapon or as a Bow?
Yes. Nothing prohibits it from functioning as both or states one is exclusive: no reason I can't hit a creature with the butt of my crossbow in the same hands I'd fire it with. A dagger is both a melee and ranged weapon when wielding normally: you don't have to declare one or the other.
If you disagree: "I am waiting for RELEVANT rules to be quoted."...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm willing to listen to arguments about why flanking is perhaps not intended to apply to ranged weapons, but I'm personally going to ignore any arguments that say you can't make a bite attack or unarmed strike (kick) because your hands are currently occupied doing something else.
Then they wouldn't have had any reason to mark it
Additionally, both you and the ally have to be able to act, must be wielding melee weapons or able to make an unarmed attack, can’t be under any effects that prevent you from attacking, and must have the enemy within reach.if we assume that being able to kick and bite would have given the flat footed -2 enemy AC for your ranged attack.
But, unfortunately, that would be an impossible situation.
No! Quit using this argument because you're dancing around the problem.
Dagger and hand crossbow. Both are 1 handed weapons. You are able to make an attack with the dagger. It is definitely getting the flanking bonus because your friend is on the opposite side with the same. By the rules you are able to make a melee or unarmed strike and thus get flanking. There is nothing in the rules that says that it doesn't also apply to your attack with your hand crossbow.Whether or not you can do this with a bow and a kick is immaterial here.
Quit trying to shut down the question because it doesn't matter at all in the above example. I refuse to listen to this argument.
Barring some new piece of information that might be introduced, I can find no reason why the hand crossbow doesn't get the bonus for flanking. You fulfill all the conditions for being able to make an attack and have the required positioning.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Barring any new information relevant to the argument about whether or ranged weapons can benefit from flanking, perhaps we need to start a new thread to evaluate the merits and arguments of if someone can make a unarmed strike (kick) while also wielding a 2-handed weapon.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, are you wielding that bow as an Improvised Melee Weapon or as a Bow?Yes.
That is beautiful.
I think between this, and unarmed attacks, the chances of you encountering a GM who disallows flanking can finally be reduced to the category of statistical outlier.
If you still find one, it's probably because they just don't like the idea, which as has been demonstrated in this thread, you simply can't reason with.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I totally disagree, and the way it is written doesn't prove what you say.
I see no reason, apart what I pointed out before, to deal with flat-footed in a so difficult way ( they would have just said it in a more simple way).
Trying to shut it down, ignoring it, wouldn't solve the problem either.
Ps: instead, if we want to consider that they intended something else, well... Anybody could guess what he wants.
I'm confused by what you mean.To me it takes more difficult interpretation to reach a point that says flanking doesn't apply to ranged attacks, if you also have a melee weapon or unarmed strike that you're able to make attacks with.
The majority of the rules of flanking deal only with establishing what is required to be flanking, which can easily be done while also wielding a ranged weapon. Nothing in the rules for flanking remotely hints (IMO) that it's restricted only to melee weapons, merely that melee weapons are required to achieve it.
If they wanted it to be clear, they could have kept wording that they used from PF1 "when making a melee attack".
I totally disagree, and the way it is written doesn't prove what you say.
I see no reason, apart what I pointed out before, to deal with flat-footed in a so difficult way ( they would have just said it in a more simple way).
Trying to shut it down, ignoring it, wouldn't solve the problem either.
Ps: instead, if we want to consider that they intended something else, well... Anybody could guess what he wants.
I'm confused by what you mean.To me it takes more difficult interpretation to reach a point that says flanking doesn't apply to ranged attacks, if you also have a melee weapon or unarmed strike that you're able to make attacks with.
The majority of the rules of flanking deal only with establishing what is required to be flanking, which can easily be done while also wielding a ranged weapon. Nothing in the rules for flanking remotely hints (IMO) that it's restricted only to melee weapons, merely that melee weapons are required to achieve it.
If they wanted it to be clear, they could have kept wording that they used from PF1 "when making a melee attack".
Nothing in the rules for flanking remotely hints that is applicable to ranged attacks...
~
Basic English Comprehension exercise...
Read a section of text, then determine the subject and/or scope...
For this exercise, let us use the Flanking rules in the CRB...
The Subject is easy... as the section has a header... Flanking...
The Scope is determined by what is said in the section... The section only ever refers to Melee combat, Melee weapon, and Unarmed (Melee) strikes... Therefore, the Scope is Melee...
~
Is this the intent?
We don't know, we can not determine it through just the written word... it is unclear... It is silent on Ranged combat...
To expand it to apply to Ranged combat, would be expanding it beyond the explicit Scope...
That said, since it is unclear, it requires just a simple statement of intent...
Just a side note on this. The section refers to the penalties for flanking which gives the flanked individual the Flat footed condition.
Flat footed gives a -2 to AC vs all attacks melee and ranged.
Rule quote:
You’re distracted or otherwise unable to focus your full attention on defense. You take a –2 circumstance penalty to AC. Some effects give you the flat-footed condition only to certain creatures or against certain attacks. Others—especially conditions—can make you universally flat-footed against everything. If a rule doesn’t specify that the condition applies only to certain circumstances, it applies to all of them; for example, many effects simply say “The target is flat-footed.”
Big emphasis on the second half of this pointing out that if a rule does not specify the condition applys to only certain conditions it applys to all of them.
If it were intended to just effect melee they would not have given the flat footed condition or would have added a melee restriction. They would have imposed a -2 circumstance penalty to AC vs the melee attacks of the flankers.
This 100% allows for using a ranged weapon to attack a flanked creature.
Weather you can do so with your hands full is another matter.
So, by this definition, thank you Nefreet, You cannot use a Bow as an Improvised Weapon...
A Bow is "built to be a weapon"... it fails to meet the listed condition...
It's not built as melee weapon: IE, a bow isn't a weapon when you use it in melee. Do you suggest a Javelin can be used to stab someone in melee just because it's a ranged weapon? It's not "built to be a weapon" in melee. I can't see a logical or rules based reason I can't toss a Light mace at something 10' away even though it wasn't designed to so so. Does the universe create invisible barriers to prevent it from working? If not, how do you resolve the attack? Improvised weapon rules.
I totally disagree, and the way it is written doesn't prove what you say.
I see no reason, apart what I pointed out before, to deal with flat-footed in a so difficult way ( they would have just said it in a more simple way).
Trying to shut it down, ignoring it, wouldn't solve the problem either.
Ps: instead, if we want to consider that they intended something else, well... Anybody could guess what he wants.
I'm confused by what you mean.To me it takes more difficult interpretation to reach a point that says flanking doesn't apply to ranged attacks, if you also have a melee weapon or unarmed strike that you're able to make attacks with.
The majority of the rules of flanking deal only with establishing what is required to be flanking, which can easily be done while also wielding a ranged weapon. Nothing in the rules for flanking remotely hints (IMO) that it's restricted only to melee weapons, merely that melee weapons are required to achieve it.
If they wanted it to be clear, they could have kept wording that they used from PF1 "when making a melee attack".
Nothing in the rules for flanking remotely hints that is applicable to ranged attacks...
~
Basic English Comprehension exercise...
Read a section of text, then determine the subject and/or scope...
For this exercise, let us use the Flanking rules in the CRB...
The Subject is easy... as the section has a header... Flanking...
The Scope is determined by what is said in the section... The section only ever refers to Melee combat, Melee weapon, and Unarmed (Melee) strikes... Therefore, the Scope is Melee...
~
Is this the intent?
We don't know, we can not determine it through just the written word... it is unclear... It is silent on Ranged combat...
To expand it to apply to Ranged combat, would be expanding it beyond the explicit Scope...
That said, since it is unclear, it requires just a simple statement of intent...
I disagree with your assessment on scope.
You're inferring that the scope is limited to melee because melee is what get's mentioned in the requirements.
However, the rules for the game need to be clear and explicit. If flanking is not intended to be allowed for range weapons then it needs to use precise and clear language, like it did in PF1. In fact, that they removed such language strongly implies to me that the limitation is gone and that the bonus from flanking (flat-footed) can be applied to ranged characters because unless you're reading in an unstated assumption there's no reason it couldn't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However, the rules for the game need to be clear and explicit
It'd quite easy to add it in too: read it with the addition of what I bolded.
'A creature is flat-footed (taking a –2 circumstance penalty to AC) to creatures that are flanking it and making a melee attack.'
Also Flat-Footed says "Some effects give you the flat-footed condition only to certain creatures or against certain attacks. Others—especially conditions—can make you universally flat-footed against everything. If a rule doesn’t specify that the condition applies only to certain circumstances, it applies to all of them; for example, many effects simply say “The target is flat-footed.” So it tells you it applies to everything not specifically excluded in what granted the flat-footed. Flanking doesn't exclude ranged attack.
If a character is grappled (another condition that places the flat footed status) do you reduce their AC vs ranged attacks? Yes of course you do. Why would this be different for flanking?
The only issue that can be argued here is weather you need an empty hand to kick someone (RAW), and in turn weather a ranged only weapon can be used as an improvised melee weapon.
If yes you need an empty hand then someone using a TH(or 1+handed) ranged weapon could not properly flank and fire their TH ranged weapon unless that weapon can be used as an improvised melee weapon, without having an alternate unarmed attack such as tail whip or bite.
If you don't need an empty hand to kick/headbutt/knee or you can use a TH (1+handed) ranged weapon as an improvised melee weapon then you can flank and still fire your TH(1+handed) ranged weapon.
Another side note: If you have a TH sword and want to throw it at an opponant any GM worth his salt will just count it as an improvised ranged weapon....bang done. Why would this not apply to a ranged weapon being used in melee?
Finally a CR-1 Giant Rat with it's +7 hit still counts as flanking if in appropriate position vs a 20th lvl Champion with a 45AC.
(IE the rat has 0% chance of actually effecting the 20th lvl champion with an attack, RAW it would need to roll a 38 on a d20 to hit and since it can only get to 27 max it will always crit fail or fail on a nat 20)
So if a rat that can't hurt someone can make him flanked I'm sure whether you are using a bent stick or your foot or a sword makes no difference to whether you are flanked.
|
It seems like some folks are ignoring the part of the flanking rules that indicates: "...and must have the enemy within reach. If you are wielding a reach weapon, you use your reach with that weapon for this purpose."
Ranged weapons don't have reach, they have a range increment and therefore by default to not and cannot apply. There is even a section in the rules that spells out the difference.
Now, that being said, I do think you should probably be able to BENEFIT from Flanking if you attack with a Ranged Weapon as long as you ARE within reach of an opponent if you're holding Melee Weapon or are ready to use an Unarmed Attack but the simple fact remains that you still need to either be adjacent to the Creature that's being flanked or have a Reach Weapon that fulfills the "opposite side of a square" rule.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems like some folks are ignoring the part of the flanking rules that indicates: "...and must have the enemy within reach. If you are wielding a reach weapon, you use your reach with that weapon for this purpose."
They aren't ignoring it: every creature is wielding an unarmed weapon [foot] and/or using a ranged weapon what can be used as an improvised melee weapon. Nothing in flanking says that the weapon you flank with must be the weapon you attack with: as such, you only have to be within reach of the weapon/unarmed attack you qualify with.
Also, if you are going to necrobump a thread to ask a question - only do it to one thread.