3rd Edition Player [Archive] - Wizards Community

3rd Edition Player [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Lieutenant Dave
10-05-04, 03:00 PM Hello everyone!

I'm a 3rd edition D&D player, and I need a help with the rules and I was hoping that you can help me with that! Since now, my thanks.

Here it goes:

- I'm playing a 9th/2nd-level fighter/barbarian who is specialized in combat with a greatsword, and I would like to make him make a full attack in which he strikes with the greatsword AND with an unarmed strike (a kick), using the Inproved Unarmed Strike feat, but I don't know if that is possible to do it by the rules. If any unarmed strike can be treated as an off-hand weapon (because it is a kick), can I make both attacks?

- If the answer is yes, would the Ambidexterity and Two-Weapon Fighting/Improved Two-Weapon Fighting help with those attacks?

- Normally an unarmed strike deals subdual damage, and a character cannot strike undead with it, can I deal it normal damage by taking the usual -4 penalty to the attack roll?

- Who wins in a melee fight, a 20th-level fighter using a greatsword, or a 20-th-level barbarian using a greataxe?
bookwurm
10-05-04, 04:10 PM i've actually been thinking along the same question latly and this is what i think: its not a question of how many hands/feet are available, but of coordination. i seriously doubt anyone could swing a 6 ft sword and throw a kick at the same time, he'd lose his balance. what he could do is get the monkey grip feat and use it in one hand and use a fist as a light weapon.
TheEnforcer
10-06-04, 02:23 PM - Who wins in a melee fight, a 20th-level fighter using a greatsword, or a 20-th-level barbarian using a greataxe?

That would largely depend on the feats of the fighter. When it comes to damage, the barbarian would win out. If the fighter has, say, improved trip/disarm/sunder I'd place my bet on him. The weapon choice makes little difference as Greatsword and Greataxe are about equal.
DungeonMaster
10-06-04, 04:03 PM Hello everyone!
- I'm playing a 9th/2nd-level fighter/barbarian who is specialized in combat with a greatsword, and I would like to make him make a full attack in which he strikes with the greatsword AND with an unarmed strike (a kick), using the Inproved Unarmed Strike feat, but I don't know if that is possible to do it by the rules. If any unarmed strike can be treated as an off-hand weapon (because it is a kick), can I make both attacks?

No, by the rules an unarmed strike isn't necessarily a kick - it's an unarmed strike which is either a kick or a punch and which it is depends entirely on the DM and the flavor of the situation. Restricting your unarmed strikes to kicks isn't something you can technically "do" by the rules and in the abstract combat system that is D&D it isn't technically allowed. You can't for instance two weapon fight unarmed, despite having two fists and two feet.
You can however substitute your greatsword attacks at any point in a full attack with unarmed strikes.

- Normally an unarmed strike deals subdual damage, and a character cannot strike undead with it, can I deal it normal damage by taking the usual -4 penalty to the attack roll?

Absolutely. That's plain as day and you could even grapple the undead and do real damage to it.

- Who wins in a melee fight, a 20th-level fighter using a greatsword, or a 20-th-level barbarian using a greataxe?
Tough call, would depend mostly on the gear they use and their feat selection. I wouldn't bet on either contestant until I saw them fully fleshed out. The barbarian and the fighter in 3rd edition are very close at these high levels.
Egres
10-06-04, 07:07 PM I'm playing a 9th/2nd-level fighter/barbarian who is specialized in combat with a greatsword, and I would like to make him make a full attack in which he strikes with the greatsword AND with an unarmed strike (a kick), using the Inproved Unarmed Strike feat, but I don't know if that is possible to do it by the rules. If any unarmed strike can be treated as an off-hand weapon (because it is a kick), can I make both attacks?
Yes.

Just apply the normal penalties for TWF.
q'afuu
10-06-04, 07:16 PM You can't for instance two weapon fight unarmed, despite having two fists and two feet.
Yes, you can. And that goes for both 3.0 and 3.5.
Lieutenant Dave
10-09-04, 03:46 PM First of all, thanks for your trouble answering me out.

Absolutely. That's plain as day and you could even grapple the undead and do real damage to it.

Well, I still find it weird because the -4 penalty applies if you want to strike in the most vulnerable areas, and undead don't have vulnerable areas.

Yes.

Just apply the normal penalties for TWF.

And would the Ambidexterity, Two-Weapon Fighting, and Improved Two-Weapon Fighting apply to the greatsword and kick attacks simultaneously? Or would I have to use the Multidexterity and Multiweapon Fighting creature feats? :confused:
primemover003
10-09-04, 04:02 PM The TWF chain would apply to your greatsword as the primary weapon and your unarmed attacks as off hand (and light for that matter). You could have armor spikes as an off hand weapon too... Better than subdual damage anyday!

i've actually been thinking along the same question latly and this is what i think: its not a question of how many hands/feet are available, but of coordination. i seriously doubt anyone could swing a 6 ft sword and throw a kick at the same time, he'd lose his balance. what he could do is get the monkey grip feat and use it in one hand and use a fist as a light weapon.
And using your body with a weapon like a greatsword is MORE than possible. Try to find any of the Renaissance weapon manuals for greatswords and you'll find they are truly a versitle weapon!
Egres
10-09-04, 05:13 PM First of all, thanks for your trouble answering me out.

Well, I still find it weird because the -4 penalty applies if you want to strike in the most vulnerable areas, and undead don't have vulnerable areas.

And would the Ambidexterity, Two-Weapon Fighting, and Improved Two-Weapon Fighting apply to the greatsword and kick attacks simultaneously? Or would I have to use the Multidexterity and Multiweapon Fighting creature feats? :confused:
Follow the TWF tree.
ab0b0
10-09-04, 09:02 PM Doesn't anyone beside me think it odd that a guy with a Fighter 9/ Barbarian 2 PC, barely knows the rules for fighting? These questions of yours never came up until 11th level? Is this a new character who got started off at level 11? I wonder :confused:. Still, if you are new to the game why did you start yourself off at level 11? Doesn't that rob you of the sense of accomplishment you would receive from leveling-up on your own? Why couldn't you start out with a level 1 character? Are you playing as part of a group of high level characters? If that's the case, by now shouldn't any one of the older members of the group, who should be more than familiar with the rules for unarmed attacks and 2-weapon fighting, be able to help answer your questions? Unless, of course, they also started their PCs at level 11 before learning how to play. :D

Regardless, I'll give you a few answers.

1. The kick counts as an off-hand attack with a light weapon.

2. Yes.

3. Yes, unless the Improved Unarmed feat lets you strike for lethal damage penalty free. I don't remember that part of the answer, but if it doesn't, yes, you would have to take the -4.

4. Nobody. Fighting never solves anything. :D. Ha! What a load of BS!

All jokes aside, that is like asking who's a better baseball player Honus Wagner or Jason Giambi. There're just too many factors.

Since I've answered your questions, would you be good enough to answer mine? :)

Just wondering,
Bill
Lieutenant Dave
10-13-04, 04:26 PM Doesn't anyone beside me think it odd that a guy with a Fighter 9/ Barbarian 2 PC, barely knows the rules for fighting? These questions of yours never came up until 11th level? Is this a new character who got started off at level 11? I wonder :confused:. Still, if you are new to the game why did you start yourself off at level 11? Doesn't that rob you of the sense of accomplishment you would receive from leveling-up on your own? Why couldn't you start out with a level 1 character? Are you playing as part of a group of high level characters? If that's the case, by now shouldn't any one of the older members of the group, who should be more than familiar with the rules for unarmed attacks and 2-weapon fighting, be able to help answer your questions? Unless, of course, they also started their PCs at level 11 before learning how to play. :D

Regardless, I'll give you a few answers.

1. The kick counts as an off-hand attack with a light weapon.

2. Yes.

3. Yes, unless the Improved Unarmed feat lets you strike for lethal damage penalty free. I don't remember that part of the answer, but if it doesn't, yes, you would have to take the -4.

4. Nobody. Fighting never solves anything. :D. Ha! What a load of BS!

All jokes aside, that is like asking who's a better baseball player Honus Wagner or Jason Giambi. There're just too many factors.

Since I've answered your questions, would you be good enough to answer mine? :)

Just wondering,
Bill

Well, Bill, first of all, I thank you for answering my questions, and, without further ado, I'll answer yours in the best way I can.

Actually, I can consider myself a veteran 3rd edition D&D player, with a good knowledge of fighting, and the only reason I asked all of those is that I (and the people I play with) have had some doubts about that specific ruling, maybe we didn't get the meaning of it earlier, such as how can a fighter with a greatsword make his attack simultaneously with a kick, by the rules. Perhaps we missed the context of the ruling. Second, due to trying new experiences with characters, our DM, the other players and myself, played with different characters at different levels, only recently I wanted to add some martial arts to my 11th-level character, and because of all this, I wanted to make sure that any mistakes wouldn't be made either by me or by our DM.

I hope I have answered your questions in a decent way, see ya! :)

Dave
ab0b0
10-13-04, 06:32 PM You seem like an all right guy, it's just that a lot of kids come on here because their first ever character is going to be a 16th level fighter and they want to learn all of the best ways to be a munchkin before they've even learned the rules for combat. That's probably why I threw those hard-hitting questions at you. I can't help it if I'm a bit of a ball buster. I really can't. I do it without even trying, but I'm glad to see that despite everything I was able to provide you with clear and concise answers.

If your DM lets you use supplementary material. Check out the link in my signature to my 30+ new feats. Many of them are specifically for fighters because the fighter is considered a bit weak at higher levels. Since he gets no special abilities except for feats, I created a whole bunch of cool feats just for him. Many involve armor and the tower shield, but there are also many that don't. They are also well balanced, for the most part, and original.

Check it out,
Bill :)
Lieutenant Dave
10-14-04, 03:50 PM If your DM lets you use supplementary material. Check out the link in my signature to my 30+ new feats. Many of them are specifically for fighters because the fighter is considered a bit weak at higher levels. Since he gets no special abilities except for feats, I created a whole bunch of cool feats just for him. Many involve armor and the tower shield, but there are also many that don't. They are also well balanced, for the most part, and original.

Check it out,
Bill :)

Indeed I just have, and I think they are quite nice! :) Those feats that involve weapon masteries are sure to come in handy (if my DM allows them, that is... I'll have to check with him next session.).
BTW, in the normal 3rd edition rules it seems I cannot find greater weapon focus and greater weapon specialization, where can I find them??? :confused:
ab0b0
10-14-04, 04:07 PM I play 3.5, and they're in that version of the PHB.

They are exactly the same as regular Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization, but they all stack. Giving you a total of +2 to hit and +4 damage. The level prerequisite for Greater Focus, is Fighter 8. For Greater Weapon Specialization it is Fighter 12. You can also find them on the SRD. :)

I hope that helps.
Bill
AOG_Rogue
10-14-04, 04:42 PM Hello everyone!

I'm a 3rd edition D&D player, and I need a help with the rules and I was hoping that you can help me with that! Since now, my thanks.

Here it goes:

- I'm playing a 9th/2nd-level fighter/barbarian who is specialized in combat with a greatsword, and I would like to make him make a full attack in which he strikes with the greatsword AND with an unarmed strike (a kick), using the Inproved Unarmed Strike feat, but I don't know if that is possible to do it by the rules. If any unarmed strike can be treated as an off-hand weapon (because it is a kick), can I make both attacks?

- If the answer is yes, would the Ambidexterity and Two-Weapon Fighting/Improved Two-Weapon Fighting help with those attacks?

Despite what some people have said previous on this topic, in 3.5 you may NOT wield make an additional kick attack while wielding a Greatsword in both hands.

The two weapon fightings rules are very specific on exactly what it allows. From the SRD:
TWO-WEAPON FIGHTING
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. 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.

Per the Glossary on this website:
off hand
A character's weaker or less dexterous hand (usually the left). An attack made with the off hand incurs a -4 penalty on the attack roll. In addition, only one-half of a character's Strength bonus may be added to damage dealt with a weapon held in the off hand.
Source: PHB

Given the definition of off hand and the fact that two weapon fighting specifically says the extra attack must be from a weapon wielding in the off hand, the rules do not allow a character to make addtional "off hand" attacks while wielding a 2 handed weapon. The only exception to this is the double weapon with its specific restrictions and limitations.

As a note the rules do allow the reverse. A monk (or any other character) may do his normal unarmed strikes as his primary weapons AND use the two weapon fighting rules to attack with either a weapon (or unarmed strike) with the off hand. The two weapon fighting penalities would apply normally to all the attacks and would stack with any other associated penalties (such as flurry).
Egres
10-14-04, 07:28 PM Given the definition of off hand and the fact that two weapon fighting specifically says the extra attack must be from a weapon wielding in the off hand, the rules do not allow a character to make addtional "off hand" attacks while wielding a 2 handed weapon. The only exception to this is the double weapon with its specific restrictions and limitations.
HHmm...?

Armor Spikes anyone?
DungeonMaster
10-14-04, 09:42 PM Yes, you can. And that goes for both 3.0 and 3.5.

No you can't AOG_Rogue has it right. This is an old "idea" that has been beaten to death.
There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed.
A monk fighting with a one-handed weapon can make an unarmed strike as an off-hand attack but she suffers the standard penalties for two-weapon fighting.

You need a weapon in at least one hand to use two weapon fighting. If you don't have at least a weapon - you can't two weapon fight.
q'afuu
10-14-04, 09:53 PM No you can't AOG_Rogue has it right. This is an old "idea" that has been beaten to death.

You need a weapon in at least one hand to use two weapon fighting. If you don't have at least a weapon - you can't two weapon fight.
He's right in that the rules require an off-hand weapon (specifically, a weapon held in the off-hand) to make the extra attacks. That doesn't mean said extra weapon can't be an unarmed strike (the terminology is unfortunate, but the core rules do refer to unarmed strikes both as attacks and as 'weapons'). Aside from that there's an obvious problem with armour spikes, as Egres pointed out, but for this specific issue that's largely irrelevant.

I'll quote the SRD:TWO-WEAPON FIGHTING
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. 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. You can reduce these penalties in two ways:
•If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. (An unarmed strike is always considered light.)
•The Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6.
Note the underlined part. If unarmed strikes don't count as 'weapons held in the off-hand', it makes non sense to include this sentence.
Egres
10-15-04, 05:36 AM Aside from that there's an obvious problem with armour spikes, as Egres pointed out, but for this specific issue that's largely irrelevant. :mad:
q'afuu
10-15-04, 09:30 AM :mad:
I was refering to the issue DM brought up (being or not being able to make off-hand attacks while unarmed), not the original topic (being or not being able to make off-hand attacks while wielding a two-handed weapon (and only having two hands, presumably)). The whole armour spikes deal has little to do with the former but a whole lot with the latter. Don't have a cow, dude. ;)
pyk
10-15-04, 09:47 AM No you can't AOG_Rogue has it right. This is an old "idea" that has been beaten to death.

You need a weapon in at least one hand to use two weapon fighting. If you don't have at least a weapon - you can't two weapon fight.
Ehh, wasn't the original question refering to using a greatsword and an unarmed strike as TWF? Would that not count as a "weapon in at least one hand"?
Egres
10-15-04, 01:29 PM I was refering to the issue DM brought up (being or not being able to make off-hand attacks while unarmed), not the original topic (being or not being able to make off-hand attacks while wielding a two-handed weapon (and only having two hands, presumably)). The whole armour spikes deal has little to do with the former but a whole lot with the latter. Don't have a cow, dude. ;)
:cool: :D

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Lieutenant Dave 10-05-04, 03:00 PM	Hello everyone! I'm a 3rd edition D&D player, and I need a help with the rules and I was hoping that you can help me with that! Since now, my thanks. Here it goes: - I'm playing a 9th/2nd-level fighter/barbarian who is specialized in combat with a greatsword, and I would like to make him make a full attack in which he strikes with the greatsword AND with an unarmed strike (a kick), using the Inproved Unarmed Strike feat, but I don't know if that is possible to do it by the rules. If any unarmed strike can be treated as an off-hand weapon (because it is a kick), can I make both attacks? - If the answer is yes, would the Ambidexterity and Two-Weapon Fighting/Improved Two-Weapon Fighting help with those attacks? - Normally an unarmed strike deals subdual damage, and a character cannot strike undead with it, can I deal it normal damage by taking the usual -4 penalty to the attack roll? - Who wins in a melee fight, a 20th-level fighter using a greatsword, or a 20-th-level barbarian using a greataxe?
bookwurm 10-05-04, 04:10 PM	i've actually been thinking along the same question latly and this is what i think: its not a question of how many hands/feet are available, but of coordination. i seriously doubt anyone could swing a 6 ft sword and throw a kick at the same time, he'd lose his balance. what he could do is get the monkey grip feat and use it in one hand and use a fist as a light weapon.
TheEnforcer 10-06-04, 02:23 PM	- Who wins in a melee fight, a 20th-level fighter using a greatsword, or a 20-th-level barbarian using a greataxe? That would largely depend on the feats of the fighter. When it comes to damage, the barbarian would win out. If the fighter has, say, improved trip/disarm/sunder I'd place my bet on him. The weapon choice makes little difference as Greatsword and Greataxe are about equal.
DungeonMaster 10-06-04, 04:03 PM	Hello everyone! - I'm playing a 9th/2nd-level fighter/barbarian who is specialized in combat with a greatsword, and I would like to make him make a full attack in which he strikes with the greatsword AND with an unarmed strike (a kick), using the Inproved Unarmed Strike feat, but I don't know if that is possible to do it by the rules. If any unarmed strike can be treated as an off-hand weapon (because it is a kick), can I make both attacks? No, by the rules an unarmed strike isn't necessarily a kick - it's an unarmed strike which is either a kick or a punch and which it is depends entirely on the DM and the flavor of the situation. Restricting your unarmed strikes to kicks isn't something you can technically "do" by the rules and in the abstract combat system that is D&D it isn't technically allowed. You can't for instance two weapon fight unarmed, despite having two fists and two feet. You can however substitute your greatsword attacks at any point in a full attack with unarmed strikes. - Normally an unarmed strike deals subdual damage, and a character cannot strike undead with it, can I deal it normal damage by taking the usual -4 penalty to the attack roll? Absolutely. That's plain as day and you could even grapple the undead and do real damage to it. - Who wins in a melee fight, a 20th-level fighter using a greatsword, or a 20-th-level barbarian using a greataxe? Tough call, would depend mostly on the gear they use and their feat selection. I wouldn't bet on either contestant until I saw them fully fleshed out. The barbarian and the fighter in 3rd edition are very close at these high levels.
Egres 10-06-04, 07:07 PM	I'm playing a 9th/2nd-level fighter/barbarian who is specialized in combat with a greatsword, and I would like to make him make a full attack in which he strikes with the greatsword AND with an unarmed strike (a kick), using the Inproved Unarmed Strike feat, but I don't know if that is possible to do it by the rules. If any unarmed strike can be treated as an off-hand weapon (because it is a kick), can I make both attacks? Yes. Just apply the normal penalties for TWF.
q'afuu 10-06-04, 07:16 PM	You can't for instance two weapon fight unarmed, despite having two fists and two feet. Yes, you can. And that goes for both 3.0 and 3.5.
Lieutenant Dave 10-09-04, 03:46 PM	First of all, thanks for your trouble answering me out. Absolutely. That's plain as day and you could even grapple the undead and do real damage to it. Well, I still find it weird because the -4 penalty applies if you want to strike in the most vulnerable areas, and undead don't have vulnerable areas. Yes. Just apply the normal penalties for TWF. And would the Ambidexterity, Two-Weapon Fighting, and Improved Two-Weapon Fighting apply to the greatsword and kick attacks simultaneously? Or would I have to use the Multidexterity and Multiweapon Fighting creature feats? :confused:
primemover003 10-09-04, 04:02 PM	The TWF chain would apply to your greatsword as the primary weapon and your unarmed attacks as off hand (and light for that matter). You could have armor spikes as an off hand weapon too... Better than subdual damage anyday! i've actually been thinking along the same question latly and this is what i think: its not a question of how many hands/feet are available, but of coordination. i seriously doubt anyone could swing a 6 ft sword and throw a kick at the same time, he'd lose his balance. what he could do is get the monkey grip feat and use it in one hand and use a fist as a light weapon. And using your body with a weapon like a greatsword is MORE than possible. Try to find any of the Renaissance weapon manuals for greatswords and you'll find they are truly a versitle weapon!
Egres 10-09-04, 05:13 PM	First of all, thanks for your trouble answering me out. Well, I still find it weird because the -4 penalty applies if you want to strike in the most vulnerable areas, and undead don't have vulnerable areas. And would the Ambidexterity, Two-Weapon Fighting, and Improved Two-Weapon Fighting apply to the greatsword and kick attacks simultaneously? Or would I have to use the Multidexterity and Multiweapon Fighting creature feats? :confused: Follow the TWF tree.
ab0b0 10-09-04, 09:02 PM	Doesn't anyone beside me think it odd that a guy with a Fighter 9/ Barbarian 2 PC, barely knows the rules for fighting? These questions of yours never came up until 11th level? Is this a new character who got started off at level 11? I wonder :confused:. Still, if you are new to the game why did you start yourself off at level 11? Doesn't that rob you of the sense of accomplishment you would receive from leveling-up on your own? Why couldn't you start out with a level 1 character? Are you playing as part of a group of high level characters? If that's the case, by now shouldn't any one of the older members of the group, who should be more than familiar with the rules for unarmed attacks and 2-weapon fighting, be able to help answer your questions? Unless, of course, they also started their PCs at level 11 before learning how to play. :D Regardless, I'll give you a few answers. 1. The kick counts as an off-hand attack with a light weapon. 2. Yes. 3. Yes, unless the Improved Unarmed feat lets you strike for lethal damage penalty free. I don't remember that part of the answer, but if it doesn't, yes, you would have to take the -4. 4. Nobody. Fighting never solves anything. :D. Ha! What a load of BS! All jokes aside, that is like asking who's a better baseball player Honus Wagner or Jason Giambi. There're just too many factors. Since I've answered your questions, would you be good enough to answer mine? :) Just wondering, Bill
Lieutenant Dave 10-13-04, 04:26 PM	Doesn't anyone beside me think it odd that a guy with a Fighter 9/ Barbarian 2 PC, barely knows the rules for fighting? These questions of yours never came up until 11th level? Is this a new character who got started off at level 11? I wonder :confused:. Still, if you are new to the game why did you start yourself off at level 11? Doesn't that rob you of the sense of accomplishment you would receive from leveling-up on your own? Why couldn't you start out with a level 1 character? Are you playing as part of a group of high level characters? If that's the case, by now shouldn't any one of the older members of the group, who should be more than familiar with the rules for unarmed attacks and 2-weapon fighting, be able to help answer your questions? Unless, of course, they also started their PCs at level 11 before learning how to play. :D Regardless, I'll give you a few answers. 1. The kick counts as an off-hand attack with a light weapon. 2. Yes. 3. Yes, unless the Improved Unarmed feat lets you strike for lethal damage penalty free. I don't remember that part of the answer, but if it doesn't, yes, you would have to take the -4. 4. Nobody. Fighting never solves anything. :D. Ha! What a load of BS! All jokes aside, that is like asking who's a better baseball player Honus Wagner or Jason Giambi. There're just too many factors. Since I've answered your questions, would you be good enough to answer mine? :) Just wondering, Bill Well, Bill, first of all, I thank you for answering my questions, and, without further ado, I'll answer yours in the best way I can. Actually, I can consider myself a veteran 3rd edition D&D player, with a good knowledge of fighting, and the only reason I asked all of those is that I (and the people I play with) have had some doubts about that specific ruling, maybe we didn't get the meaning of it earlier, such as how can a fighter with a greatsword make his attack simultaneously with a kick, by the rules. Perhaps we missed the context of the ruling. Second, due to trying new experiences with characters, our DM, the other players and myself, played with different characters at different levels, only recently I wanted to add some martial arts to my 11th-level character, and because of all this, I wanted to make sure that any mistakes wouldn't be made either by me or by our DM. I hope I have answered your questions in a decent way, see ya! :) Dave
ab0b0 10-13-04, 06:32 PM	You seem like an all right guy, it's just that a lot of kids come on here because their first ever character is going to be a 16th level fighter and they want to learn all of the best ways to be a munchkin before they've even learned the rules for combat. That's probably why I threw those hard-hitting questions at you. I can't help it if I'm a bit of a ball buster. I really can't. I do it without even trying, but I'm glad to see that despite everything I was able to provide you with clear and concise answers. If your DM lets you use supplementary material. Check out the link in my signature to my 30+ new feats. Many of them are specifically for fighters because the fighter is considered a bit weak at higher levels. Since he gets no special abilities except for feats, I created a whole bunch of cool feats just for him. Many involve armor and the tower shield, but there are also many that don't. They are also well balanced, for the most part, and original. Check it out, Bill :)
Lieutenant Dave 10-14-04, 03:50 PM	If your DM lets you use supplementary material. Check out the link in my signature to my 30+ new feats. Many of them are specifically for fighters because the fighter is considered a bit weak at higher levels. Since he gets no special abilities except for feats, I created a whole bunch of cool feats just for him. Many involve armor and the tower shield, but there are also many that don't. They are also well balanced, for the most part, and original. Check it out, Bill :) Indeed I just have, and I think they are quite nice! :) Those feats that involve weapon masteries are sure to come in handy (if my DM allows them, that is... I'll have to check with him next session.). BTW, in the normal 3rd edition rules it seems I cannot find greater weapon focus and greater weapon specialization, where can I find them??? :confused:
ab0b0 10-14-04, 04:07 PM	I play 3.5, and they're in that version of the PHB. They are exactly the same as regular Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization, but they all stack. Giving you a total of +2 to hit and +4 damage. The level prerequisite for Greater Focus, is Fighter 8. For Greater Weapon Specialization it is Fighter 12. You can also find them on the SRD. :) I hope that helps. Bill
AOG_Rogue 10-14-04, 04:42 PM	Hello everyone! I'm a 3rd edition D&D player, and I need a help with the rules and I was hoping that you can help me with that! Since now, my thanks. Here it goes: - I'm playing a 9th/2nd-level fighter/barbarian who is specialized in combat with a greatsword, and I would like to make him make a full attack in which he strikes with the greatsword AND with an unarmed strike (a kick), using the Inproved Unarmed Strike feat, but I don't know if that is possible to do it by the rules. If any unarmed strike can be treated as an off-hand weapon (because it is a kick), can I make both attacks? - If the answer is yes, would the Ambidexterity and Two-Weapon Fighting/Improved Two-Weapon Fighting help with those attacks? Despite what some people have said previous on this topic, in 3.5 you may NOT wield make an additional kick attack while wielding a Greatsword in both hands. The two weapon fightings rules are very specific on exactly what it allows. From the SRD: TWO-WEAPON FIGHTING If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. 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. Per the Glossary on this website: off hand A character's weaker or less dexterous hand (usually the left). An attack made with the off hand incurs a -4 penalty on the attack roll. In addition, only one-half of a character's Strength bonus may be added to damage dealt with a weapon held in the off hand. Source: PHB Given the definition of off hand and the fact that two weapon fighting specifically says the extra attack must be from a weapon wielding in the off hand, the rules do not allow a character to make addtional "off hand" attacks while wielding a 2 handed weapon. The only exception to this is the double weapon with its specific restrictions and limitations. As a note the rules do allow the reverse. A monk (or any other character) may do his normal unarmed strikes as his primary weapons AND use the two weapon fighting rules to attack with either a weapon (or unarmed strike) with the off hand. The two weapon fighting penalities would apply normally to all the attacks and would stack with any other associated penalties (such as flurry).
Egres 10-14-04, 07:28 PM	Given the definition of off hand and the fact that two weapon fighting specifically says the extra attack must be from a weapon wielding in the off hand, the rules do not allow a character to make addtional "off hand" attacks while wielding a 2 handed weapon. The only exception to this is the double weapon with its specific restrictions and limitations. HHmm...? Armor Spikes anyone?
DungeonMaster 10-14-04, 09:42 PM	Yes, you can. And that goes for both 3.0 and 3.5. No you can't AOG_Rogue has it right. This is an old "idea" that has been beaten to death. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk fighting with a one-handed weapon can make an unarmed strike as an off-hand attack but she suffers the standard penalties for two-weapon fighting. You need a weapon in at least one hand to use two weapon fighting. If you don't have at least a weapon - you can't two weapon fight.
q'afuu 10-14-04, 09:53 PM	No you can't AOG_Rogue has it right. This is an old "idea" that has been beaten to death. You need a weapon in at least one hand to use two weapon fighting. If you don't have at least a weapon - you can't two weapon fight. He's right in that the rules require an off-hand weapon (specifically, a weapon held in the off-hand) to make the extra attacks. That doesn't mean said extra weapon can't be an unarmed strike (the terminology is unfortunate, but the core rules do refer to unarmed strikes both as attacks and as 'weapons'). Aside from that there's an obvious problem with armour spikes, as Egres pointed out, but for this specific issue that's largely irrelevant. I'll quote the SRD:TWO-WEAPON FIGHTING If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. 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. You can reduce these penalties in two ways: •If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. (An unarmed strike is always considered light.) •The Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6. Note the underlined part. If unarmed strikes don't count as 'weapons held in the off-hand', it makes non sense to include this sentence.
Egres 10-15-04, 05:36 AM	Aside from that there's an obvious problem with armour spikes, as Egres pointed out, but for this specific issue that's largely irrelevant. :mad:
q'afuu 10-15-04, 09:30 AM	:mad: I was refering to the issue DM brought up (being or not being able to make off-hand attacks while unarmed), not the original topic (being or not being able to make off-hand attacks while wielding a two-handed weapon (and only having two hands, presumably)). The whole armour spikes deal has little to do with the former but a whole lot with the latter. Don't have a cow, dude. ;)
pyk 10-15-04, 09:47 AM	No you can't AOG_Rogue has it right. This is an old "idea" that has been beaten to death. You need a weapon in at least one hand to use two weapon fighting. If you don't have at least a weapon - you can't two weapon fight. Ehh, wasn't the original question refering to using a greatsword and an unarmed strike as TWF? Would that not count as a "weapon in at least one hand"?
Egres 10-15-04, 01:29 PM	I was refering to the issue DM brought up (being or not being able to make off-hand attacks while unarmed), not the original topic (being or not being able to make off-hand attacks while wielding a two-handed weapon (and only having two hands, presumably)). The whole armour spikes deal has little to do with the former but a whole lot with the latter. Don't have a cow, dude. ;) :cool: :D