Hands Occupied, Feet Free [Archive] - Wizards Community

Hands Occupied, Feet Free [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Ian0311
04-01-07, 10:46 PM When a person (not a monk) has improved unarmed strike, can they use their feet for AoO's when their hands are otherwise occupied?
ClementWillowbreaker
04-01-07, 10:57 PM Yes, unarmed strikes have never required hands. Monks just get to use unarmed strikes without having to TWF/Multiweapon Fight with the weapons they have in their hands.

Note that while the FAQ/Sage is very very very loose with giving the benefits of threatening without penalty, a stricter DM would require you to pay for the ability to threaten with unarmed strikes in addition to other weapons at the same time. Namely by TWFing.
Ian0311
04-01-07, 11:28 PM I was referring to a situation where you would have a bow (or otherwise useless in melee) weapon (or item) in hand. I was referring to purely threatening with my feet, rather than with any other weapons on top of that.

Thanks for your answer, though.

Does the TWF thing apply in the situation I mentioned?
Dheran
04-01-07, 11:45 PM Does the TWF thing apply in the situation I mentioned? No, TWF penalties never apply to AoOs:Making an Attack of Opportunity

An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack, and you can only make one per round. You don’t have to make an attack of opportunity if you don’t want to.

An experienced character gets additional regular melee attacks (by using the full attack action), but at a lower attack bonus. You make your attack of opportunity, however, at your normal attack bonus—even if you’ve already attacked in the round. It doesn't matter what weapon(s) you've used during your regular turn; AoOs are valid with any melee weapon you threaten with, including unarmed strikes. TWF penalties only apply during a full attack, which an AoO is definitely not. AoOs normally occur at your full BAB, but some feats may modify this. Examples:Combat Expertise [General]

When you use the attack action or the full attack action in melee, you can take a penalty of as much as -5 on your attack roll and add the same number (+5 or less) as a dodge bonus to your Armor Class. This number may not exceed your base attack bonus. The changes to attack rolls and Armor Class last until your next action. Power Attack [General]

On your action, before making attack rolls for a round, you may choose to subtract a number from all melee attack rolls and add the same number to all melee damage rolls. This number may not exceed your base attack bonus. The penalty on attacks and bonus on damage apply until your next turn.
Leilond
04-02-07, 07:45 AM Read this (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070327a) too
tarkin
04-02-07, 12:44 PM No, TWF penalties never apply to AoOs: It doesn't matter what weapon(s) you've used during your regular turn; AoOs are valid with any melee weapon you threaten with, including unarmed strikes. TWF penalties only apply during a full attack, which an AoO is definitely not. AoOs normally occur at your full BAB, but some feats may modify this. Examples:

Dheran, you are playing with a House Rule.

TWF penalties applly to ALL attacks you make, even those not in your regular turn:

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:

Note the words "or attacks made with your primary hand".

The feat and using a light weapon can bring the penalty down to -2, but this applies to ALL attacks you make for the ENTIRE round, regardless of anything else.

This includes AoOs.

It lasts untill you stop fighting TWF style, which requires your next turn.

No where at all does it say "for all attacks that round", or any other limitation for the TWF penalty.
ClementWillowbreaker
04-02-07, 01:17 PM I was about to post that, but then I thought, "Wait, Tarkin always corrects people on TWFing- he has it on a macro."

Although he meant to say that TWF doesn't have an exception to the fact that penalties last the entire round (or alternately, no where does it say the penalties only apply on your turn). And yes, you would need an exception. PA and CE just remind you of what you should have been doing all along.
Dheran
04-02-07, 03:04 PM Dheran, you are playing with a House Rule.

TWF penalties applly to ALL attacks you make, even those not in your regular turn Gee, I think you're the one playing with a House Rule, tarkin. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but you'll need to find an explicit statement in the rules that expressly matches your statement. Here's a quote from Rules of the Game: Two-Handed Fighting (Part Two) (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060905a):Some attack penalties you voluntarily assume, such as the penalty for defensive fighting (see pages 140 and 143 in the Player's Handbook), apply until your next turn, but two weapon penalties are not one of them. In addition to Skip's buttressing of my position (which is nice, but he's been wrong in the past) there's the simple logical inconsistency that would apply if tarkin's penalty extension were valid. Suppose you make a full attack, without taking TWF penalties, with a dagger. Then a skeleton provokes an AoO from you. The rules specify that you may attack with any weapon you threaten with, and that includes unarmed strikes if you've got the Improved Unarmed Strike feat. You obviously want to make the unarmed bludgeoning attack rather than use your dagger because the skeleton has DR that's bypassed by bludgeoning. tarkin's statement would have you apply TWF penalties to this attack because you're now fighting with a second weapon. Yet you didn't apply TWF penalties to the full attack, so that attack now becomes retroactively invalid. See the problem?
Although he meant to say that TWF doesn't have an exception to the fact that penalties last the entire round (or alternately, no where does it say the penalties only apply on your turn). Care to cite a source for this supposed general rule that TWF (or other) "penalties last the entire round", Clement? I haven't found one. There are explicit statements in various places, such as for fighting defensively and in the two feats I quoted, that their effects last until the beginning of the character's next turn, but I don't know of a general rule -- just specific cases.
shift244
04-03-07, 02:18 PM Suppose you make a full attack, without taking TWF penalties, with a dagger. Then a skeleton provokes an AoO from you. The rules specify that you may attack with any weapon you threaten with, and that includes unarmed strikes if you've got the Improved Unarmed Strike feat. You obviously want to make the unarmed bludgeoning attack rather than use your dagger because the skeleton has DR that's bypassed by bludgeoning.So, under Tarkin's jurisdiction, wouldn't that simply mean that the option to use your unarmed strikes need to be paid, beforehand, by taking TWF penalties when attacking with your daggers, or render the option to AoO with your unarmed strike invalid otherwise? In way, the concept of taking TWF penalties are simply to allow the option to remain available to you at all, and not just to make full round TWF attacks. It does strike me as weird to TWF with a longbow, (so I still threaten with my unarmed strikes,) but in another odd sort of way, it does make sense.
Dheran
04-03-07, 05:32 PM So, under Tarkin's jurisdiction, wouldn't that simply mean that the option to use your unarmed strikes need to be paid, beforehand, by taking TWF penalties when attacking with your daggers, or render the option to AoO with your unarmed strike invalid otherwise?
... It does strike me as weird to TWF with a longbow, (so I still threaten with my unarmed strikes,) but in another odd sort of way, it does make sense. While I guess that would be a way of making tarkin's House Rule consistent if you'd made a full attack, you'd be widening the scope of the House Rule: the RAW only specify applying TWF penalties if you do attack with an off-hand weapon, not for reserving the right to do so later on an AoO. Furthermore, if you make a standard action attack the rules don't provide the option of taking TWF penalties at all, and yet you can take an AoO using any weapon you threaten with. It makes no sense to apply theoretical TWF penalties on a full attack but to allow any combination of weapons to be used with AoOs following a standard action attack.

Nah, I'll just stick with the RAW. Trying to figure out how to apply tarkin's lingering TWF penalties on AoOs, even theoretically, is giving me a headache.
ClementWillowbreaker
04-03-07, 07:17 PM Nah, I'll just stick with the RAW. Trying to figure out how to apply tarkin's lingering TWF penalties on AoOs, even theoretically, is giving me a headache.
It's easy. You do it all the time with CE and PA. You want to have the choice of two weapons? Take TWF penalties on all your attack rolls that round. If you make a full-attack, you even get to make an extra attack or two.

If you think AoO's being at your full attack bonus means you can ignore lasting penalties, they that means you don't apply the effects of shaken, dazzled, prone, squeezing, morale penalties from spells...the list goes on. AoOs are made at your full base attack bonus, not the best possible total attack bonus you can manage. So that is not a valid objection to applying TWFing penalties, because they are no different than anything else.

Tarkin's and my interpretation is very close to not being a house rule, because the RAW don't list rules for the numerous issues that come up when you get to wield weapons for free- custom AoO attack selection, free threatening with armor spikes while wielding a reach weapon (which is functionally identical to a spiked chain without the EWP, but no one ever complains its broken...), having a Defending weapon you never attack with but just use for free AC (since it is penalizing an attack roll you never have to make)...the list goes on. Monks get a class ability that lets them use two hands and unarmed strikes all at once with no penalties, and Skip Williams just throws that to any idiot that picks up two weapons (or rather, straps one to his foot while using a Greatsword) without drawback.

The first line of TWFing in Combat is ambigious, and has two grammatical options. One takes the penalties as only applying when you make a full-attack (and this only-on-those-attacks stuff is pure nonsense on top of it) and leaves all these horrible gaps in the rules. The other reading makes the TWF penalties appear when you choose to wield two weapons, finally putting a limit on what was a nebulous issue in the rules, and fixes all the other issues at the same time. When one reading of the rules creates a huge mess, and the other deftly resolves them all, you pick the latter.
Dheran
04-04-07, 04:48 PM Tarkin's and my interpretation is very close to not being a house rule, I'm sorry; I can't read any longer: "very close to not being a house rule"? You crack me up, Clement. :D
ClementWillowbreaker
04-04-07, 07:59 PM I'm sorry; I can't read any longer: "very close to not being a house rule"? You crack me up, Clement. :D
There are no rules for sleep (except that elves don't do it). Just rest. If you make your players sleep, you are using a house rule to fix an omission in the rules using logical extensions of what little they give you to go on. Same thing here. Wielding is never defined, the ability to use multiple weapons is ignored after it is introduced, and so on.

"being subject to interpretation" and "no rules on the subject" are the most justifiable situations to insert house rules. In those times, they should be judged more fairly than the ones slapped together under, "DM is too lazy to finish reading the book".

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Ian0311 04-01-07, 10:46 PM	When a person (not a monk) has improved unarmed strike, can they use their feet for AoO's when their hands are otherwise occupied?
ClementWillowbreaker 04-01-07, 10:57 PM	Yes, unarmed strikes have never required hands. Monks just get to use unarmed strikes without having to TWF/Multiweapon Fight with the weapons they have in their hands. Note that while the FAQ/Sage is very very very loose with giving the benefits of threatening without penalty, a stricter DM would require you to pay for the ability to threaten with unarmed strikes in addition to other weapons at the same time. Namely by TWFing.
Ian0311 04-01-07, 11:28 PM	I was referring to a situation where you would have a bow (or otherwise useless in melee) weapon (or item) in hand. I was referring to purely threatening with my feet, rather than with any other weapons on top of that. Thanks for your answer, though. Does the TWF thing apply in the situation I mentioned?
Dheran 04-01-07, 11:45 PM	Does the TWF thing apply in the situation I mentioned? No, TWF penalties never apply to AoOs:Making an Attack of Opportunity An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack, and you can only make one per round. You don’t have to make an attack of opportunity if you don’t want to. An experienced character gets additional regular melee attacks (by using the full attack action), but at a lower attack bonus. You make your attack of opportunity, however, at your normal attack bonus—even if you’ve already attacked in the round. It doesn't matter what weapon(s) you've used during your regular turn; AoOs are valid with any melee weapon you threaten with, including unarmed strikes. TWF penalties only apply during a full attack, which an AoO is definitely not. AoOs normally occur at your full BAB, but some feats may modify this. Examples:Combat Expertise [General] When you use the attack action or the full attack action in melee, you can take a penalty of as much as -5 on your attack roll and add the same number (+5 or less) as a dodge bonus to your Armor Class. This number may not exceed your base attack bonus. The changes to attack rolls and Armor Class last until your next action. Power Attack [General] On your action, before making attack rolls for a round, you may choose to subtract a number from all melee attack rolls and add the same number to all melee damage rolls. This number may not exceed your base attack bonus. The penalty on attacks and bonus on damage apply until your next turn.
Leilond 04-02-07, 07:45 AM	Read this (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070327a) too
tarkin 04-02-07, 12:44 PM	No, TWF penalties never apply to AoOs: It doesn't matter what weapon(s) you've used during your regular turn; AoOs are valid with any melee weapon you threaten with, including unarmed strikes. TWF penalties only apply during a full attack, which an AoO is definitely not. AoOs normally occur at your full BAB, but some feats may modify this. Examples: Dheran, you are playing with a House Rule. TWF penalties applly to ALL attacks you make, even those not in your regular turn: 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: Note the words "or attacks made with your primary hand". The feat and using a light weapon can bring the penalty down to -2, but this applies to ALL attacks you make for the ENTIRE round, regardless of anything else. This includes AoOs. It lasts untill you stop fighting TWF style, which requires your next turn. No where at all does it say "for all attacks that round", or any other limitation for the TWF penalty.
ClementWillowbreaker 04-02-07, 01:17 PM	I was about to post that, but then I thought, "Wait, Tarkin always corrects people on TWFing- he has it on a macro." Although he meant to say that TWF doesn't have an exception to the fact that penalties last the entire round (or alternately, no where does it say the penalties only apply on your turn). And yes, you would need an exception. PA and CE just remind you of what you should have been doing all along.
Dheran 04-02-07, 03:04 PM	Dheran, you are playing with a House Rule. TWF penalties applly to ALL attacks you make, even those not in your regular turn Gee, I think you're the one playing with a House Rule, tarkin. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but you'll need to find an explicit statement in the rules that expressly matches your statement. Here's a quote from Rules of the Game: Two-Handed Fighting (Part Two) (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060905a):Some attack penalties you voluntarily assume, such as the penalty for defensive fighting (see pages 140 and 143 in the Player's Handbook), apply until your next turn, but two weapon penalties are not one of them. In addition to Skip's buttressing of my position (which is nice, but he's been wrong in the past) there's the simple logical inconsistency that would apply if tarkin's penalty extension were valid. Suppose you make a full attack, without taking TWF penalties, with a dagger. Then a skeleton provokes an AoO from you. The rules specify that you may attack with any weapon you threaten with, and that includes unarmed strikes if you've got the Improved Unarmed Strike feat. You obviously want to make the unarmed bludgeoning attack rather than use your dagger because the skeleton has DR that's bypassed by bludgeoning. tarkin's statement would have you apply TWF penalties to this attack because you're now fighting with a second weapon. Yet you didn't apply TWF penalties to the full attack, so that attack now becomes retroactively invalid. See the problem? Although he meant to say that TWF doesn't have an exception to the fact that penalties last the entire round (or alternately, no where does it say the penalties only apply on your turn). Care to cite a source for this supposed general rule that TWF (or other) "penalties last the entire round", Clement? I haven't found one. There are explicit statements in various places, such as for fighting defensively and in the two feats I quoted, that their effects last until the beginning of the character's next turn, but I don't know of a general rule -- just specific cases.
shift244 04-03-07, 02:18 PM	Suppose you make a full attack, without taking TWF penalties, with a dagger. Then a skeleton provokes an AoO from you. The rules specify that you may attack with any weapon you threaten with, and that includes unarmed strikes if you've got the Improved Unarmed Strike feat. You obviously want to make the unarmed bludgeoning attack rather than use your dagger because the skeleton has DR that's bypassed by bludgeoning.So, under Tarkin's jurisdiction, wouldn't that simply mean that the option to use your unarmed strikes need to be paid, beforehand, by taking TWF penalties when attacking with your daggers, or render the option to AoO with your unarmed strike invalid otherwise? In way, the concept of taking TWF penalties are simply to allow the option to remain available to you at all, and not just to make full round TWF attacks. It does strike me as weird to TWF with a longbow, (so I still threaten with my unarmed strikes,) but in another odd sort of way, it does make sense.
Dheran 04-03-07, 05:32 PM	So, under Tarkin's jurisdiction, wouldn't that simply mean that the option to use your unarmed strikes need to be paid, beforehand, by taking TWF penalties when attacking with your daggers, or render the option to AoO with your unarmed strike invalid otherwise? ... It does strike me as weird to TWF with a longbow, (so I still threaten with my unarmed strikes,) but in another odd sort of way, it does make sense. While I guess that would be a way of making tarkin's House Rule consistent if you'd made a full attack, you'd be widening the scope of the House Rule: the RAW only specify applying TWF penalties if you do attack with an off-hand weapon, not for reserving the right to do so later on an AoO. Furthermore, if you make a standard action attack the rules don't provide the option of taking TWF penalties at all, and yet you can take an AoO using any weapon you threaten with. It makes no sense to apply theoretical TWF penalties on a full attack but to allow any combination of weapons to be used with AoOs following a standard action attack. Nah, I'll just stick with the RAW. Trying to figure out how to apply tarkin's lingering TWF penalties on AoOs, even theoretically, is giving me a headache.
ClementWillowbreaker 04-03-07, 07:17 PM	Nah, I'll just stick with the RAW. Trying to figure out how to apply tarkin's lingering TWF penalties on AoOs, even theoretically, is giving me a headache. It's easy. You do it all the time with CE and PA. You want to have the choice of two weapons? Take TWF penalties on all your attack rolls that round. If you make a full-attack, you even get to make an extra attack or two. If you think AoO's being at your full attack bonus means you can ignore lasting penalties, they that means you don't apply the effects of shaken, dazzled, prone, squeezing, morale penalties from spells...the list goes on. AoOs are made at your full base attack bonus, not the best possible total attack bonus you can manage. So that is not a valid objection to applying TWFing penalties, because they are no different than anything else. Tarkin's and my interpretation is very close to not being a house rule, because the RAW don't list rules for the numerous issues that come up when you get to wield weapons for free- custom AoO attack selection, free threatening with armor spikes while wielding a reach weapon (which is functionally identical to a spiked chain without the EWP, but no one ever complains its broken...), having a Defending weapon you never attack with but just use for free AC (since it is penalizing an attack roll you never have to make)...the list goes on. Monks get a class ability that lets them use two hands and unarmed strikes all at once with no penalties, and Skip Williams just throws that to any idiot that picks up two weapons (or rather, straps one to his foot while using a Greatsword) without drawback. The first line of TWFing in Combat is ambigious, and has two grammatical options. One takes the penalties as only applying when you make a full-attack (and this only-on-those-attacks stuff is pure nonsense on top of it) and leaves all these horrible gaps in the rules. The other reading makes the TWF penalties appear when you choose to wield two weapons, finally putting a limit on what was a nebulous issue in the rules, and fixes all the other issues at the same time. When one reading of the rules creates a huge mess, and the other deftly resolves them all, you pick the latter.
Dheran 04-04-07, 04:48 PM	Tarkin's and my interpretation is very close to not being a house rule, I'm sorry; I can't read any longer: "very close to not being a house rule"? You crack me up, Clement. :D
ClementWillowbreaker 04-04-07, 07:59 PM	I'm sorry; I can't read any longer: "very close to not being a house rule"? You crack me up, Clement. :D There are no rules for sleep (except that elves don't do it). Just rest. If you make your players sleep, you are using a house rule to fix an omission in the rules using logical extensions of what little they give you to go on. Same thing here. Wielding is never defined, the ability to use multiple weapons is ignored after it is introduced, and so on. "being subject to interpretation" and "no rules on the subject" are the most justifiable situations to insert house rules. In those times, they should be judged more fairly than the ones slapped together under, "DM is too lazy to finish reading the book".