Double Weapons, 1.5x str or not?

[Baroknik]

So, according to the SRD, double weapons follow these rules:
Double Weapons

Dire flails, dwarven urgroshes, gnome hooked hammers, orc double axes, quarterstaffs, and two-bladed swords are double weapons. A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons, but he or she incurs all the normal attack penalties associated with two-weapon combat, just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon.

The character can also choose to use a double weapon two handed, attacking with only one end of it. A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can’t use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.



Re-reading this, I'm unsure about the damage bonus from strength applying when using a double weapon for two-weapon fighting. The entry for double weapons clearly states that if you use it for two-weapon combat, that you incurs all the normal attack penalties for wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. So, you obviously (with TWF feat, for example) take -2 on your attacks. However, what about the bonus damage? Is the damage bonus going to 1xSTR and 0.5xSTR an attack penalty?

Let's say you have a 18 strength level 1 fighter using an orc double-axe who hits with both attacks, should the damage be
(1d8+6)x2
or
(1d8+4) + (1d8+2)
or
something else?

Thanks so much in advance!

[Flickerdart]

A double weapon is only two-handed when wielding one end with two hands. When two-weapon fighting, you are considered to be wielding each end with one separate hand, and deal 1*STR with the main hand and 0.5*STR with the off-hand.

[Baroknik]

A double weapon is only two-handed when wielding one end with two hands. When two-weapon fighting, you are considered to be wielding each end with one separate hand, and deal 1*STR with the main hand and 0.5*STR with the off-hand.

While I certainly agree with that sentiment and believe it was RAI, I'm having a hard time coming up with finding the rules citing that as the case. The only citing I can find for double weapon rulings makes a ruling on attack penalties, not on damage bonuses. If you could point me to a good citation I would greatly appreciate it.

[Extra Anchovies]

Well, Revenant Blade (a PrC from Player's Guide to Eberron) allows you to add 1.5*Str to damage when using a double-scimitar, which implies that adding 1.5*Str is not normally what is done.

[Hrugner]

A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon.

Maybe reading it without the bit between the commas will make it clearer.
You are using the weapon as if it were two weapons, one light and one one handed.

[Jormengand]

While I certainly agree with that sentiment and believe it was RAI, I'm having a hard time coming up with finding the rules citing that as the case. The only citing I can find for double weapon rulings makes a ruling on attack penalties, not on damage bonuses. If you could point me to a good citation I would greatly appreciate it.

The single end of the double weapon is a one-handed weapon, which can be wielded in two hands to provide the strength bonus just like a longsword.

[bekeleven]

Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively. Apply 1½ times the character’s Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon.


A light weapon is easier to use in one’s off hand than a one-handed weapon is, and it can be used while grappling. A light weapon is used in one hand. Add the wielder’s Strength bonus (if any) to damage rolls for melee attacks with a light weapon if it’s used in the primary hand, or one-half the wielder’s Strength bonus if it’s used in the off hand. Using two hands to wield a light weapon gives no advantage on damage; the Strength bonus applies as though the weapon were held in the wielder’s primary hand only.

Dire flails, dwarven urgroshes, gnome hooked hammers, orc double axes, quarterstaffs, and two-bladed swords are double weapons. A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons, but he or she incurs all the normal attack penalties associated with two-weapon combat, just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon.

The character can also choose to use a double weapon two handed, attacking with only one end of it. A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can’t use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.
You get 1.5x strength to both hits. Using both sides of a double weapon counts as TWF for purposes of attack penalties, but the strength bonus you add to damage is neither part of an attack roll nor a penalty.

This makes sense, if you think about it. When I swing at you with a two-bladed sword, both of my hands are powering that swing. Then when I swing it around the other way, both hands are powering that swing too. For all that D&D combat is abstract, that's as concrete as you can get. Here, the rules are restated elsewhere in the SRD:


You can use a double weapon to make an extra attack with the off-hand end of the weapon as if you were fighting with two weapons. The penalties apply as if the off-hand end of the weapon were a light weapon.

Double weapons counts as two-handed weapon except for normal attack roll penalties incurred when two-weapon fighting. It's the same with respect to:

Damage
Disarming (+4)
Sundering (+4)
Power Attack (Double)
Hiding an item with sleight of hand (Nay)
Throwing with Storm of Throws (You can't)

Double weapons are one of the more powerful, although in my opinion not the best, way to make two-weapon fighting mechanically viable.

[Baroknik]

Maybe reading it without the bit between the commas will make it clearer.
You are using the weapon as if it were two weapons, one light and one one handed.


Maybe reading it without the bit between the commas will make it clearer.
You are using the weapon as if it were two weapons, one light and one one handed.

You can certainly view the clause "but..." As an aside, but I don't think that is what was meant. It seems to me that it is a compound sentence with the second having a descriptive subordinate clause.

Though either interpretation works, because that part has ambiguity I would prefer if we could stay with the interesting case (that is, the one with unclear rules interpretation).

[Darrin]

This is a dysfunction. The rules for double weapons are not clear enough to discern the designers' intent. If you go by strict RAW, the text for double weapons only explicitly states how you determine the attack penalties. There is nothing in the text that says you treat a double weapon as a one-handed/light weapon for the purpose of determining damage.

Which leaves us with the PHB text on page 134:

"Off-Hand Weapon: When you deal damage with a weapon in your off hand, you add only 1/2 your Strength bonus.
Wielding a Weapon Two-Handed: When you deal damage with a weapon that you are wielding two-handed, you add 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus."

So, we have two ends, one primary, one offhand. The primary end is easy enough: you're gripping the weapon with two hands, so by strict RAW you should get x1.5 Str bonus. The other end, though... it's both an offhand weapon, and it's being gripped with two hands. The two rules above contradict each other, and is essentially unresolvable without resorting to a DM's ruling and/or personal preference.

[Xerlith]

A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons, but he or she incurs all the normal attack penalties associated with two-weapon combat, just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon.

I don't see any ambiguity. If a character TWFs with a double weapon, they are treated as wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon.

Let's see what that means:

A light weapon is used in one hand. Add the wielder’s Strength bonus (if any) to damage rolls for melee attacks with a light weapon if it’s used in the primary hand, or one-half the wielder’s Strength bonus if it’s used in the off hand.


A one-handed weapon can be used in either the primary hand or the off hand. Add the wielder’s Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with a one-handed weapon if it’s used in the primary hand, or ½ his or her Strength bonus if it’s used in the off hand. If a one-handed weapon is wielded with two hands during melee combat, add 1½ times the character’s Strength bonus to damage rolls.

To compile this:
2WFing requires designating a main hand and an off hand.
An off-hand weapon ALWAYS gains only ½ Strength to damage.
At best, one could argue that a double weapon's main hand allows them to apply 1.5 their Strength bonus to damage - but the off-hand damage is ALWAYS 0.5 Strength.

So, really, the best you can get is the same treatment as an Armor Spikes+Greatsword combo, that is two-handed main weapon + an off-hand light one.

[Feint's End]

To quote a fellow Playgrounder. "This is RAW for you. 100% rules legal. 110% stupid."

Just play it as regular TWF.

[Hellborn_Blight]

I think most DM's are gonna rule it works like Two (separate) Weapon fighting. However, I think a strong case can be made for the non off-hand attack actually being 1.5 Strength because it is wielded in two hands and is the primary attack, with the off hand being .5 because it is in the off hand (with both hands on the weapon), but is defined as an off hand attack not just from being a double weapon, but by the rules of TWF in general; the attack the comes from two weapon fighting and is completely defined as an off-hand attack.
This is what TWF from Special Attacks says about Double Weapons, rather than the other way around.

"Double Weapons
You can use a double weapon to make an extra attack with the off-hand end of the weapon as if you were fighting with two weapons. The penalties apply as if the off-hand end of the weapon were a light weapon."

So at the very least, the extra attack you get from TWF is made as an off hand attack. It is still very messy in the interpretation though.

Interestingly enough, if it is 1.5 and 0.5 strength, that is the same rate that the old great sword and armor spikes combo does. I don't think that would be game breaking I'm of the opinion double weapons get a rough ride and are in need of an overhaul. They are confusing, they end up weaker power wise than some other TWF options, and and all but one of them has a feat or racial requirement.

So anyone got an opinion of what would be a better house rule? Either the 1.5/0.5 strength representation, or making the weapon count as one handed/light for attack bonus purposes and one handed/one handed for everything else (like power attack)?

[bekeleven]

I don't see any ambiguity. If a character TWFs with a double weapon, they are treated as wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon.

Are you claiming that a monk with improved disarm can grab half of my two-handed sword and I'll have a -4 to resist it?

What happens if we're each holding half of the sword and one of us moves away? What if one of us attacks the other?

I think it's pretty clear it's not treated as normal TWF. The only thing it calls out with regards to TWF is attack penalties. At the very least, it's not unambiguously normal TWF.


"Double Weapons
You can use a double weapon to make an extra attack with the off-hand end of the weapon as if you were fighting with two weapons. The penalties apply as if the off-hand end of the weapon were a light weapon."

So at the very least, the extra attack you get from TWF is made as an off hand attack. It is still very messy in the interpretation though.
I mean, the extra attack is with the non-dominant end of the weapon, but you're still powering the swing with both hands. Hence why it specifies the attack penalty and... that's it.

[Hellborn_Blight]

I mean, the extra attack is with the non-dominant end of the weapon, but you're still powering the swing with both hands. Hence why it specifies the attack penalty and... that's it.

It's not about penalties. The .5 strength damage of an off-hand attack isn't a penalty, it is just what an attack that is off-hand does strength damage wise. The attack granted is an off-handed attack. That has nothing to do with double weapons per se, it is all on TWF as a Special Attack at that point. TWF is what makes the decision here, because with out it there is no attack at all.

[No brains]

I wonder if one could read the use of a double weapon as a one-handed weapon to use it with exotic weapon master's uncanny blow?

I know I'm not helping, but I'm not sure which side I'm hurting more. :smallbiggrin:

[Flickerdart]

I wonder if one could read the use of a double weapon as a one-handed weapon to use it with exotic weapon master's uncanny blow?
One could - but only when the one-handed part was being wielded by both of the wielder's hands.

[Extra Anchovies]

In case nobody noticed my earlier post, there is a PrC that grants 1.5*Str to damage with a specific double weapon. If double weapons normally granted 1.5*Str to damage, the PrC would not need to specify that it grants this ability. I think that makes the relevant rules (namely, that the main hand gets Str to damage and the off-hand gets 0.5*Str to damage) clear enough on its own.

[Darrin]

In case nobody noticed my earlier post, there is a PrC that grants 1.5*Str to damage with a specific double weapon. If double weapons normally granted 1.5*Str to damage, the PrC would not need to specify that it grants this ability. I think that makes the relevant rules (namely, that the main hand gets Str to damage and the off-hand gets 0.5*Str to damage) clear enough on its own.

Your argument depends on two assumptions:

1) The designers know how their own rules work, or in the case of sourcebooks written several years after the original rules, the sourcebook designers have the exact same understanding as the original developers.
2) The text accurately and unambiguously reflects how they intended the rules to work.

The RAW on damage for double weapons is ambiguous, but settling that argument is not nearly as important as deciding what works best for your own game.

[Zaq]

In case nobody noticed my earlier post, there is a PrC that grants 1.5*Str to damage with a specific double weapon. If double weapons normally granted 1.5*Str to damage, the PrC would not need to specify that it grants this ability. I think that makes the relevant rules (namely, that the main hand gets Str to damage and the off-hand gets 0.5*Str to damage) clear enough on its own.

While that's true, it is not the case that every bit of rules text offers a unique ability, nor is it the case that every ability was written with full knowledge of the rules in mind. There are countless dysfunctions in the rules (we've filled up how many Dysfunctional Rules topics by now? Five?), and the rules as a whole are nowhere near tightly constructed enough to draw implications from this sort of thing.

I do think that your argument about Revenant Blade gives at least some insight into RAI, or at least RAI of a particular developer, but that doesn't change that by RAW, it's not at all clear. (Also, the dev or devs who created the Revenant Blade are almost certainly not the dev or devs who created the initial double weapon rules, so whatever RAI we can infer from it only goes so far.)

[Nagukuk]

In case nobody noticed my earlier post, there is a PrC that grants 1.5*Str to damage with a specific double weapon. If double weapons normally granted 1.5*Str to damage, the PrC would not need to specify that it grants this ability. I think that makes the relevant rules (namely, that the main hand gets Str to damage and the off-hand gets 0.5*Str to damage) clear enough on its own.

Yep.


Here are some of the "advantages" of using a double weapon;

Removing one hand as a free action (not having to sheath or drop a weapon to do something)

Using one side of the double weapon instead of two, so you gain 1.5x str which in addition to doing more damage also allows you to hit more accurately as you drop the two weapon fighting penalty.

Your off hand weapon does the same base damage as your main hand weapon AND the offhand is treated as light for the penalty assessed. Therefore allowing you to strike more accurately while doing (tons and tons :smallsigh: more damage).

Two weapon fighting with one weapon - I have not checked the prices for double weapons in a while, it may save you some gold.
If it does not, at least a staff is WAY cheaper than two swords.


Best of all ... You can totally pretend to be Darth Maul... or if you are really old school ... Galtar with his Golden Lance :smallcool:

Hell you could even use a double axe to chop off your opponent's head while you chop off your own head, or at least your arm. If you don't think chopping your own stuff is cool, go talk to the eyes of Grummish they all have sliced their own eye out with their dumbass axe, Because... so ... they could be just like Dad ... except they are orcs ... and forgot to be just like Dad they probably should use a spear instead.:smallmad:

Spend a feat "the powers that be" thought it was totally worth it!


PS: if you insist that one should be able to add 1.5 str to both sides ... make it so ... in your group ... what ever you want can fly. Just remember to allow the Rev Blades to add 2x, so they don't feel left out.

[Frostthehero]

I don't see any ambiguity. If a character TWFs with a double weapon, they are treated as wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon.


This is the correct interpretation. Pretty sure it's RAW, but I can't seem to find it.

[Xerlith]

Are you claiming that a monk with improved disarm can grab half of my two-handed sword and I'll have a -4 to resist it?

You're wielding it two-handed. So, you get a +4 to resist disarms. That you're using it as two weapons is in no regard to this. Again - no disambiguity.



I mean, the extra attack is with the non-dominant end of the weapon, but you're still powering the swing with both hands. Hence why it specifies the attack penalty and... that's it.

And this in fact is also covered in my argument before - an off-hand attack always, no matter what, gains only half Str bonus to damage.

[hamishspence]

I look at it this way:


The character can also choose to use a double weapon two handed, attacking with only one end of it.

If you are not "attacking with only one end" then you are not "choosing to use it two handed".

[Hellborn_Blight]

This is the correct interpretation. Pretty sure it's RAW, but I can't seem to find it.

That is the main thing we are discussing here; the fact that the RAW, at least on some level, is difficult to interpret. I think by this point all things TWF and Double Weapons have been directly quoted from SRD. Just to be sure, I looked at the rules compendium on the off chance it offered any new insight and it did not.


And this in fact is also covered in my argument before - an off-hand attack always, no matter what, gains only half Str bonus to damage.

This is the sticking point for me too. Any extra attack granted by TWF is an off-hand attack, so it doesn't matter if the weapon is a double weapon, a thrown dagger or armor spikes, the attack itself is off-hand. Also didn't realized that you ninjaed me on basically the exact same points earlier lol. Maybe I monked myself by not refreshing before posting after work.

[Psyren]

I don't see any ambiguity. If a character TWFs with a double weapon, they are treated as wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon.

Let's see what that means:




To compile this:
2WFing requires designating a main hand and an off hand.
An off-hand weapon ALWAYS gains only ½ Strength to damage.
At best, one could argue that a double weapon's main hand allows them to apply 1.5 their Strength bonus to damage - but the off-hand damage is ALWAYS 0.5 Strength.

So, really, the best you can get is the same treatment as an Armor Spikes+Greatsword combo, that is two-handed main weapon + an off-hand light one.


I look at it this way:



If you are not "attacking with only one end" then you are not "choosing to use it two handed".

Agreeing with these two cites.

To address an earlier question:


Are you claiming that a monk with improved disarm can grab half of my two-handed sword and I'll have a -4 to resist it?

This doesn't apply, because the "counts as two weapons" only applies to the character who is "fighting with both ends of it." The disarming monk is not treating it as two weapons, because they are not the character.

[Xerlith]

If you are not "attacking with only one end" then you are not "choosing to use it two handed".

Again: Using is not wielding. That's two different things.

[bekeleven]

Hey, this thread crashed off the front page without me noticing it had a bunch of new posts.

If you are not "attacking with only one end" then you are not "choosing to use it two handed".I'm not using two-handed, huh.

Again: Using is not wielding. That's two different things.So am using it, but not wielding it?

This doesn't apply, because the "counts as two weapons" only applies to the character who is "fighting with both ends of it." The disarming monk is not treating it as two weapons, because they are not the character.OK, but I am the character. And I'm the one whose roll is affected by the weapon in my hands:

You and the defender make opposed attack rolls with your respective weapons. The wielder of a two-handed weapon on a disarm attempt gets a +4 bonus on this roll, and the wielder of a light weapon takes a -4 penalty.
So because I'm not wielding this weapon in two hands, I still get the -4 to disarm, and if someone grabs half of my two-bladed sword I get -4 to hold onto it, and they can wrestle away that half and stab me with it. But if they grab the other half I get 0 to resist. Or possibly +4, but they can take the entire weapon, which I think is what Zerlith is saying (and I agree).

I do think the idea that the primary end strikes as 2H and the secondary end strikes as light is interesting. I'll read through the RAW some more tomorrow. But I am in no way convinced that my primary hand is getting only 1X strength to hits.

[Kantolin]

While probably not Raw, what my group has traditionally done is had you apply str*1.5 to your mainhand, and str*0.5 to your secondary, but treat both as being held by two hands.

Our logic is that, since you're treating it as a one-handed weapon and a light weapon, you apply the rules to both.

So when you're using it as a one handed weapon on your primary swing, you are holding it in both hands and thus apply the str*1.5 to damage.

When you are using it as a light weapon on your secondary swing, you are holding it in both hands, and thus:


A light weapon is used in one hand. Add the wielder’s Strength bonus (if any) to damage rolls for melee attacks with a light weapon if it’s used in the primary hand, or one-half the wielder’s Strength bonus if it’s used in the off hand. Using two hands to wield a light weapon gives no advantage on damage; the Strength bonus applies as though the weapon were held in the wielder’s primary hand only.

So it's just like using a light weapon in one hand. Thus Str*0.5, same as if you were holding any other light weapon in both hands.

[Xerlith]

Hey, this thread crashed off the front page without me noticing it had a bunch of new posts.
I'm not using two-handed, huh.
So am using it, but not wielding it?

I'll elaborate. You are, no matter what way you use the double weapon (barring Monkey Grip), wielding it two-handed. When you choose to use it as one-handed and light, you are still wielding it two-handed.

And this beautifully ties in with the Disarm argument. See, there it is:
http://i.imgur.com/QgDi1gc.jpg

They are by default two-handed. Hence they always get a +4 to resist disarms. The clause about wielding one-handed is probably meant to default to Monkey Grip.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Alright according to Skip Williams in this old article (archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060912a)

"If you choose to use both ends, you resolve the attacks exactly as if you were using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. (One of the examples in the following sections uses a double weapon.)"

But hell what does the co-designer of 3rd edition know anyway feel free to ignore him because what he said conflicts with your interpretation.

Also on the physical PHB when explaining power attack they state "you treat a double weapon as a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. If you choose to use a double weapon like a two-handed weapon, attacking with only one end of it in a round, you treat it as a two-handed weapon.)"

Which really implies its not treated as 1.5 strength as if it was you'd expect power attack to function. differently.

Also the sample Suel Arcanamach used a two-bladed sword and adds his strength modifier on the primary hand and half his strength modifier on the off hand. The sample Eye of Grumish from Complete warrior wields a orc double axe. Much the same adds his strength modifier on the primary hand and half his strength modifier on the off hand.
The Eberron book, "Explorer's Handbook" contains TWO NPC stat blocks wielding double-bladed swords and in both examples. Full strength modifier on the primary hand and half on the secondary.

I know its also considered irrelevant but the FAQ also states you add your strength modifier to damage with the primary hand and half with the off-hand while using a double weapon for TWF.

And yet the 1.5 str camp has yet to find any secondary sources to the PHB/SRD supporting their interpretation of the rules. If indeed a character attacking with both ends of a double weapon such as a two-bladed sword is supposed to get 1.5 strength on either end of the weapon. Tell us why everything else seems to indicate or out right STATE otherwise.

[bekeleven]

Alright according to Skip Williams in this old article (archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060912a)

"If you choose to use both ends, you resolve the attacks exactly as if you were using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. (One of the examples in the following sections uses a double weapon.)"

But hell what does the co-designer of 3rd edition know anyway feel free to ignore him because what he said conflicts with your interpretation.

Ok then, I will do that. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=19170290&postcount=142)

[Xerlith]

As a sidenote, I find it sad that a two-handed sword + gauntlet is a more viable two-weapon fighting combo than an exotic weapon dedicated to this way of combat...

[bekeleven]

As a sidenote, I find it sad that a two-handed sword + gauntlet is a more viable two-weapon fighting combo than an exotic weapon dedicated to this way of combat...
That may run into handedness issues. Extra rules don't outweigh its benefits over spiked chain + spiked armor.

[Darrin]

But hell what does the co-designer of 3rd edition know anyway feel free to ignore him because what he said conflicts with your interpretation.


Skip has been known to get some things wrong. From a RAW standpoint, his interpretation of the rules carries the same weight as yours or mine: it's an opinion. The fact that he was one of the original 3rd edition designers does not automatically mean he knows the original intent of the rules. Designers are human, they make mistakes, they disagree with each other, and so forth.



Also on the physical PHB when explaining power attack they state "you treat a double weapon as a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. If you choose to use a double weapon like a two-handed weapon, attacking with only one end of it in a round, you treat it as a two-handed weapon.)"


That's a persuasive argument, as it's mentioned in the context of determining damage. And it's tucked away in an obscure place, inside a parenthetical in a feat that is only occasionally used with double weapons, very similar to the old "unarmed strikes are natural weapons" chestnut. I think you can point to this and say, "this is a somewhat clearer indication of the designers' intent".

[lsfreak]

And yet the 1.5 str camp has yet to find any secondary sources to the PHB/SRD supporting their interpretation of the rules. If indeed a character attacking with both ends of a double weapon such as a two-bladed sword is supposed to get 1.5 strength on either end of the weapon. Tell us why everything else seems to indicate or out right STATE otherwise.

The same reason none of the monk statblocks correctly include the -4 nonproficiency penalty to unarmed attacks, i.e. that the writers didn't know their own rules? I mean, don't get me wrong, I think 1/.5 is correct, but I don't think using statblocks as an argument for RAW is a strong case considering how often they mess up.

[Lord Vukodlak]

The same reason none of the monk statblocks correctly include the -4 nonproficiency penalty to unarmed attacks, i.e. that the writers didn't know their own rules? I mean, don't get me wrong, I think 1/.5 is correct, but I don't think using statblocks as an argument for RAW is a strong case considering how often they mess up.

It is when there is nothing to contradict it. The 1.5 strength hinges on one possible interpretation of the rules however all examples indicate that interrupitation is incorrect.

And the monk example is silly as clearly the designer intent is for a class built around unarmed attacks to be proficient with unarmed strikes. Don't claim an obvious oversight means the designers of the monk stat block didn't know the rules.

Using official examples of the rules in action are better then arguing over how its worded.

[Psyren]

I'll elaborate. You are, no matter what way you use the double weapon (barring Monkey Grip), wielding it two-handed. When you choose to use it as one-handed and light, you are still wielding it two-handed.

And this beautifully ties in with the Disarm argument. See, there it is:
http://i.imgur.com/QgDi1gc.jpg

They are by default two-handed. Hence they always get a +4 to resist disarms. The clause about wielding one-handed is probably meant to default to Monkey Grip.

This - it's still a two-handed weapon, and is treated as such for things like disarm.


Ok then, I will do that. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=19170290&postcount=142)

I agree that Rules of the Game gets several things wrong but this is a poor example you chose - the SRD explicitly states you can full-attack in a grapple.

"When you are grappling (regardless of who started the grapple), you can perform any of the following actions. Some of these actions take the place of an attack (rather than being a standard action or a move action). If your base attack bonus allows you multiple attacks, you can attempt one of these actions in place of each of your attacks, but at successively lower base attack bonuses."

"Attack your opponent" can therefore be done more than once, if you have the BAB to do so - just like if you weren't grappling.

[Curmudgeon]

I'll elaborate. You are, no matter what way you use the double weapon (barring Monkey Grip), wielding it two-handed. When you choose to use it as one-handed and light, you are still wielding it two-handed.

And this beautifully ties in with the Disarm argument. See, there it is:
http://i.imgur.com/QgDi1gc.jpg

They are by default two-handed.

Weapon Categories

Weapons are grouped into several interlocking sets of categories.
Weapons can be in multiple categories. Just because a weapon is listed in one category doesn't mean it's always in that category. A shortspear is listed under the "One-Handed Melee Weapons" heading. However, it's instead sometimes a ranged weapon, yet it doesn't appear under "Ranged Weapons".
Attack Bonus

Your attack bonus with a melee weapon is:

Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + size modifier

With a ranged weapon, your attack bonus is:

Base attack bonus + Dexterity modifier + size modifier + range penalty
You don't use Strength for ranged attacks with a shortspear, because it's not a melee weapon then, regardless of its default category.
Hence they always get a +4 to resist disarms. Default is the usual case. You can't go from "default" to "always"; that's just nonsense.

The clause about wielding one-handed is probably meant to default to Monkey Grip.
I'm afraid that's a specious argument, because the rule existed before Monkey Grip. We can trace it all the way back to the 3.0 Player's Handbook:
A creature using a double weapon in one hand, such as an ogre using an orc double axe, can’t use it as a double weapon.

[Psyren]

Weapons can be in multiple categories. Just because a weapon is listed in one category doesn't mean it's always in that category.

It doesn't mean it stops being in that category either. A double-weapon is a two-handed weapon no matter how you actually use it, and therefore should count as such for disarms by RAW.

[Curmudgeon]

It doesn't mean it stops being in that category either.
In the case of the shortspear, it certainly does; the attack rules specify that. If you're making a ranged attack, the weapon stops being in the "One-Handed Melee Weapons" category.

So you now need to prove that a double weapon stays in the "Two-Handed Melee Weapons" category when you're using it one-handed.

[Psyren]

In the case of the shortspear, it certainly does; the attack rules specify that. If you're making a ranged attack, the weapon stops being in the "One-Handed Melee Weapons" category.

So you now need to prove that a double weapon stays in the "Two-Handed Melee Weapons" category when you're using it one-handed.

1) Whether you're making a ranged attack with the shortspear is irrelevant when it comes to being disarmed specifically. Obviously if it can be disarmed from you, you're still holding it at that point, and thus you haven't attacked with (thrown) it yet.

2) You're not using the weapon one-handed. You're using "both ends", each in one hand. As there are no rules for disarming an end of a weapon, only the whole weapon, this is irrelevant for disarming purposes too.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Weapons can be in multiple categories. Just because a weapon is listed in one category doesn't mean it's always in that category. A shortspear is listed under the "One-Handed Melee Weapons" heading. However, it's instead sometimes a ranged weapon, yet it doesn't appear under "Ranged Weapons".


Melee and Ranged Weapons

Melee weapons are used for making melee attacks,though some of them can be thrown as well.

Ranged weapons are thrown weapons or projectile weapons that are not effective in melee.

The Shortspear is effective in melee thus its not categorized as a ranged weapon even when being used as a thrown weapon. That title is reserved for weapons that take penalties when used in melee. You can throw a longsword but you take -4 penalty or you can stab with an arrow but you take a -4 penalty.

To the Disarm end of this argument. The Rules Compendium clarifies that. Wielding a two-handed OR one-handed weapon in both hands during a disarm attempt gives you a +4 bonus on the roll. So someone using monkey grip to wield a great sword in one hand gets no bonus to disarm rolls.

It doesn't matter if you are using two-weapon fighting, or going for two-handed attacks with a double-bladed sword. Either way the weapon is wielded in two hands.

[bekeleven]

I agree that Rules of the Game gets several things wrong but this is a poor example you chose - the SRD explicitly states you can full-attack in a grapple.

"When you are grappling (regardless of who started the grapple), you can perform any of the following actions. Some of these actions take the place of an attack (rather than being a standard action or a move action). If your base attack bonus allows you multiple attacks, you can attempt one of these actions in place of each of your attacks, but at successively lower base attack bonuses."

"Attack your opponent" can therefore be done more than once, if you have the BAB to do so - just like if you weren't grappling.I agree. Attacking can be done more than once if you have the BAB to do so.

Unfortunately, that has no relation to full attacking with natural weapons, which don't use BAB/iteratives.

[Psyren]

I agree. Attacking can be done more than once if you have the BAB to do so.

Unfortunately, that has no relation to full attacking with natural weapons, which don't use BAB/iteratives.

They don't, but as a character your BAB still allows you to get multiple attacks, even if you can't use them with natural weapons normally.

In short, it's asking:

Do you have a base attack bonus - yes, all creatures do.
Is it high enough to give you multiple attacks - sure.
You can now perform the "attack an enemy" action in place of each of your attacks (note that it doesn't say "iterative attacks" just "your attacks") while grappling.

[bekeleven]

They don't, but as a character your BAB still allows you to get multiple attacks, even if you can't use them with natural weapons normally.

In short, it's asking:

Do you have a base attack bonus - yes, all creatures do.
Is it high enough to give you multiple attacks - sure.
You can now perform the "attack an enemy" action in place of each of your attacks (note that it doesn't say "iterative attacks" just "your attacks") while grappling.
So you're saying that as long as your BAB is +6 or greater I can make one attack-equivalent grapple action for each attack I have, and if it's +5 or lower I can make only a single one of said actions?

Just to make sure I parsed you correctly.

[Psyren]

So you're saying that as long as your BAB is +6 or greater I can make one attack-equivalent grapple action for each attack I have, and if it's +5 or lower I can make only a single one of said actions?

Just to make sure I parsed you correctly.

Yeah that's the way it's written. Which I agree is silly, but then allowing only a single natural attack while the hasted rogue can go Slitpipes Mcgee on you with a toothpick is also silly.

[bekeleven]

Yeah that's the way it's written. Which I agree is silly, but then allowing only a single natural attack while the hasted rogue can go Slitpipes Mcgee on you with a toothpick is also silly.

Monk 7: +5 BAB. Grapples opponent. Rolls opposed grapple to deal unarmed damage.

Monk 8: +6 BAB. Flurries for three attacks with primary Sai, strikes with off-hand sai. Hits with secondary natural attacks: unarmed strike, slam (warforged) and bite (jaws of death). STR +1/+1/-4 Sai, -7 Sai, +1 Unarmed Strike, +1 Slam, +1 Bite. Rolls too low to hit, you say? Give up every attack for 7 opposed grapples to deal damage - with no penalty.

Suddenly I want to play a monk.

[Psyren]

Monk 7: +5 BAB. Grapples opponent. Rolls opposed grapple to deal unarmed damage.

Monk 8: +6 BAB. Flurries for three attacks with primary Sai, strikes with off-hand sai. Hits with secondary natural attacks: unarmed strike, slam (warforged) and bite (jaws of death). STR +1/+1/-4 Sai, -7 Sai, +1 Unarmed Strike, +1 Slam, +1 Bite. Rolls too low to hit, you say? Give up every attack for 7 opposed grapples to deal damage - with no penalty.

Suddenly I want to play a monk.

I thought you couldn't TWF + Flurry.

"Damage your opponent" does have "successively lower attack bonuses" so I'm not sure "with no penalty" is wholly accurate.

[lsfreak]

I thought you couldn't TWF + Flurry.

You can't with unarmed, because there's nothing in the rules allows you to TWF with unarmed strike. But there's nothing that stops you from TWF + Flurrying with weapons.
EDIT: From a brief search it looks like PF changed this, which might be what you're thinking.

[bekeleven]

"Damage your opponent" does have "successively lower attack bonuses" so I'm not sure "with no penalty" is wholly accurate.
New dysfunction: What does a monk with +6 BAB add to grapple rolls 3-7?

[Psyren]

You can't with unarmed, because there's nothing in the rules allows you to TWF with unarmed strike. But there's nothing that stops you from TWF + Flurrying with weapons.
EDIT: From a brief search it looks like PF changed this, which might be what you're thinking.

That's fair, I thought that was the case in 3.5 too but that was always a little confusing.


New dysfunction: What does a monk with +6 BAB add to grapple rolls 3-7?

Either your lowest one, or +0 would be my guess.

[Darrin]

I thought you couldn't TWF + Flurry.



You can't with unarmed, because there's nothing in the rules allows you to TWF with unarmed strike. But there's nothing that stops you from TWF + Flurrying with weapons.
EDIT: From a brief search it looks like PF changed this, which might be what you're thinking.

TWF can be combined with Flurry if your offhand weapon is an unarmed strike or a special monk weapon. What isn't clear from the rules:

1) Can your unarmed strike be both your primary and offhand weapon? (General consensus is usually a "no".)

2) If you get additional attacks outside your Flurry (such as TWF or natural weapons), can you still attack with them during the same full attack routine but after your Flurry attacks? If so, do they still have to be special monk weapons? (DM's call/personal preference)

[bekeleven]

Darrin, just as a note, I used a trick above that I don't think I saw in your OffHandbook:

Since unarmed strike is a natural attack, I used it as a secondary attack after my attack routine (along with my slam and bite). I think this is legal. I can't find any text on whether I can technically use my unarmed strike as a secondary attack if my standard attack routine used my unarmed strike as well. It seems obvious that I wouldn't be able, but I didn't spot the actual text.

[Darrin]

Since unarmed strike is a natural attack, I used it as a secondary attack after my attack routine (along with my slam and bite). I think this is legal. I can't find any text on whether I can technically use my unarmed strike as a secondary attack if my standard attack routine used my unarmed strike as well. It seems obvious that I wouldn't be able, but I didn't spot the actual text.

It could be implied as possible, but it's kinda dubious, mostly because there are rules in the PHB that specifically address unarmed strikes on page 139:

"Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following: ..." (etc.)

Basically, the PHB says, more or less, "treat this as a melee weapon, except for the following exceptions". The rules for natural weapons and secondary attacks are in the Monster Manual, and they don't really mention unarmed strikes. Since melee weapons are never really treated as secondary attacks, it's assumed that unarmed strikes shouldn't be secondary. They can be offhand, though, and the PHB does mention this.

Can an unarmed strike be both? As in, offhand one round, and then treat it as a secondary attack in another round? Possibly... the rules don't explicitly forbid it. But to do so, you'd definitely be pretty deep into the "Rules That Work Best For Your Group" territory and quite a long ways off from "Rules As Written".

[Curmudgeon]

Since unarmed strike is a natural attack, I used it as a secondary attack after my attack routine (along with my slam and bite). I think this is legal.
I think the special rules for unarmed strike (using BAB and iterative attacks as if it were a weapon attack) would preclude its use as a secondary attack.

[bekeleven]

I think the special rules for unarmed strike (using BAB and iterative attacks as if it were a weapon attack) would preclude its use as a secondary attack.

Unarmed strikes are explicitly natural and manufactured weapons.

To take that to its extreme, I can't find any ruling that stops me from performing a full iterative attack with my unarmed strike, then hitting again at BAB-5 as a secondary natural attack. But I avoided that in the above build because it sounds rather... dumb.

[Troacctid]

Well, remember, D&D uses a permissive rule set, not a restrictive one. It's not "There's no rule that says I can't, so I can," it's "There's no rule that says I can, so I can't." So, can you find a rule that says you can make both iterative and secondary attacks with unarmed strikes?

For reference, here's the rule that allows you to make the standard natural weapon attack routine of one primary attack and all secondary attacks:


Creatures do not receive additional attacks from a high base attack bonus when using natural weapons. The number of attacks a creature can make with its natural weapons depends on the type of the attack—generally, a creature can make one bite attack, one attack per claw or tentacle, one gore attack, one sting attack, or one slam attack (although Large creatures with arms or arm-like limbs can make a slam attack with each arm). Refer to the individual monster descriptions.

It doesn't actually say you get to attack with all your natural weapons. It lists the natural weapons you can "generally" attack with (a list that does not include unarmed strikes) and says "Refer to the individual monster descriptions." Which is kind of a cop-out, really.

[Curmudgeon]

Unarmed strikes are explicitly natural and manufactured weapons.
The latter part is only correct for Monks, and even then they're only treated as such. After all, what blacksmith do you visit to get your unarmed strikes manufactured? :smallbiggrin:

[bekeleven]

Well, remember, D&D uses a permissive rule set, not a restrictive one. It's not "There's no rule that says I can't, so I can," it's "There's no rule that says I can, so I can't." So, can you find a rule that says you can make both iterative and secondary attacks with unarmed strikes?
Where is the rule that says I can make iterative attacks with a mercurial longsword and secondary attacks with a bite?

Where is the rule that says I can make iterative attacks with a pair of sais and secondary attacks with a slam?

So... there, I guess.

The latter part is only correct for Monks, and even then they're only treated as such. After all, what blacksmith do you visit to get your unarmed strikes manufactured? :smallbiggrin:Luckily, I was discussing a monk at the time. Since the only property of manufactured weapons I was using was "can be used in iterative attacks," I think we can agree it applies regardless - that, or there are some more significant structural supports missing than I realized.

[Elric VIII]

The latter part is only correct for Monks, and even then they're only treated as such. After all, what blacksmith do you visit to get your unarmed strikes manufactured? :smallbiggrin:

IDK, but he probably lives in Eberron.
http://dungeonsmaster.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/warforged-01.jpg

[Troacctid]

Where is the rule that says I can make iterative attacks with a mercurial longsword and secondary attacks with a bite?

Where is the rule that says I can make iterative attacks with a pair of sais and secondary attacks with a slam?

So... there, I guess.

AFAIK, there isn't one. Natural weapons are notoriously dysfunctional in 3.5; the rules for them are very poorly written. How many attacks do you get? You get some amount. It should say in your monster entry. Don't have a monster entry? Better hope the ability that gave you your natural weapons also says how many attacks you can make with them. No such luck? Then you'll have to talk to your DM and figure out exactly what "one attack per claw" means.

We know that it's possible to combine natural weapon attacks with manufactured weapon attacks because there are monsters that do it. The Rules Compendium even includes some rules about combining natural weapons with manufactured weapons, but it refers you again to the individual monster descriptions instead of telling you what the attack routine actually looks like in the general case, so it's not terribly helpful. We can at least say with some certainty, though, that natural weapons used alongside manufactured weapons always count as secondary, even if they'd normally be primary. That much is clear.