|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
+1 well said
If you have any evidence to support your assertion that the Devs say "two" means "main hand and off hand" I don't see that you presented it anywhere.
Then you didn't read my posts here or you choose to interpret it outside the scope of the rules.
The rules are written with human in mind (if you need a quote from a dev I can google that for you.)
The rules in the CRB on the page going over how you use weapons details that one handed and light weapons can use your primary or offhand. On the same page when talking about two handed weapons, it says "two". On the same page it said you have only one primary and one offhand. Since you only have two hands, that means "one primary and one offhand".
There are no rules for using a two handed weapon in two offhands. People with more than 2 arms have one primary and 2 or more offhands.
Really it comes down to these two interpretations:
N N 959 wrote:
I'm hard pressed to see how you've come to the conclusion that the devs were specifically answering Nefreet's question when they fail to name any of the abilities he was specifically asking about.
Call the issue English.
Because Nefreet asked two questions in one. Each of them contained a +1 size language effect and a +2 size language effect. The answered the generic "if a +1 and +2 get together do they have a +3 baby or +2 baby" and the FAQ answer is +2.
So I am astonished, amazed, dumbfounded, and quite frankly can't imagine how you have the position you have. I'm fine with you having the position. You obviously believe you have good reasons. But you must accept that we gain the opposite meaning from the FAQ answer than each other and we both are complete unable to comprehend why the other has their view.
N N 959 wrote:
Well the FAQ was in response to "does spiked and bashing stack? Does Ina and strong jaw stack?"
So the generic answer applies to both.
Well we are at an impass. You think your interpretation is RAW. I think you are intentionally interpreting it incorrectly to match your desired outcome. You think I'm doing the same. We can never agree. Plus several times developers have agreed with my interpretation as being RAW.
I don't see any wording in Weird Words that would not make it instantaneous.
I did a horrible job of conveying my point. Let me retry.
Bardic Music in the CRB doesn't have any Instantaneous effects.
It also has language to say you may start one performance a round.
Weird Words is doesn't use the word Instantaneous, but seems to be something that is do and done in one action.
If you start to perform a Weird Words, using just the CRB your Familiar wouldn't be able to also start a performance in the same round as your performance.
For this to work perfectly, Weird Words would need a "this is an instantaneous effect and does not count toward your performances for this round but does use 1 round of performance" or something similar.
Otherwise, you get interesting effects when you use things like the tuning forks to convert Weird Words to a move action and do the standard action in the same round or do this archetype.
but does it violate the unarmored part? or is force armor not real armor?
"1 bonus to AC" isn't "+1 armor bonus"
"providing a +4 armor bonus to AC." is not worn armor.
Keep in mind there is a minority contingent that asserts that everything that gives an armor bonus to AC is actually armor. I don't agree with them and a large number of others also don't agree.
Yes, the rules normally assume a two armed biped, but that doesn't change that it only requires "two," nothing further. Any thing additional is being added by you.
In the context of the rules written for a two armed biped, that "two" means "your primary and your offhand". If you reject this, then you are intentionally interpreting the rules in a manner to suit your view. You are applying an interpretation that is the expected interpretation.
2) This is debated, due to the language of shield spikes. The only written example says yes, but others say no.
There is debate, but really there shouldn't be.
The FAQ makes it abundantly clear, that the Spiked Shield is a virtual size increase and it won't stack with Bashing.
I believe the "debate" centers around the belief in some people that they intended to let them stack and may have forgot about them when they wrote the FAQ. The original FAQ question was "do spiked shield and bashing or improved natural attack and strong jaw stack?" They answered it by saying "+1 size and +2 size don't stack". Both those examples are +1 and +2 size abilities.
Well I don't. I never did. But it doesn't matter what you think the rules say, the rules don't allow you use a Greatsword and use an offhand Armor Spikes. You may rule 0 it.
As for your question, here is the answer that has been said multiple times.
Multi-Armed (Ex) A kasatha has four arms. One hand is considered its primary hand; all others are considered off hands. It can use any of its hands for other purposes that require free hands.
One hand is primary, the others are off hands.
Can you wield a Greatsword in two off hands? Is there a rule for that? No.
There is a rule that Light and One Handed weapons in the primary hand (which you only have one) can gain the 1.5x STR. The Two Handed weapon rules take "both" hands. Both hands on a human means 1 primary and 1 off hand. It does not mean two off hands.
This was surprising since the form never says that. A quick search firm the developer saying it was s polymorph
I guess it makes more sense, that any effect that modifies your size is a polymorph effect unless it is something like the monster advancement rules that in effect alter the base creature. Basically how it would be as an adult.
Ie, if you had a "add dex to weapon attack and damage," and a "replace STR with DEX for weapon attack and damage rolls," you still couldn't actually get Dex twice.
Could a magus use blades dash (intelligence as a circumstance bonus) and Arcane accuracy (intelligence as an insight bonus) together? So let's say they have a +4 intelligence mod.
You would get +4 circumstance +4 insight = +8
Did a ruling on whether you can use more than one bardic performance in a round ever come out?
No ruling has came out.
The language in bardic music could be interpreted to limit you to one performance per round.
At my table you wouldn't be able to Weird Words and then have your familiar Weird Words in the same round.
Is there any language in the new Weird Words that suggests it is instantaneous or otherwise isn't something that deals damage over the course of the round in which it is performed?
I wasn't suggesting holding a 2HW with 3 or for hands,
Neither was I. I was pointing out that the base rules of the game assumes one weapon is wielded with 2 hands at most. In a typical human, if you wield your two hand weapon you have no more offhands to wield weapons. You can find rules to two hand a THW and with a 3+ arm race you have additional offhands to wield light or one handed weapons.
There is an FAQ that explains this can't happen. The FAQ on Eagle Shaman allows the Eagle Shaman to shape change into bird with templates applied, but notes this normally isn't allowed.
So you can't take the form of a Huge Minotaur because Minotaur's are not Huge.
James, why do you think a creature with 4 arms holding 3 2HW would not be able to switch grips with the 4th hand as a free action to change which weapon it's going to attack with?
Kchaka, why do you think a creature with 2 arms holding 1 2HW would not be able to switch grips with the 2nd hand as a free action to attack with armor spikes?
it's RAW to use 1.5x damage on the offhand greatsword. Two handed weapons do not care what kind of hands are wielding them. Only that there are two.
Those rules are in the context of only two hands, you can't say it is RAW how to handle it with more than 2 hands, because there are no rules for how to handle 2 two handed weapons.
I know a fair number of people make house rules to deviate and allow both INA/Strong Jaw and Spiked/Bashing Shield to stack.
N N 959 wrote:
Codex isn't a rules source. NPC Stat blocks are abundant source of misunderstood rules application. In 3.5 and Pathfinder.
Your GM are free to houserule as they see fit. They absolutely don't stack in the rules now after the FAQ.
Bear Burning Ashes wrote:
He is actually the rules guy (and the FAQ for all non-Core products used to actually say that), but for some reason he started saying he isn't a rules guy and they took down the "JJ is rules for non core" sentence.
The dev team can't speak to rules on the Klar until it got printed in Ultimate Equipment.
+1 Ask your GM.
It is likely the unwritten rules would say that your max STR damage is 1.5 + 0.5 for each additional offhand. That is a total of 2.5 STR damage. So at my table I'd say you can do one two handed for 1.5 STR and the other two handed for 1.0 STR.
If you use Major vs Minor, it is a higher level effect.
This would increase it's cost by 1.6071428571 by the chart. Ask your GM if that cost increase is fair for the increased duration.
If you make Mithril or Adamantine wire, that is massively more expensive.
Making so much iron/steel is one thing, making materials that cost significantly more is another thing.
N N 959 wrote:
But Lead Blades is meant to be put on a weapon, so it should stack with a spiked shield, correct?
With the new size changing, there is no doubt.
You can't use more than one of these:
Do as many as you like, only the highest size enhancer counts.
I did that to a flying wizard once from a flying monk, all his stuff fell 100 feet onto the battlefield.
SKR replied in a previous thread on this that it would only apply to morale bonuses to saves per his discussion with the dev team. Having this actually answered in FAQ instead of privately from Paizo to WolfLair, is desired.
This isn't new. It's came up more times than I can count as being a HL bug and each time answered as "not a bug according to Paizo."
I agree. My guess is they consider our behavior a problem.
+1 well said.
I think anyone who says "Words have no meaning" could probably use a basic review of semantics. Plus it's one of my favorite aspects of linguistics and literary theory!
Since you said those words, not me. I'd probably agree with you.
I'm saying if you have another human reading the same words you read and coming up with a different meaning, then your interpretation of the words is not the only valid interpretation.
Which is why there isn't a "one true RAW" concept. RAW is always interpreted.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
A Dev disagrees with that statement you make with an absolute that is bolded.
No, "A Dev" says that is the norm. Special abilities that allow you to exceed the "norm" wouldn't be covered by that statement.
I can only guess you are serious and not being a joker, but statements like that are based around base characters without special abilities that allow you to do things not normally allowed.
I'll link the same text you use to support your point. You missed my point. Just because you read a rule one way doesn't mean that is the right way nor the only way that rule can be read.
Which is why 1.5 Dex works per RAW. RAW is Rules as Written
Which is explicitly not what RAW means. RAW translates into Rules as I interpret What is Written. It doesn't mean Rules as I'm in Charge of How You May Interpret Them.