Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Goblin

blackbloodtroll's page

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber. Pathfinder Society Member. 23,697 posts. No reviews. 2 lists. 2 wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character.


RSS

1 to 50 of 23,697 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Duderlybob wrote:
Yes, but the feat's requirement shows a precedent. A hand cannot wield two weapons at the same time. A hand can only wield one weapon at a time, that's all I'm using the feat for, it's an example of the RAI that you're arguing for BBT.

I understand.

It just should not be something that anyone should have to prove you can't do.

You can't wield a Dagger clenched between your butt-cheeks, and you can't wield two weapons with the same hand.

No one should have to go to great lengths to have to prove why you can't do either.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Duderlybob wrote:
I'm still going to keep pointing out that this conversation about AoOs can be greatly reduced in complexity by looking at Multi-Weapon Fighting. Number of weapons you can use in that feat is determined by the number of weapon wielding limbs you have, not the number of weapons. Ergo, I cannot use Cestus/Gauntlets at the same time the hand is occupied using a two-handed weapon like a glaive or a longspear. I can wear cestus and carry a glaive at the same time, true, but I cannot effectively wield both at the same time, I have to choose to use one or the other.

Multiweapon and Two-weapon fighting is completely unrelated.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

This really hardcore obsession, with the Polearm and Spiked/Gauntlet combo seems to be pretty prevalent.

I have no idea why.

Where does it come from?


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

So, not a RAW, or RAI question?

This is a rules as I believe they should be thread?

You may have great points on why they should be one way, but that really does not change how they are, or how they were intended to be.

I am beginning to see that this may better belong in the General Discussion, or Hombrew/Houserules section.

In my opinion.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

FAQ'd.

This is actually something that is a frequently asked question, that could use some clarification.

At least, some hint at the formula.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Mike Moreland's "not official" note to his comment, should indicate, that it is not official. Also, his lack of RAW support should show that as well.

Let's not pretend it is.

No need for any hands, at all, to use Armor Spikes.

My PC, can cut his damn hands off, and still use Armor Spikes.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

So, rules-wise, you know how it functions, and how much it costs.

You want to know why it functions, as is, and why, it costs, as is?

I don't think this really fits in as a Rules Question then.

Do you believe, that it is RAI, to cost more, or function differently?


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Gauntlets are their own weapon, and do their own damage.

An attack with a Gauntlet, is an attack with a Gauntlet.

Not an unarmed strike.

So, things that effect unarmed strikes have no effect on Gauntlet attacks, and things that effect Gauntlets, have no effect on unarmed strikes.

Gauntlets don't make you kick harder.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Also, Snap Shot is completely, and totally, unrelated.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

You know, this is not my first question about this enchantment.

None of them ever seem to get any kind of answer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Rapanuii wrote:
But, I'm not discussing holding two objects in your hand.

You are discussing wielding two weapons, with the same hand.

It doesn't matter, if it's two daggers, or a dagger and a spiked gauntlet.

Both are weapons, that require a hand to use.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Rapanuii wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Rapanuii wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Gloves, usually go on your hands.

So, a glove weapon requires a hand to use.

This is mind-bogglingly simple.

Yes, I understand where you're coming from, but we're discussing rules in PF.

So, if I hold a feather in my hand that has the cestus attached to it, can I threaten with the cestus? Do you have rules for your answer?

You are not wielding/threatening with the feather, so yes.

So, once the feather can somehow threaten/wield, you are forced to not be able to use your cestus without dropping the feather? Where in the rules does anything state this rule that supports your answer?

I wasn't expecting that as an answer, but more so expecting someone to go "there is an object in your hand, so since there is an object, you can't use your cestus/glove weapon".

It is possible to hold two daggers, in one hand.

It is not possible, to attack, threaten, and make AoOs, with two daggers, both held in the same hand.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

My apologies.

Too often, many forget those are guidelines.

All evidence showed me, that this was another case of such confusion.

So, your are looking to uncover the RAI?


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Rapanuii wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Gloves, usually go on your hands.

So, a glove weapon requires a hand to use.

This is mind-bogglingly simple.

Yes, I understand where you're coming from, but we're discussing rules in PF.

So, if I hold a feather in my hand that has the cestus attached to it, can I threaten with the cestus? Do you have rules for your answer?

You are not wielding/threatening with the feather, so yes.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

That ridiculous Mike Moreland comment makes one unable to kick without a free hand.

It has no RAW support.

Armor Spikes require as many hands as an unarmed strike, Dwarven Boulder Helmet, Barbazu Beard, Boot Blade, Kobold Tail Attachment, Ratfolk Tailblade, or Sea-Knife.

I will threaten with all, in PFS, and I dare someone to stop me.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Oracles need to worship gods the same way Rogues need to be thieving, backstabbing, filthy liars.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Gloves, usually go on your hands.

So, a glove weapon requires a hand to use.

This is mind-bogglingly simple.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Rapanuii wrote:
Everything is getting off track by this FAQ and now mwf. These are talking about making off-hand attacks, and the FAQ is about them in regards to in tandem with a two handed weapon. This is not what's being discussed.

You want to threaten, and make AoOs, with two different weapons, using the same hand.

This is what you are asking for?


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Finlanderboy wrote:
The light weapon needing afree hand is silly. So with improved unarmed strike I need a free hand too, even though I can use my butt as an unarmed strike?

Exactly.

The "free hand to kick" theory.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

We are not talking about two-weapon fighting.

All comments and FAQs regarding two-weapon fighting are irrelevant.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Someone, again, using the custom magic item pricing Guidelines as the be all, end all formula, for all magic items.

There are a ton of magic items that do not exactly follow the written Guidelines.

This is on purpose.

Nothing wrong here.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Mike Moreland's comment is an off-hand act of foolishness.

One needs no free hand to kick, or use Armor Spikes.

His complete disregard for RAW is at best, a PFS houserule.

This still has nothing to do with wielding two weapons with the same hand.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Two weapon fighting is totally unrelated.

Let's not confuse the issue further.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Rules regarding wielding two weapons, with one hand?


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Allow the Master Craftsman feat, as a trait, and remove the skill prerequisites.

Done.

Of course, if a much more complicated system, involving change to tons of fundamental rules, is more your style, then go for it.

I prefer simplicity myself.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Insain Dragoon wrote:

But you can remove your hand from a crossbow to find specific bolts before returning hand to the crossbow.

I dont see how punching a guy with my gauntlet is more complicated.

As part of an attack of opportunity?

No.

You need a number a feats to accomplish that.

Again, special feats and special abilities allowing you to do special things are not a good basis for what is normally allowed.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Indeed.

You cannot utilize two weapons, using the same hand, at the same time.

I really don't have any clue why this would be confusing.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I still find it hilarious that "Sneak Attack" is harder to do, whilst being sneaky.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Seems like the majority of things are just priced how it sounds good to Paizo as a general price,

Ring of Invisibility should be 12,000 gp based on the chart, but is priced at 20,000 gp because in the hands of certain players/classes/etc it would be more effective and powerful than the average user.

Many previous comments from 3.5 days (like the Magic Item Compendium and web articles) talked about needing to consider the best application of an item in the pricing stage.

Umm...

I thought the Ring of Invisibility was 20k to help with backwards compatibility with 3.5, not because they tried to balance it. Who would abuse it? Rogues for Sneak Attack? Sure, use your standard action to activate it so you can get SA for one attack next round. Can anyone really abuse a standard action casting to go invisible?

The chart is broken anyways... Constant Effect enlarge person ring for what, 2k? Whereas permanency costs 2.5k, can be dispelled, etc...

The chart is a guideline. It notes this.

Guideline.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Stealth, Core RAW, has issues.

There was even a blog about a possible change in Stealth rules.

See here and here.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

For non-double weapons transformed into double weapons, I expect only one side to have the benefits of enchantments.

There seems to be a precedent amongst spells/abilities to have it work this way.

Even if we follow this precedent with Special Materials, you still have one end counting as said material.

I, in practice, would avoid double/non-double transformations because of this.

I am much more interested in a simpler issue.

Special Material weapons continuing to count as said Special Materials, after transformation.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

You can't wield/threaten/attack with two weapons with the same hand.

That's the jist of it.

So, no two-handed weapon, and "glove" weapon, at the same time.

If it's used by another part of your body, you are fine.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

You don't even need to have your Oracle powers come from a Deity.

You do not have to worship, or even believe the existence of any deity, to be an Oracle, and regain spells.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Azten wrote:
Yes, yes, I misspelled horrible. Can't change it now...

I couldn't help it.

I'm hortible. ;)


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I find the Defending FAQ to be, flawed, at best.

Many weapons have abilities that require no attack, or are not possible to use, if used to attack, in the same round.

Also, not all magic items, that are also weapons, are even designed to have their abilities function at the same time as being used as a weapon.

Look at the many Staves, that also happen to be weapons.

Must they all be used as weapons, before they can be used as Staves?

What of the many magical Rods, that also happen to be weapons?


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Rapanuii wrote:

Also, by raw, a cestus makes your unarmed attacks deal lethal damage and allow you to threaten. Mechanically, it shouldn't matter if your hand is holding anything additionally, because your unarmed attack will deal the damage. Even if you needed to make the hand do the damage, you while still holding whatever should be able to swing your hand into the next square adjacent to you.

Sorry for the triple post.

Cestus has been errata'd.

It functions exactly like any other Light weapon, doing it's own damage.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Special feats and special abilities, allowing you to do special things, is not a good basis for how things normally go.

So, hold a two-handed reach weapon, with two hands. You can attack/threaten with any other weapon, that does not utilize those hands.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Horton hears Whos, and that is Hortible.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
SKR's definition is good enough for me.

Same.

This thread secretly has nothing to do with wielding.

It is a shadow argument against a weapon property, that some don't like.

There is a thread on that property already.

In the other thread, I respectfully asked that if he wanted to discuss when armor and weapon properties become applicable that he should make a separate thread, as that has nothing to do with the other thread in question (and that I would gladly contribute my two copper in the discussion).

I'll also point out that there is more than the single weapon property discussed in the other thread that this question pertains to. Defending was one property, its cousin the Guardian property is another. The Called property calls out for a wielder, even though there is language that dissuades the definition we all assume the term "wielder" to mean in the game.

The discussion here is about when and/or if weapon and armor properties (or even other abilities that call for wielders or wielding) are applicable in terms of usage. If you have the notion to bring in other threads without any sense of contribution, please take your irrelevant and unhelpful subject matter elsewhere.

I was not the first to mention it, and it had all the usual traits of a thread, that was secretly about another thread. I already said I jumped to conclusions, on what I saw, to be suspicious. I have tried to contribute in a meaningful manner, but was under the impression that my efforts would be for naught, if I was not discussing the underlying topic.

So, I believe this removes all the confusion, and we can move on.

Right?


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Well, you need the required hands to wield the weapons that require hands.

You also should already have the weapon ready, in some manner, to attack.

So, if you need to ungrip, or draw a weapon, then you really are not wielding, or threatening, with it until you do that.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:

You really shouldn't make assumptions, it kinda makes you look like an ass sometimes.

You asked for an example.

I gave you one.

Don't ask me for something if you don't want it, especially if you are then going to use said example in an attempt to imply some ulterior motive, especially when I'm one of the people who has no problem with said weapon property.

Almost every weapon property in the books has some kind of "wielded" wording in it, from Courageous on down to Unholy (do you gain a Negative level just by having it in hand if you're Good, or do you have to actively try and use the weapon in battle?), and some Feats (like Orc Weapon Expertise, which can grant a shield bonus for "wielding" a weapon, or a +3 to Concentration checks to cast, can you hold an Orc weapon in one hand and gain that benefit while only using another weapon?) do as well.

Perhaps. I am not without fault. Let's refrain from name-calling though.

The connection between the two current conversations left me suspicious.

I likely would not have been so suspicious, had it been any other example.

I will refrain from jumping to conclusions in the future. My apologies.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Well, for some of my examples, I see no problem with a adamantine/mithral/cold iron Quarterstaff or Club.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Sitri wrote:

http://www.reapermini.com/FigureFinder#detail/02134

http://www.reapermini.com/FigureFinder#detail/14578
kind of close

Could combine parts, and add some custom bits. Thanks for the links. I will continue to search.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Lemmy wrote:
SKR's definition is good enough for me.

Same.

This thread secretly has nothing to do with wielding.

It is a shadow argument against a weapon property, that some don't like.

There is a thread on that property already.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
LazarX wrote:
Robert A Matthews wrote:
Can we not FAQ every little issue that comes up? No wonder we never get any answers to our questions.

On the contrary, I think we need a FAQ to define the term "battle".

The problem is Robert, is that every time a property comes out, that's as good as this one, you get the munchkins looking for a corner interpretation to magnify it beyond it's intended scope.

I expect the number of FAQ requests to multiply exponentially like plague during an epidemic.

Then that is a problem with the enchantment, not the term "wielding".


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Okay, the time will come soon when I will have to bring this up in PFS.

I am not sure how to handle that.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

So, there is a bias.

Okay, let's try, if we can, to pretend this Weapon property, you may, or may not, dislike, doesn't exist.

Now, we can move on.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Are there specific examples, that lead one to be confused?


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Too bad there is no mini that exists that comes close to looking like my PC though.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

It notes only a change in shape, not composition.

I am not sure how that effects the final transformation.

1 to 50 of 23,697 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.