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

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Ok, need some help trying to find a weapon that is PFS legal


Pathfinder Society® General Discussion

1 to 50 of 128 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade *

Ok all you gamers out there, I am trying to find a weapon but do not have all of the pathfinder books and such. I am trying to find a weapon, that is one handed, is a Melee weapon but has range to it, and can hopefully threaten all the squares in it's reach. So anyone know anything out there that is like a whip but threatens the spaces it can attack, and can be used up close and at range without penalty. I know there is a whip called a scorpion whip, but I am unsure if that threatens cause it does lethal damage or not, and I would like it if the weapon did not provoke Aoo in combat when used close quarters. And of course is PFS legal.

So yeah does anyone have any weapons that come to mind?

Shadow Lodge ****

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Hello Edward!

First off, remember that in order to use a piece of equipment, feat, class, etc. in Pathfinder Society you must own (and bring with you) a physical or digital copy of the book which contains the resource. If you find a weapon you are interested in, keep this in mind.

Secondly, most of the weapons you have described have been pulled from Pathfinder for being just a hair too powerful. There are one-handed weapons that have range, and there are reach weapons with range, but there are no one-handed versions that have all the features you are looking for. If though you misspoke and don't need it to have range, there is one option that I can think of. The exotic weapon "spear chain" (from the APG). This weapon is one-handed and has 10 foot reach and I think it can threaten adjacent spaces.

Another option is to use the scorpion whip but to use a spiked gauntlet for threatening adjacent squares. There are other options, but all are two handed.

P.S. The scorpion whip, like the regular whip, does not threaten.


I don't think such a weapon exists. One alternate possibility is the Meteor Hammer from the Legacy of Fire Player's Guide (a free download) which allows you to shift between using it as a non-reach weapon or as a reach weapon + shield (sort of). As a bonus, it does as much damage as a bastard sword, too.

You can find the list of approved weapons from outside the Core Rulebook here:
http://www.archivesofnethys.com/gearWeapons.htm

***** Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Tucson aka Sir_Wulf

Spiked armor is also a good option for threatening adjacent spaces.

Qadira **

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber

With the appropriate feats, the dwarven dorn-dergar from Dwarves of Golarion can be used one handed and it can also be used with reach or in adjacent squares. Other feats can also change the action used to switch between reach and adjacent to swift action instead of move.

New Dwarven Weapon
Exotic Weapons
Two-Handed Melee Weapons
Cost Dmg (S) Dmg (M) Critical Range Weight Type Special
Dwarven dorn-dergar 50 gp 1d8 1d10 ×2 — 15 lbs. B reach
Dwarven Dorn-Dergar: This exotic weapon is a 10-foot-long, heavy metal chain weighted at the end by a round ball of solid iron about
the size of a large fist. By adjusting the slack of the chain, the weapon can be used either with or without reach. Changing between using
it as a normal weapon and a reach weapon is a move action. Though fallen into disuse over the spanning centuries, the dorn-dergar is
still sometimes employed by dwarves who cling to the old ways.
Dwarves treat dorn-dergars as martial weapons.

Silver Crusade *

I did misspeak a little, What im looking for is something that is one handed only, cant have a two handed weapon, that has reach but threatens both squares and does not provoke Aoo like I whip for some reason does if used up close.


There is a feat to make the dorn dergar one handed.


EDWARD DEANGELIS wrote:
I did misspeak a little, What im looking for is something that is one handed only, cant have a two handed weapon, that has reach but threatens both squares and does not provoke Aoo like I whip for some reason does if used up close.

As I said, I don't think one exists, outside of special cases like the Polearm Master fighter archetype.

Qadira **

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Froze_man wrote:
There is a feat to make the dorn dergar one handed.

Yeah, I mentioned that in my post. It can also be switched between reach and non reach as a swift action if you take an additional feat (mentioned that, as well).

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

He wants it to be both without having to take any kind of action for it similar to the Spiked Chain of v3.0.

I don’t think you will find what you are looking for, as it was determined that the spiked chain was broken, and so it was majorly nerfed.

This is the only weapon that I recall (except for perhaps some oriental ones) that did this in 3.0.

Qadira **

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Andrew Christian wrote:

He wants it to be both without having to take any kind of action for it similar to the Spiked Chain of v3.0.

I don’t think you will find what you are looking for, as it was determined that the spiked chain was broken, and so it was majorly nerfed.

This is the only weapon that I recall (except for perhaps some oriental ones) that did this in 3.0.

I agree. I think that there won't be one that does that...pathfinder tends to be much more balanced than D and D

Silver Crusade *

Well thank you all for the information. Sadly I understand after looking up more info on the spiked chain from v 3.0 how it could be broken and why such things have been taken out. Oo well I shall have to come up with another neat idea for a character.

Shadow Lodge **

You could take the Lunge feat, extend the reach of your melee attacks by 5ft at the cost of 2ac until the end of your turn, down side is that you can't make AoOs with this extra 5ft reach

Or you could take a dip in alchemist for 2 levels or so and pick up the vestigial arm discovery and take some two weapon fighting feats, pick up a reach weapon and a light weapon and threaten both 5ft and 10ft with the two different weapons

***** Venture-Captain, North Carolina—Raleigh aka MillerHero

I have had greater success playing characters with natural reach (such as enlarge person) than characters with reach weapons.

Taldor ***

Urumi no longer has reach. The next best thing would probably be a scorpion whip.

My advice would be to forget about exotic weapons altogether and get yourself a longspear. It's an underestimated weapon.

Taldor *****

Deussu wrote:

Urumi no longer has reach. The next best thing would probably be a scorpion whip.

My advice would be to forget about exotic weapons altogether and get yourself a longspear. It's an underestimated weapon.

+1

Cheliax *

I have a lot of enjoyment out of the meteor hammer. As a free acton at the begining of your turn, you choose to weld it as either a reach weapon or adjacent weapon. As a reach weapon, you gain a +1 shield bonus to AC. As an adjacent weapon, it may be employed as a double weapon. I f you succeed on a trp attempt, you may pull the target 5 feet closer rather than knock it prone.

Now I keep it in reah mode all the time and use an alchemst vestgal arm to threaten adjacent with another weapon. Or you may want to try useing armor spikes.


This PrC might interest you (also, might kill you.)

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/prestige-classes/other-paizo/n-r/pain-taste r

Further, with PFS, it'd take time to get/wouldn't benefit fully due to 12th level cap. But hey, option's there if you can get the book for it. The version in Armageddon's Echo isn't the same as the one on that page, though, so I dunno what happened there...Ah well. Your deal at that point.

Andoran *****

Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
Irulesmost wrote:

This PrC might interest you (also, might kill you.)

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/prestige-classes/other-paizo/n-r/pain-taste r

Further, with PFS, it'd take time to get/wouldn't benefit fully due to 12th level cap. But hey, option's there if you can get the book for it. The version in Armageddon's Echo isn't the same as the one on that page, though, so I dunno what happened there...Ah well. Your deal at that point.

ummm... Not Authorized for Pathfinder Society Play


Is it specifically not? Or do things have to be specifically allowed to get in?

I don't keep up with that PFS, because, on principle, it's very much not my style. Kinda figured that setting specific/appropriate stuff was allowed, esp if you can justify it. And since alt. races are existent, and Drow exist, it didn't seem like too much. You could theoretically be a drow(probably with ECL adjustment). Could even be LN and Chelaxian, and an inquisitor of Zon-Kuthon, and it'd make loads of sense.

But anyway. If it's not legal, it's not.

Edit: Oh well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v​=VogSwDAmDHY&feature=related

And that's why PFS rubs me the wrong way.

Andoran *****

Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
Irulesmost wrote:

Is it specifically not? Or do things have to be specifically allowed to get in?

And that's why PFS rubs me the wrong way.

Things have to be specifically allowed in.

All things authorized or not authorized for PFS play are listed in additional resources.

And I try to avoid PFS rubbing me at all...;)

Edit: I see they changed the Format of additional resources.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain aka AZhobbit

Sir_Wulf wrote:
Spiked armor is also a good option for threatening adjacent spaces.

You know this never made sense to me. Why do your spikes which are attached to your armor threaten. I always thought these were for when you were grappled or attacked by natural weapons. While I knwo gaming mechanics don't always take into account physics, this one is just silly. I have worn armor with spikes before and it never prevented my opponent from moving away, that's what my sword was for. Too further make the point My elemental wizard has the ability to cover himself in fire. The fire doesn't threaten, I can't throw it, it is personal only. Hmmmm allot like wearing spikes on armor. Alas never will understand this cheat.


Deussu wrote:
Urumi no longer has reach.

Awww! When did this happen? I really liked the urumi as it was presented in the Adventurer's Armory. Granted, it was a little broken, but it did something nothing else in PF seems able to do- hence this thread.

Paizo Employee ** Developer

10 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 6 people marked this as a favorite.
AZhobbit wrote:
Sir_Wulf wrote:
Spiked armor is also a good option for threatening adjacent spaces.
You know this never made sense to me. Why do your spikes which are attached to your armor threaten. I always thought these were for when you were grappled or attacked by natural weapons. While I knwo gaming mechanics don't always take into account physics, this one is just silly. I have worn armor with spikes before and it never prevented my opponent from moving away, that's what my sword was for. Too further make the point My elemental wizard has the ability to cover himself in fire. The fire doesn't threaten, I can't throw it, it is personal only. Hmmmm allot like wearing spikes on armor. Alas never will understand this cheat.

Armor spikes are treated as light weapons for the purpose of threatening adjacent squares. Light weapons require the use of limbs, so you would only be able to make attacks with them if you have a free hand. Thus, wielding a two-handed reach weapon would negate your ability to "wield" (and thus threaten with) armor spikes. This isn't necessarily clear in the rules, but I just discussed it with Jason, and we're both on the same page about the intent.

****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I would like to strongly note my objection to changing the rules with a forum post that declares the change to be a clarification.

Mark Moreland wrote:


Armor spikes are treated as light weapons for the purpose of threatening adjacent squares. Light weapons require the use of limbs, so you would only be able to make attacks with them if you have a free hand. Thus, wielding a two-handed reach weapon would negate your ability to "wield" (and thus threaten with) armor spikes. This isn't necessarily clear in the rules, but I just discussed it with Jason, and we're both on the same page about the intent.


Mark Moreland wrote:


Armor spikes are treated as light weapons for the purpose of threatening adjacent squares. Light weapons require the use of limbs, so you would only be able to make attacks with them if you have a free hand. Thus, wielding a two-handed reach weapon would negate your ability to "wield" (and thus threaten with) armor spikes. This isn't necessarily clear in the rules, but I just discussed it with Jason, and we're both on the same page about the intent.

And interesting change from 3.5 where it was explicitly allowed without needing a hand free.. much like unarmed strikes.

Many people seem to despise armor spikes.. why not simply ban them/ remove them from the game instead?

-James
PS: besides light weapons do not need a hand free or the use of limbs.


Deussu wrote:
My advice would be to forget about exotic weapons altogether and get yourself a longspear. It's an underestimated weapon.

+1, Longspear and Spiked Gauntlets (both are Simple weapons)

Spiked Armor is also a good idea as Sir_Wulf said (Martial weapon)

Spiked Gauntlets are a relatively important piece of equipment I overlooked until one time the DM disarmed my only weapon(other than a dagger) and beat the tar out of my character with it.

If you get into a situation like a crowded narrow hallway where you can't 5-foot step to get your reach back, you simply hold the polearm with your off-hand and punch with a spiked gauntlet. You can no longer make reach attacks because you're punching with the gauntlet and not actively wielding said reach weapon. We've always played it similar to charging/lunging (ex: -2AC until your next turn), but you're 'wielding gauntlets (not the reach weapon) until you're next turn'.

I like the Lunge feat, really want to make a character with it and a Scorpion Whip at some point. So many concepts, so little time.

Someone mentioned the Phalanx Fighter Variant above, it requires 3 levels of Fighter, it's in the Advanced Player's Guide. You can 1-hand polearms without penalty, not sure if you HAVE to be wielding a shield or not though. My Dwarven Paladin uses it quite a bit, ranseur/hvy shield in cramped dungeons.

Otherwise there has never been a 1-handed reach weapon that threatens 5' & 10' as far as I know. Even the 3E/3.5E Spiked Chain was 2-handed. IMO it wasn't the Spiked Chain that was "broken", it was 'Improved Trip' allowing you FREE attacks everytime you tripped someone, but the nerf is in place... just have to roll with it.


james maissen wrote:
Mark Moreland wrote:


Armor spikes are treated as light weapons for the purpose of threatening adjacent squares. Light weapons require the use of limbs, so you would only be able to make attacks with them if you have a free hand. Thus, wielding a two-handed reach weapon would negate your ability to "wield" (and thus threaten with) armor spikes. This isn't necessarily clear in the rules, but I just discussed it with Jason, and we're both on the same page about the intent.

And interesting change from 3.5 where it was explicitly allowed without needing a hand free.. much like unarmed strikes.

PS: besides light weapons do not need a hand free or the use of limbs.

So Armor Spikes aren't all over your armor, just on the Gauntlets? That seems a bit redundant with Spiked Gauntlets to me.

Also, what affect does that have on Bladeboots from the Adventurer's Armory? Do I really need a free hand to wield my boot?! Assuming it's a light weapon, I forget, otherwise ignore this, lol.

"One sec... have to take off... my...*ungh* boot! Okay, let's do THIS!"

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

james maissen wrote:


PS: besides light weapons do not need a hand free or the use of limbs.

You wield many daggers with your mouth or with your...

***** Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Tucson aka Sir_Wulf

Andrew Christian wrote:
You wield many daggers with your mouth or with your...

The Thorn Bracer (arm-mounted) would be one exception, the barbazu beard (chin-mounted) another.

Wulf flips through the texts, sure he saw the Cornugon Codpiece somewhere...

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Daniel Moyer wrote:


Armor spikes are treate
So Armor Spikes aren't all over your armor, just on the Gauntlets? That seems a bit redundant with Spiked Gauntlets to me.

Also, what affect does that have on Bladeboots from the Adventurer's Armory? Do I really need a free hand to wield my boot?! Assuming it's a light weapon, I forget, otherwise ignore this, lol.

"One sec... have to take off... my...*ungh* boot! Okay, let's do THIS!"

Why this type of question is asked, blows my mind.

In my home game, I am the GM, but running Kingmaker, and so have a character of my own for when the kingdom building starts.

She is a cavalier, and uses a lance. The lance is a two-handed weapon, that can be used in one hand while mounted.

A Dire Bear grappled the cavalier, and a friend of mine who is going to eventually create his own character was given mine to play through the combat with. He asked if he could use the lance since you can use a one-handed weapon in a grapple...

The obvious answer is no, since it is a two-handed weapon.

It seems fairly obvious to me, that to threaten a space, you need to have the freedom to use the weapons you own.

While we see mixed martial artists use their shoulders, hips, and chests to attack with, those particular attacks are more of the non-lethal variety. Granted if Tito Ortiz popped you with his shoulder (he was always the best I saw with the shoulder strike) with spikes on it, it would probably really hurt. It isn't realistic to believe that a heavily armored man, with armor spikes, would have the freedom of movement in his armor to pop a shoulder quite like that. It is realistic, however, to believe that the same heavily armored man could swing an arm or elbow, which happens to have some of those armor spikes on them.

Regardless, to believe you could hold a long spear in two hands and threaten at 10' and use your armor spikes or spiked gauntlets to simultaneously threaten 5' is ludicrous.

And more to the point of why I even started this post.

When a weapon specifically describes how it breaks the written rules, then you don't apply the written rule, because the weapon has essentially created its own rule. Like the lance above. While mounted you can use it in one hand. So of course the blade boots, while being called a light weapon, does not need a free hand to use. The new rule for blade boots is inherent in what they are.

Taldor

Mark Moreland wrote:


Armor spikes are treated as light weapons for the purpose of threatening adjacent squares. Light weapons require the use of limbs, so you would only be able to make attacks with them if you have a free hand. Thus, wielding a two-handed reach weapon would negate your ability to "wield" (and thus threaten with) armor spikes. This isn't necessarily clear in the rules, but I just discussed it with Jason, and we're both on the same page about the intent.

It should be noted that this is the complete opposite of a ruling from the 3.5 FAQ that is up at Wizard's site. I know that Pathfinder is Pathfinder, but reach weapon + armor spikes is a long standing established strategy, one that I saw in action in PFS just last week from a fellow gamer. Reversing this on the fly is going to upset a lot of people.

Paizo Employee ** Developer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
AxeMurder0 wrote:

I would like to strongly note my objection to changing the rules with a forum post that declares the change to be a clarification.

Mark Moreland wrote:


Armor spikes are treated as light weapons for the purpose of threatening adjacent squares. Light weapons require the use of limbs, so you would only be able to make attacks with them if you have a free hand. Thus, wielding a two-handed reach weapon would negate your ability to "wield" (and thus threaten with) armor spikes. This isn't necessarily clear in the rules, but I just discussed it with Jason, and we're both on the same page about the intent.

The rule hasn't changed. Until there's a change to the Core Rulebook, the PFRPG FAQ, or the Pathfinder Society rules documentation, this is just me posting on the messageboards. If you were playing at my table, that's how I'd rule it, after having a conversation with the game's lead designer and based on my own interpretation. If you have a GM who reads these boards or doesn't, whether she values my suggestions or those of any other participant in the conversation or not, she remains free to adjudicate and interpret the official rules as she sees fit at her own table.

Andoran ***** Venture-Lieutenant, California—Fresno aka Sarta

Mark Moreland wrote:
The rule hasn't changed. Until there's a change to the Core Rulebook, the PFRPG FAQ, or the Pathfinder Society rules documentation, this is just me posting on the messageboards. If you were playing at my table, that's how I'd rule it, after having a conversation with the game's lead designer and based on my own interpretation. If you have a GM who reads these boards or doesn't, whether she values my suggestions or those of any other participant in the conversation or not, she remains free to adjudicate and interpret the official rules as she sees fit at her own table.

I think it's a good call. It's one thing to allow someone with armor spikes to attack someone adjacent to them, but quite another to say they threaten a 225' square area due to their ability to body-check anyone standing next to them while they have their hands full.

Grand Lodge ***

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
Sarta wrote:
Mark Moreland wrote:
The rule hasn't changed. Until there's a change to the Core Rulebook, the PFRPG FAQ, or the Pathfinder Society rules documentation, this is just me posting on the messageboards. If you were playing at my table, that's how I'd rule it, after having a conversation with the game's lead designer and based on my own interpretation. If you have a GM who reads these boards or doesn't, whether she values my suggestions or those of any other participant in the conversation or not, she remains free to adjudicate and interpret the official rules as she sees fit at her own table.
I think it's a good call. It's one thing to allow someone with armor spikes to attack someone adjacent to them, but quite another to say they threaten a 225' square area due to their ability to body-check anyone standing next to them while they have their hands full.

Especially since Pathfinder seems to have purposely removed all multi-threat weapons like this. It seems fairly clear that they didn't want characters doing this.

***** Venture-Captain, North Carolina—Raleigh aka MillerHero

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Perhaps we need to ask Jason what kind of action it is to switch from wielding a two-handed weapon with two hands to just holding it in one hand (and not threatening with it) - thus freeing up your other hand to cast a spell, draw & drink a potion, attack with a light weapon, etc.

Qadira **

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Steve Miller wrote:
Perhaps we need to ask Jason what kind of action it is to switch from wielding a two-handed weapon with two hands to just holding it in one hand (and not threatening with it) - thus freeing up your other hand to cast a spell, draw & drink a potion, attack with a light weapon, etc.

I would generally consider that to be "dropping" the weapon from the offhand, so free.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
cblome59 wrote:


Especially since Pathfinder seems to have purposely removed all multi-threat weapons like this. It seems fairly clear that they didn't want characters doing this.

Actually Paizo has introduced other weapons that can be used without needing a hand free, so I would think that it's demonstrably clear that they didn't have any problem with it. Instead they had problems with a single weapon (the spiked chain) simultaneously threatening adjacent as well as reach. They seem to have no problem with weapons that don't require hands to use, in fact they seem to have fully embraced it.

And as I seem to recall the 3.5 FAQ directly addressed this situation saying that a character with a longspear and armor spikes would threaten both 10' and 5' away respectively.

Seeing how nothing here has changed, and further how other weapons were introduced that do not require a hand free (boot knife, bar. beard) I can't see any justification for a judge ruling against its intended purpose.

Further extrapolating Mark's reasoning here you would have potential problems using armor spikes while grappling 'if you didn't have a hand free'!

If you dislike armor spikes that much, and are running the campaign simply ban them from the game. Otherwise accept them like some people have to accept gunslingers, ninjas, etc.

Purposefully making up rules like this as a judge in an organized campaign brings up the worst memories of organized play for me, so if my response is a bit overextended you have my apologies,

James Maissen

Grand Lodge ***

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
james maissen wrote:
cblome59 wrote:


Especially since Pathfinder seems to have purposely removed all multi-threat weapons like this. It seems fairly clear that they didn't want characters doing this.

Actually Paizo has introduced other weapons that can be used without needing a hand free, so I would think that it's demonstrably clear that they didn't have any problem with it. Instead they had problems with a single weapon (the spiked chain) simultaneously threatening adjacent as well as reach. They seem to have no problem with weapons that don't require hands to use, in fact they seem to have fully embraced it.

And as I seem to recall the 3.5 FAQ directly addressed this situation saying that a character with a longspear and armor spikes would threaten both 10' and 5' away respectively.

Seeing how nothing here has changed, and further how other weapons were introduced that do not require a hand free (boot knife, bar. beard) I can't see any justification for a judge ruling against its intended purpose.

Further extrapolating Mark's reasoning here you would have potential problems using armor spikes while grappling 'if you didn't have a hand free'!

If you dislike armor spikes that much, and are running the campaign simply ban them from the game. Otherwise accept them like some people have to accept gunslingers, ninjas, etc.

Purposefully making up rules like this as a judge in an organized campaign brings up the worst memories of organized play for me, so if my response is a bit overextended you have my apologies,

James Maissen

Maybe I'm an odd duck on these boards but I honestly don't care a whit about what 3.5 had to say about anything.

I do care what the people behind Pathfinder have to say. I trust Mark and Buhlman's opinion better than anyone from the heydays of 3.5.

*shrug*

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Miller wrote:
Perhaps we need to ask Jason what kind of action it is to switch from wielding a two-handed weapon with two hands to just holding it in one hand (and not threatening with it) - thus freeing up your other hand to cast a spell, draw & drink a potion, attack with a light weapon, etc.

I'd consider this a free action. And while the rules may not specifically say it, I think they certainly support this ruling.

Now if your light weapon were a dagger on your belt, you'd have to take a move action (or free/swift if you had quick draw) to draw it first.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

cblome59 wrote:


Maybe I'm an odd duck on these boards but I honestly don't care a whit about what 3.5 had to say about anything.

I do care what the people behind Pathfinder have to say. I trust Mark and Buhlman's opinion better than anyone from the heydays of 3.5.

*shrug*

I do not know you personally, so you might be an odd duck otherwise.

But in this instance, you and I are in the same boat (FYI, most people consider me an odd duck).


cblome59 wrote:


Maybe I'm an odd duck on these boards but I honestly don't care a whit about what 3.5 had to say about anything.

I do care what the people behind Pathfinder have to say. I trust Mark and Buhlman's opinion better than anyone from the heydays of 3.5.

*shrug*

What opinion?

We're talking the way the rules currently ARE.

Now Jason (et al) can certainly change that.. and in many places they have done so for the better and if they want to change more of the core rules more power to them as there are many places that frankly still need it. But don't dress this up as something it's not.

-James

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

james maissen wrote:
cblome59 wrote:


Maybe I'm an odd duck on these boards but I honestly don't care a whit about what 3.5 had to say about anything.

I do care what the people behind Pathfinder have to say. I trust Mark and Buhlman's opinion better than anyone from the heydays of 3.5.

*shrug*

What opinion?

We're talking the way the rules currently ARE.

Now Jason (et al) can certainly change that.. and in many places they have done so for the better and if they want to change more of the core rules more power to them as there are many places that frankly still need it. But don't dress this up as something it's not.

-James

A FAQ written by WotC folk for D&D 3.5 does not constitute core rules for Pathfinder, in any way, shape or form. Unless that FAQ material made it into their SRD, which Paizo used as a basis to create Pathfinder, then you are incorrect sir.

Grand Lodge ***

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
Andrew Christian wrote:
james maissen wrote:
cblome59 wrote:


Maybe I'm an odd duck on these boards but I honestly don't care a whit about what 3.5 had to say about anything.

I do care what the people behind Pathfinder have to say. I trust Mark and Buhlman's opinion better than anyone from the heydays of 3.5.

*shrug*

What opinion?

We're talking the way the rules currently ARE.

Now Jason (et al) can certainly change that.. and in many places they have done so for the better and if they want to change more of the core rules more power to them as there are many places that frankly still need it. But don't dress this up as something it's not.

-James

A FAQ written by WotC folk for D&D 3.5 does not constitute core rules for Pathfinder, in any way, shape or form. Unless that FAQ material made it into their SRD, which Paizo used as a basis to create Pathfinder, then you are incorrect sir.

This.

Assuming the rules are like they were in 3.5 has usually been the first step to being wrong in Pathfinder.

YMMV

Grand Lodge ***

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

And I'm not saying that you're wrong, James, or that this doesn't need to be discussed.

I'm just saying that in my hierarchy of who to trust in Pathfinder Role-Playing game rule-foo doesn't even enter into anything for 3.5.

Of course, this is all off topic :P

Paizo Employee ** Developer

Not only are the WotC FAQs a gray area in terms of whether the content of them is open or not, they're also made by another company, for another game. We don't publish 3.5; we publish the Pathfinder RPG. And while they may still be helpful for GMs and players to use in adjudicating rules and interpreting corner cases, they are no more official for the Pathfinder RPG than would be FAQs posted by Chaosium, Fantasy Flight, Goodman Games, Mongoose Publishing, or any other non-Paizo RPG manufacturer.

** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not bothered what the rule ends up being, but it needs to be clear and consistent in an organised play campaign. The whole point of OP is that everyone plays by the same rules and can play their characters in any game without modification. If one of your primary attack methods changes completely at random depending on who's read what message board, or remembers this or that FAQ, then it starts to become disorganised play instead. It can also seriously affect the enjoyment of a player who never knows what he can or can't do. Do we really want to start every game with a list of "How do you rule X? How do you rule Y? Have you read the messageboard about Z?" I don't want to be in that position as either a player or a GM. I just want one set of unambiguous rules so we can get on with the game.

I want world peace too, but I'm starting small... :-)

Paizo Employee ** Developer

No matter how much people may want "official" rulings on any number of issues, there is no way we can ever cover every rules element in the game. This, as with many other issues, is up to GM interpretation unless Jason or someone else on the design team decides it's a large enough issue that it needs to be errata'd in a future printing of the core rules or clarified in an official FAQ.


Andrew Christian wrote:
Regardless, to believe you could hold a long spear in two hands and threaten at 10' and use your armor spikes or spiked gauntlets to simultaneously threaten 5' is ludicrous.

I never said anything of the sort. I said wear Spiked Gauntlets so you have a weapon you could essentially switch to should you be unable to take a 5-foot step backwards. Holding the Longspear in your off-hand is not the same as threatening with it.

EDITED: However shoulder (armor) spikes seem very usable while holding a 2-handed weapon to me (despite the "ruling" above). As I said above, if the Armor Spikes require a "free hand" aren't they technically the same weapon as Spiked Gauntlets? Gauntlets are cheaper and do a damage-die less... I guess making the gauntlets more versitile? *shrug*

I honestly don't have this problem or any intention of creating it with any future characters. Also armor spikes don't have to be on HEAVY armor, they can be on LIGHT armor all the same.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Moreland wrote:
This, as with many other issues, is up to GM interpretation...

My experience as a player, just AVOID anything in PFS that involves THAT phrase. You'll save yourself and your friends a lot of grief.

1 to 50 of 128 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder Society® / General Discussion / Ok, need some help trying to find a weapon that is PFS legal All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©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.