Even if a dagger (an off hand weapon) were used two handed you would not apply 1.5x strength bonus.
This is because a dagger is a light weapon. Light Weapons never benefit from 1.5x STR when wielded in two hands.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Just as a note, I don't see anywhere in the description of the thunderstriker archetype that allows the fighter to use a weapon in two hands, and also attack with a buckler in the same round.
You don't? Hmm what about Hammer and Anvil (Ex)? If Thunderstriker worked in the way you described then this Archetype Ability would have no effect for a thunderstriker because they would never be Two Weapon Fighting with a Buckler.
I'm afraid I don't understand your objection. Nowhere in Hammer and Anvil does it mention the primary weapon. It can be a bastard sword, a longsword (which is considered a heavy weapon) a battle axe, a hammer, ...
What makes you think the other weapon has to be a two-handed weapon? Just because other feats in the chain enhance a two-handed weapon? Stynkk, you're suggesting that Hammer and Anvil breaks one of the basic implications of melee combat -- that a fighter can't attack with a weapon in hand, release that weapon, and then attack again with the same hand*. I'd need the write-up to be much more explicit about that astonishing exception to allow it, especially because there's a perfectly reasonable, albeit unexciting, interpretation that follows the rules of combat.
* Replace the buckler with, say, claws. You can't attack with a greatsword, release it, and then also get two natural claw attacks.
I'm afraid I don't understand your objection. Nowhere in Hammer and Anvil does it mention the primary weapon. It can be a bastard sword, a longsword (which is considered a heavy weapon) a battle axe, a hammer, ...What makes you think the other weapon has to be a two-handed weapon?
It does not... just like a Polearm Master fighter archetype does not have to use a pole arm. But, then you just made a poor archetype choice.
You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand
Just what on earth is a regular attack that doesn't use your primary hand then? +1 to Two handed weapon and kick/spike/purse offhand I say.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
This is because a dagger is a light weapon. Light Weapons never benefit from 1.5x STR when wielded in two hands.Even if a dagger (an off hand weapon) were used two handed you would not apply 1.5x strength bonus.
No. It could be a freaking bastard sword.
"Off-Hand Weapon
When you deal damage with a weapon in your off hand, you add only 1/2 your Strength bonus. If you have a Strength penalty, the entire penalty applies."
Cripes, I don't even know what's being debated in this particular quote-tunnel.
Rules are being cited about light weapons never getting 1.5xSTR even if wielded two-handed and about any weapons in the off hand getting only 0.5xSTR regardless of weapon.
And something about a dagger that might be a bastard sword.
But I don't actually see anything being contradicted from poster to poster. What's the argument here?
|
This is because a dagger is a light weapon. Light Weapons never benefit from 1.5x STR when wielded in two hands.Even if a dagger (an off hand weapon) were used two handed you would not apply 1.5x strength bonus.
No. It could be a freaking bastard sword.
"Off-Hand Weapon
When you deal damage with a weapon in your off hand, you add only 1/2 your Strength bonus. If you have a Strength penalty, the entire penalty applies."
I would agree that if you chose to use your kick/armor-spikes as the primary hand weapon then the two-handed weapon would only get 0.5* strength.
(I would like to use this opportunity to once again emphasize that the use of the term "hand" is now a misnomer. In 3.0 your character had a dominant hand and attacks with the dominant hand were "primary hand" while attacks with the other were "off-hand". In 3.5/PF this is no longer true, characters are all treated as ambidextrous for simplicity's sake. However, they kept those terms because all existing two-weapon fighting knowledge was based on them (aka, backwards compatibility).)
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
(I would like to use this opportunity to once again emphasize that the use of the term "hand" is now a misnomer. In 3.0 your character had a dominant hand and attacks with the dominant hand were "primary hand" while attacks with the other were "off-hand". In 3.5/PF this is no longer true, characters are all treated as ambidextrous for simplicity's sake. However, they kept those terms because all existing two-weapon fighting knowledge was based on them (aka, backwards compatibility).)
And I would like to use this opportunity to once again emphasize that the term "two-weapon fighting" is also a misnomer. You're actually only two-weapon fighting if you're applying the TWF penalties in order to gain an extra attack that you wouldn't otherwise get. Meanwhile, already having multiple attacks (such as from high BAB) and choosing to make each one with a different weapon is not "two-weapon fighting", but does use main hand/off hand damage rules.
Sorry if this point has already been addressed in this thread - with the flurry of overlapping rules threads in the last couple of days, I can't remember which points were made where. :P
|
|
(I would like to use this opportunity to once again emphasize that the use of the term "hand" is now a misnomer. In 3.0 your character had a dominant hand and attacks with the dominant hand were "primary hand" while attacks with the other were "off-hand". In 3.5/PF this is no longer true, characters are all treated as ambidextrous for simplicity's sake. However, they kept those terms because all existing two-weapon fighting knowledge was based on them (aka, backwards compatibility).)And I would like to use this opportunity to once again emphasize that the term "two-weapon fighting" is also a misnomer. You're actually only two-weapon fighting if you're applying the TWF penalties in order to gain an extra attack that you wouldn't otherwise get. Meanwhile, already having multiple attacks (such as from high BAB) and choosing to make each one with a different weapon is not "two-weapon fighting", but does use main hand/off hand damage rules.
Sorry if this point has already been addressed in this thread - with the flurry of overlapping rules threads in the last couple of days, I can't remember which points were made where. :P
Naw, you're good. That was in the other thread. It is unfortunate to me that, as it currently stands, any weapon used after the first is treated as off-hand. This seems unnecessary and screws thrown weapon characters (as they, by nature, can only have a single attack be primary in a given round). Unfortunately I was ignored when I asked for clarification on James' usage of the term "additional attacks" as he could have been meaning the extra attacks from TWFing, but as worded it indicates every weapon but the first.
That said, in my games "off-hand" will only come into play if you get extra attacks.
|
|
At the end of the day - it is the opinion of TWO developers that the RAW and the RAI do not allow TWFing with a two handed weapon. Mark stated what the rules said, checked with Jason and confirmed that it was Jason's opinion as well.
Search the message boards here for discussion with Mark, about needing a free hand to use armor spikes.
At the end of the day James, I am disappointed. You participated in that discussion with Mark - and you knew the opinion of the developers - in fact you criticized it.
But rather than present the rules in an even handed method, you represented your version of the rules as fact, even knowing that two developers have contradicted it.
As I recall Mark specifically said that you cannot TWF with a 2hw.
On top of that his opinion was crystal clear that use of hands DID matter.Now personally, I think the pathway he chose to express the rules was sub-optimal. I think my explanation (and the RAW) about the amount of effort it takes to wield weapons provides a much more consistent and elegent explanation.
At the time, Jason said that he hoped to get to a FAQ on this subject; to date he has not. But I reiterate again, that in the most recent FAQ ruling he has remained consistent in his presentation of primary and off hand weapons, so I see no evidence that his (or Mark's) opinion has changed.
So, I'm done arguing. I've presented how TWFing works as presented (and consistent) in the core handbook and bestiary 2; and as been confirmed by two developers. If you wish to play something other than that - have at it.
Best wishes ...
Care to link to ANY of that?
CP - Can you link to these statements please.
|
Was there ever any official arbitration on this?
The issues I see are:
1. If you were fighting with two weapons and armour spikes you have to make a choice between the spike or the off hand weapon.
"You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case. (You can't also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.)"
This limits you to the usual number of attacks per round without granting an extra bonus attack.
2. As for an unarmed strike, "An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon." As far as I am aware, you cannot make an attack with a 2h weapon and a light weapon.
3. For 2 weapon fighting the wording is very specific: "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon."
So overall I would think you could not make a 2 handed weapon attack and an extra attack from either of these methods without a special feat as two weapon fighting would not count as you are not "weilding a second weapon in your off hand." and you cannot make an extra attack with unarmed strike as this is "always considered a light weapon" its not a natural attack and works in all respects as a light weapon.
That said, I have been wrong on more than one occassion, and the 3.5 rules would argue otherwise. However, 3.5 did some pretty strange things towards the end, so unless there is an official response, I personally will rule it off limits (inspite of it being rather cool and fitting with fighting moves...)
However I am not a PFS GM. Is anyone who posted here?
I found the post cp was talking about. It's HERE.
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.
... but later on in the same thread, Mark made it clear that this was just his and Jason's off-the-cuff opinion, and not anything official.
And then later in the thread, Jason posted THIS:
Hey there Everybody,
Alright everybody. Lets just take it down a notch. I got a few quick points.
- We are currently looking into the whole armor spike/misc non-hand weapons and how they threaten. This was a slightly bigger issue than I first thought when I gave an off the cuff opinion.
- The thing to remember here, that I want to stress, is that generally speaking, the only places where a PFS judge is required to follow rulings is the rulebooks, updates, FAQ posts, and PFS rules documents. Everything else is left to judge discretion at the table. There is no way around this. We cannot ask our judges to be familiar with every ruling or thought from every messageboard post, even if it comes from a staff member.
- For you home game, you don't even have to pay attention to the above sources. Its your game after all.
I hope to get a FAQ on this issue soon.
Bottom line -- there isn't an official answer yet, but it looks like we're going to get one.
The other interesting point is that Mark disagrees with my earlier arguments about using the 3.5 FAQ when Paizo reused the 3.5 wordings. So that's something to consider.
AvalonXQ, thanks for the links.
James Maissen - I am disappointed that you did not link to the posts made by Developers of the game on this issue when you knew about them.
I agree that Marks post on the issue is in error, due to the statements about the Monks unarmed strike.
But most of the postings here could have been avoided by a link to Jason Bulmahn's Post that states "- We are currently looking into the whole armor spike/misc non-hand weapons and how they threaten. This was a slightly bigger issue than I first thought when I gave an off the cuff opinion."
So this is just a repeat thread of a known issue, that is in the pipleine for a FAQ.
So this is just a repeat thread of a known issue, that is in the pipleine for a FAQ.
Sometimes issues must be discussed openly more than a few times to get responses. The issue is much more ambiguous than it should be.