So yes, it's just assumed that a free action under the circumstance of an AoO is acceptable. So, doesn't this give a strong argument that one can on an AoO freely alternate from two handing to one handing or vice versa?
Mike Moreland made that comment for PFS, and quite honestly, im not even sure it's binding for that.
Its definitely binding for that.
For one, it doesn't really make sense. If he had said spiked gauntlets, I would agree with him 100%. Armored spikes don't require the use of hands, per se, while spiked gauntlets obviously do. I half wonder if the mention of armor spikes was a mix up with spiked gauntlets.
You can play noun swap with ANYTHING anyone says to get a different answer if you want, but they mentioned armor spikes by name twice in a thread specifically looking for a way to threaten 10feet and adjacent at the same time.
Mike Moreland made that comment for PFS, and quite honestly, im not even sure it's binding for that.Its definitely binding for that.
There is the discussion about doing free actions during AoO's, and one if glove weapons threaten the space while holding a weapon in that arms hand that it's attached to (if they do, then if they can attack targets without letting go of the object).
You need to have both the 10ft and 5ft threatening to make use of the AoO from both, because if they trigger from 5 ft, the ability to grab onto your two handed weapon doesn't really mean much, and vice versa.
If that's the question, then I think it's fairly clearly a no, I think BigNorseWolf had the right idea. Taking it a bit further, let's look at Multiweapon Fighting:
This multi-armed creature is skilled at making attacks with multiple weapons.
Prerequisites
Dex 13, three or more hands.Benefits
Penalties for fighting with multiple weapons are reduced by –2 with the primary hand and by –6 with off hands.
If you could punch with cestus while holding a greatsword, then I should be able to multiweapon fight with two swords and a pair of cestus, because I do have four weapons ready to fight. But that's not the case, you need a limb for each weapon. So since the hand is already busy holding the two-handed weapon, it cannot be used to punch. Same reason I can't two weapon fight with cestus and a greatsword.
We're not talking about twf or mwf. We're not talking about off-hand attacks either.
No, but it points out the flaw in your argument. The restriction on multiweapon fighting is enough limbs, not enough weapons. Limbs occupied with another weapon cannot be used to make an attack not holding that weapon.
We're not talking about twf or mwf. We're not talking about off-hand attacks either.
There are two avenues for armored spikes working for an AOO.
1) Its not occupying a hand so I can stab with it
2) I can take my hand off the pole arm and punch when its not my turn.
1 gets ruled out by the faq
2 doesn't work without a special exception, which I can't find.Snapshot is a separate issue because the free action there is reloading your bow, not the hand shifting.
Mark Morelands comments that it doesn't work were made for someone specifically trying to do this, so it doesn't much matter if the argument was either 1 or 2.
We're not talking about twf or mwf. We're not talking about off-hand attacks either.There are two avenues for armored spikes working for an AOO.
1) Its not occupying a hand so I can stab with it
2) I can take my hand off the pole arm and punch when its not my turn.1 gets ruled out by the faq
2 doesn't work without a special exception, which I can't find.Snapshot is a separate issue because the free action there is reloading your bow, not the hand shifting.Mark Morelands comments that it doesn't work were made for someone specifically trying to do this, so it doesn't much matter if the argument was either 1 or 2.
Situation 1 was not ruled out by FAQ. Are you thinking of how Two Weapon Fighting with armor spikes and a 2 hander?
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?
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.
|
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?
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.
Double yes, so I hope we can move on, unless someone REALLY thinks discussing this is relevant and has a good point.
Ok so since no rules say my hand needs to be free, lets imagine this.
I am holding a longspear. I am wearing a gauntlet with spikes on the back of hand/fingers. Someone comes and stands next to me. Without taking my hand off the pole I slam my fist into my enemy/back hand them.
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?
You have the reach weapon that is IN your hands to threaten 10 ft.
You have a glove weapon attached to your BODY to be able to hit adjacent enemies.
Ok so since no rules say my hand needs to be free, lets imagine this.
I am holding a longspear. I am wearing a gauntlet with spikes on the back of hand/fingers. Someone comes and stands next to me. Without taking my hand off the pole I slam my fist into my enemy/back hand them.
The imagination game is where things get a visit by Ozzy at times, and it's best to stick with the rules of the game even if the rules seem to not make sense.
Anyways, I agree with this, and the spikes aren't in a position to require your hand to hold or wield. Your body has it attached, and now your unarmed attack threatens, and you smash fools while you pity their foolishness for thinking the rules say that you couldn't.
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 need both hands on the pole arm to use the pole arm.
You can't shoulder someone with the armor spikes.( you would only be able to make attacks with them if you have a free hand)you can't take your hands off the weapon when its not your turn.(its a free action)
Without changing one of those you can't attack threaten.
There are LOTS of ways to do this legally: Improved unarmed strike, Dwarven boulder helmet, barbazu beard, be an orc and have a bite, be adopted by orcs and get caps to bite, alchemist limb, alchemist tentacle...
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?
|
|
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.
|
|
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.
There seem to be over lapping issues that are confusing things. 1) the rules about handedness and twf involving armour spikes shoule not have any bearing on aoo 2) exceptions made for snap shot have no bearing on anything other than snap shot.
You neednto decide by the end of your turn what position your hands are in. Any weapons thst are parr of or worn on your hands are affected by this.
Try this pc a has a reach weapon and spiked gsuntlets. At the end of his turn he does not release his grip on his polesrm. A bad guy comes in and provokes an aoo from movement. The pc stabs him and he lives.
The bad fuu then does a grapple. The pc does not threaten the grapple goes through as his hands are on the polearm.
Next round the pc lets go of one hand on his polearm. He can't use it in a grapple so he just punches the guu in the face with his spikes gauntlet. The opponent dies and he re grips. He now threatens at reach again.
What he could not do is un grip his polearm to use the gauntlets vs the grapple.
No twf was uses for any of the above.
You are not wielding/threatening with the feather, so yes.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?
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".
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.
I agree, but in PFs anyone is able to DM.
Since they allow anyone you get some crazy people giving idiotic answers. I had someone say, The rules clearly agree with you, but I feel the rule as intended do not so I will not allow it. This was was my rules lawyering to use drag on a felled teammate becuas the DM was attacking him when he was down. The DM said being dragged would provoke.
So, I am sorry to say someone will syop, and you may just need to leave their table.
Mojorat, the snap shot exception stuff is pointing out that the feat doesn't say anything about allowing free actions to happen, but that you are simply now threatening with ranged weapons. By the FAQ it's implying that free actions during an AoO have exceptions, and not that Snap Shot now gives you those free action options.
Why are you not threatening with the cestus/spiked gauntlet when it doesn't require you to have your hand open to hold it? You are wielding it, thus you are threatening with it.
Anyone have rules to state their arguments?
|
|
You are not wielding/threatening with the feather, so yes.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?
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.
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.
I provided a link in response to BNW where he explicitly explains that his comment isn't an official ruling.
You are not wielding/threatening with the feather, so yes.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?
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.
But, I'm not discussing holding two objects in your hand.
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 need both hands on the pole arm to use the pole arm.
You can't shoulder someone with the armor spikes.( you would only be able to make attacks with them if you have a free hand)
you can't take your hands off the weapon when its not your turn.(its a free action)Without changing one of those you can't attack threaten.
There are LOTS of ways to do this legally: Improved unarmed strike, Dwarven boulder helmet, barbazu beard, be an orc and have a bite, be adopted by orcs and get caps to bite, alchemist limb, alchemist tentacle...
I already pointed out that there seems to be no proof that armor spikes changed how they work. The FAQ is just talking about off hand attacks ion tandem with a two handed weapon. I personally don't plan to ever two handed two weapon fight, and I am discussing things that aren't related to two weapon fighting.
Mojo, the point is that it seems strange that the one holding the spear cannot let go with one hand and hit with it, while a snap shot character can do it, and more, a few times a round (assuming Combat Reflexes).
While I agree with you that it is the standard interpretation and I never questioned it before, Rapanuii beings some serious Action Economy and thematic points to light.
Reloading your weapon as a free action
seems very comparable in power and action economy to:
Changing your grip as a free action.
Where in the rules do these weapons at all state that you're holding these weapons in your hands, or that you are using your hand to make the attack. Yes, they are gloves and go over your hands, so that isn't really something that has to be discussed or debated, but iirc, all talk about making your UNARMED ATTACKS lethal.
The objects in your hand don't make a difference for these weapons, and regardless of the object in your hand do threaten or not are irrelevant to your usage of these weapons.
Anyone have rules that even state about wielding weapons, threatening weapons, objects in your hand more than one that threaten or don't threaten in relation to threatening, etc?
|
|
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.
Also, Snap Shot is completely, and totally, unrelated.
Again, there are two things being discussed now. If you threaten with a weapon that is attached to your body (hand/arm) while holding an object with it, AND AoO's in regards to doing things with free actions.
I've already pointed out how Snap Shot shows that with the FAQ implies that these free actions during an AoO were acceptable already, and expected people to understand this when reading the feat. All Snap Shot does is give you a threatened range on your ranged weapons.
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.
Am I missing something? I did write unarmed attack, but is there a difference in unarmed strike and unarmed attack that is making you write this? Gauntlet specifically talks about making your unarmed strikes lethal.
EDIT: And I am not at all discussing about things that affect Unarmed strikes/attacks applying with the gauntlet, but just the fact alone you now threaten with your unarmed strikes because you are wielding this object.
I already pointed out that there seems to be no proof that armor spikes changed how they work. The FAQ is just talking about off hand attacks ion tandem with a two handed weapon. I personally don't plan to ever two handed two weapon fight, and I am discussing things that aren't related to two weapon fighting.
Nothing I said there is taken off of the FAQ that you deny the relevancy of. In pathfinder you need to punch with armor spikes. You can't punch with a fist full of polearm. Both of those statements lead inevitably to the conclusion that you don't threaten, and the guy in charge of society play has flat out said you don't threaten.
There's no wriggle room here if someone reads the boards regularly.
My link was bad, so I apologize.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well thats some wriggle room. Don't expect it all the time though.
Pathfinder doesn't like threatening at both melee and ranged at the same time- Thats why they changed the spike chain , and all the reach weapons take a swift action to go back and forth between reach mode and melee mode. They at least expect you to burn a feat on it: either improved unarmed strike or exotic weapon stuff.
I think making presumptions on why they did stuff isn't going to be accurate. If you want a guy eating cheese burgers while petting his cat while holding a conversation with someone else as they're using their phone to post on a message board to rule debate personal opinion, I say that having ONE item that can have all the enhancements that can threaten those squares yaddah yaddah is why they made certain decisions.
You attach weapon to your body and go to funky town.
I think making presumptions on why they did stuff isn't going to be accurate.
It wouldn't be. Which is why I'm not doing that.
If you want i can try to track down something relevant to your more specific statements, but I'm pretty sure they've said that threatening at 5 feet was a good use for improved unarmed strike and some of the exotic weapons. Its entirely possible that that memory is from the same part of the brain that imagined Patrick Stewart as the titular role in the squirrel girl musical, but isn't.
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.
|
|
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.
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.
There's also the problem of "wielding" defending armored spikes in addition to your real weapon.
|
|
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.