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

PaizoCon 2014!

Do you need a free action to switch to or need to have applied two-weapon penalities to use Spiked Armor in an AoO?


Rules Questions

51 to 72 of 72 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Guys, either read these posts or shut up, please.


Jiggy wrote:
read these posts

His post doesn't really help. I'm sure he intended for it to, but it doesn't. I'll break it down.

S1: "Since we've instituted the change to what messageboard clarifications are and are not binding in the campaign, I'd prefer this rules issue be directed to the rules team, since any ruling on it in PFS would adhere to the interpretation they decide upon."

He wants the rules team to address the issue.

S2: "So I'm not going to comment on it, as it will undoubtedly lead to more confusion."

He isn't going to comment on his old ruling.

S3: "For questions of how the core rules work (and not just how they work in Pathfinder Society games), please request FAQs from Jason, Sean, and Stephen."

Ask for FAQs.

In the absence of the rules team addressing the issue or making a FAQ, we're stuck with what he said, because his old post is still binding.
If Mark had retracted what he said, and just said "Follow the rules, and ask for a FAQ" then we could use whatever the rules are determined to say until a FAQ or rules team post clarifies the issue.

Whether or not RAW says you need a free hand for all light weapons is irrelevant, because we still have precedent from PFS leadership that it does, and that "PFS House-Rule" overrides whatever the book says.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I think Mark's comment can be taken to mean that his earlier "ruling" should not be held as binding.

I would note in relation to this that Mike Brock has stickied a list of links to messageboard clarifications for PFS, and has not (last I checked) seen fit to include the "all light weapons require a free hand" thing.

I think a GM in PFS would be safe to allow hand-less usage of non-hand-using light weapons.

Silver Crusade

james maissen wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
There are those who believe that you cannot kick unless you have a hand free!

To both BBT and MS:

If you're going to mock, then get it right and stop misrepresenting the argument: There are those who believe that you cannot make an unarmed strike unless you have a hand free.

And that unarmed strike could be a kick. Certainly, one would surmise that an attack with a boot knife would involve a kick. Yet both of these are requiring a hand to be free if one takes this as a 'rule'.

But it is not a rule, but rather it just speaks to Mark's logic to justify how he would rule at the table. It is easy to demonstrate that the logic and the foundations are faulty.

He says that one must have a limb 'free' in order to make an attack with ANY weapon. This is false.

He goes on to say that means that the limb must be a 'hand'. This is also false.

And based upon these false things that one must have a hand free in order to use armor spikes.

-James

Thanks, James!

I couldn't have put it better myself! : )


Grick, I really think you're getting the opposite of his intended meaning here. Since the rulings are now binding, he's unwilling to make one, instead deferring the question to the rules guys. That means that there is no PFS ruling.


Patrick Harris @ SD wrote:
Since the rulings are now binding, he's unwilling to make one, instead deferring the question to the rules guys.

But he already made one. By not making another one to counter it, the old one is still binding.

To me, "I'm not going to comment on it" means he's not going to comment on it further. However, there's two people (that I respect) saying the intent of his message was otherwise, so there's a very good chance I'm not correctly understanding his post.

Also, this whole thing has felt slightly creepy to me, like dragging some horrible secret out of Mark's closet and brandishing it at him. "You said something years ago when it didn't matter that under close scrutiny has possibly unintended consequences! You monster!" And since it got taken outside of the Rules forum (where we are all emotionless robots) there's potential for hurt feelings and other such nonsense.


Grick wrote:
But he already made one. By not making another one to counter it, the old one is still binding.

He made that ruling before it would be binding. Now that it is binding, he's declaring that he's not the person who should be ruling on the issue, and deferring to those who are.

At least that's what I think he's saying. I've been wrong before.

(Once. 1987. I think it was a Tuesday.)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Grick wrote:
"You said something years ago when it didn't matter that under close scrutiny has possibly unintended consequences! You monster!"

More like "Quick! Say something before someone takes this and does something dirty with it!"


Jiggy wrote:
Grick wrote:
"You said something years ago when it didn't matter that under close scrutiny has possibly unintended consequences! You monster!"
More like "Quick! Say something before someone takes this and does something dirty with it!"

Dirty interpretations of not having a free hand?

On the INTERNET?

Pshaw.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I want to create an armless PC now.


Bbt make it an alchemist with vestigial arms just so people can argue they can't be used for weapon attacks.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Oh, he will two weapon fight with Unarmed Strikes, and Armor Spikes.

Just soil the drawers of many, he will be Human with the Racial Heritage feat, and the Tail Terror feat.


Grick wrote:
Patrick Harris @ SD wrote:
Since the rulings are now binding, he's unwilling to make one, instead deferring the question to the rules guys.

But he already made one. By not making another one to counter it, the old one is still binding.

To me, "I'm not going to comment on it" means he's not going to comment on it further. However, there's two people (that I respect) saying the intent of his message was otherwise, so there's a very good chance I'm not correctly understanding his post.

Also, this whole thing has felt slightly creepy to me, like dragging some horrible secret out of Mark's closet and brandishing it at him. "You said something years ago when it didn't matter that under close scrutiny has possibly unintended consequences! You monster!" And since it got taken outside of the Rules forum (where we are all emotionless robots) there's potential for hurt feelings and other such nonsense.

Lets get one thing right about this. Marks comments in regards to spiked armor were made over a YEAR AGO. This is well before Mike and Marks comments became law in PFS. That is a new change to the 4.2 version of the guide. People are taking a new rule for PFS and retroactively using it on stuff that Mark said a year before that rule came to be.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Are armless PCs allowed in PFS?


Lab_Rat wrote:
People are taking a new rule for PFS and retroactively using it on stuff that Mark said a year before that rule came to be.

Well, yeah. "You may not simply ignore rules clarifications made by the campaign leadership" Mark is campaign leadership, and he made a rules clarification which we are aware of, thus we may not simply ignore it.

It doesn't say anything about "rules clarifications made by campaign leadership after the publication of this document" so past clarifications are binding.

There could be a loophole if Mark made that clarification before he was campaign leadership. In which case, it wouldn't be binding. Does anyone know the date in which Mark was made campaign leadership?

Osirion

blackbloodtroll wrote:
I want to create an armless PC now.

Druids are still able to take AoOs when in armless forms.

They can also wear armor with spikes while wildshaping. (Just pick a form and have armor made to fit.)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Mark was indeed "campaign leadership" at the time. But I do believe his later comment on his first comment meant that we shouldn't take the first comment as binding. It is my impression that that was his point, even though he wasn't as explicit as he could have been.


So let me see if i understand this correctly. In order for my character to use Two-Weapon Fighting with his Dwarven Boulder Helmet and his Blade Boot i would require both of my hands (meaning i couldn't carry anything in my hands)to be free?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Brain in a Jar wrote:
So let me see if i understand this correctly. In order for my character to use Two-Weapon Fighting with his Dwarven Boulder Helmet and his Blade Boot i would require both of my hands (meaning i couldn't carry anything in my hands)to be free?

That was an unintended consequence of a comment that Mark Moreland made about armor spikes and didn't choose his words with laser precision. When that (obviously bizarre) consequence was brought up later by me, Mark said he wanted to punt that to the rules team and not make a comment himself.

So don't worry about it. :)


Jiggy wrote:
Brain in a Jar wrote:
So let me see if i understand this correctly. In order for my character to use Two-Weapon Fighting with his Dwarven Boulder Helmet and his Blade Boot i would require both of my hands (meaning i couldn't carry anything in my hands)to be free?

That was an unintended consequence of a comment that Mark Moreland made about armor spikes and didn't choose his words with laser precision. When that (obviously bizarre) consequence was brought up later by me, Mark said he wanted to punt that to the rules team and not make a comment himself.

So don't worry about it. :)

I know i was trying to be funny. :)


Sorry to necro a thread, but this issue has never been resolved and I run into this in PFS all the time.

Any updates?


Furious Kender wrote:
Sorry to necro a thread, but this issue has never been resolved and I run into this in PFS all the time.

Which issue? AoO's and TWF penalties? Or light weapons requiring a free hand?

An AoO you make does not take TWF penalties unless the AoO occurs in the middle of your full round action to full-attack in which you're gaining an extra attack from using the two-weapon fighting style. (And even then, they might not apply, but I'm guessing that's incredibly rare and isn't what is occurring all the time)

As for light weapons requiring a free hand, has someone in PFS actually enforced Mark's old ruling about that? If it's actually happened, I think your best bet is to escalate the issue to your local venture-whatever so they can use their secret ventureboards to get some attention to the issue.

51 to 72 of 72 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / Do you need a free action to switch to or need to have applied two-weapon penalities to use Spiked Armor in an AoO? 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.