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

RPG Superstar 2015

Discussion of Messageboard Clarifications for PFS


Pathfinder Society® General Discussion

1 to 50 of 108 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

7 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. 50 people marked this as a favorite.

Hello folks! With the new rule in Guide 4.2 about messageboard clarifications being binding, and with some folks feeling burdened with the need for awareness (despite board-delving not being a requirement), I thought I'd perform a public service for curious GMs and players.

Below you will find my current link library, or at least the section dealing with PFS rulings on the boards. I invite others to add links to the list, but I also ask that people please take discussion to other threads! This thread is meant to be a resource, a repository of information. Something that will enable less digging, rather than just diverting searches from the boards in general to wading through discussions in this thread.

Thanks!

Scrolls with multiple spells on them (now in FAQ)

Upgrading items (now in FAQ)

Weapon blanches carry to the next scenario

Scenarios to be GM'd as written

GM credit babies don't need stats until they're played

It's okay to let creativity bypass a skill check, but don't arbitrarily change DCs

Use in-character challenges as presented, rather than adding OOC challenges

For first level retrains, you can sell back gear at full price

Weapon cords do not inhibit reloading

If a magic item creates something, you can keep it

You can first level retrain into a race boon

All tiefling/aasimar PCs are "half human"

Stuff about Power Attack and Rend

Snapleaf is a single-use item

No training new tricks

Animal companions know how to use their feats

Follow Paizo FAQ blog posts

Changing factions as part of a first level retrain does not cost PP

Casting evil spells (such as Infernal Healing) is NOT an alignment infraction unless used for evil purposes

Shirt rerolls are allowed on Day Jobs

Spell storing devices are empty at the start of an adventure

Things like staves do carry charges to the next scenario

Ring of counterspells carries over

What does and does not carry over (spellstoring, etc)

It's okay for a GM's Bestiary to be a PDF

Deathwatch only analyzes creatures you're aware of

If you need to repair gear, A Wizard Did It. Just pay for it.

Now remember folks: please take discussion elsewhere, and reserve this thread for the adding and/or subtracting/challenging of links.

Thanks!

EDIT: Disclaimer - I am not official; I'm just posting links to that which is. Things could change or be overturned or whatever after the one-hour window during which I can edit this post, so keep an eye on the whole thread.

Marathon Voter 2013

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

Hey, I don't even play PFS but I find this useful. Thanks.

While you can still edit this, you may wish to add a disclaimer that things may change.

Shadow Lodge *** Dedicated Voter 2014

Thanks jiggy. Hadn't seen about the weapon cords.

*

I vote for a sticky. This will be very useful as time goes by.


This thread is a great idea.

Shadow Lodge **

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Jiggy, I feel that you aren't told how awesome you are on these boards enough.

****

Here's a couple you didn't have on your list.

Implanting ioun stones is legal for PCs, but not for animal companions

The street performer bard ability does not apply to day job checks

Grand Lodge ****

dot

****

Mike Lindner wrote:

Here's a couple you didn't have on your list.

...

The street performer bard ability does apply to day job checks

Fixed that for you. ;)

****

Katisha wrote:
Mike Lindner wrote:

Here's a couple you didn't have on your list.

...

The street performer bard ability does apply to day job checks

Fixed that for you. ;)

Bah, I was too slow. :)


Thank you Jiggy, your the best.

Scarab Sages ***** Venture-Lieutenant, Washington—Spokane

Jiggy, as a relatively new GM, this is and will be a very helpful thread to have around for viewing. Thank you very much for taking the time to create this thread.

Scarab Sages **** Venture-Lieutenant, Georgia—Buford aka bartgroks

Jiggy you quite awesome sir. Thanks for this resource.

Liberty's Edge *

Fantastic resources for players new to the PFS.

Thank you very much.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Captain, Alaska—Fairbanks aka Relmer

Awesome thread that needs a sticky. I particularly like the "Scenarios to be GM'd as written" and the "don't arbitrarily change DCs" clarifications. Seems like those should silence a number of threads.

Seems like.

Paizo Employee ***** Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator

Stickied

***

I have a question about Mark Morland's (6 September 2012) ruling on Rend, which directly contradicts James Jacobs' (3 January 2010) clarification which reads:

"Rend adds damage to an attack; it's not an attack in and of itself. Just as power attack won't increase sneak attack damage or constrict damage, it won't increase rend damage (although it DOES increase the damage inflicted by the attacks that are necessary to trigger rend in the first place). Rake attacks ARE attacks, so power attack applies there."

I appreciate the sticky and the goal of getting all of this information in one accessible place. But it seems as though there is a fundamental misunderstanding of Rend at play in the more recent ruling. I just would like confirmation that this is an intentional revision of the core rules of the game.

*****

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Timothy McNeil wrote:

I have a question about Mark Morland's (6 September 2012) ruling on Rend, which directly contradicts James Jacobs' (3 January 2010) clarification which reads:

"Rend adds damage to an attack; it's not an attack in and of itself. Just as power attack won't increase sneak attack damage or constrict damage, it won't increase rend damage (although it DOES increase the damage inflicted by the attacks that are necessary to trigger rend in the first place). Rake attacks ARE attacks, so power attack applies there."

I appreciate the sticky and the goal of getting all of this information in one accessible place. But it seems as though there is a fundamental misunderstanding of Rend at play in the more recent ruling. I just would like confirmation that this is an intentional revision of the core rules of the game.

Just because you don't agree with Mark's view of the ability, doesn't make it "an intentional revision" or a "fundamental misunderstanding." James Jacobs is the first person to tell you that he's not a "rules guy." In this case, Mark and Mike ARE the rules guy for PFS. If you read the thread with Mark's clarification, James's view is mentioned there already.

**** Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco , Star Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014 aka Pirate Rob

I don't think Mark made the correct decision here. (i.e. I would have made the opposite ruling)

Lets ignore Kyle here for a minute. By some measures he has a duck in the race, so his opinion could be considered biased and possibly taint the discussion.

While I would have made the opposite call as Mark, there's nothing horribly unreasonable about his decision. In general when he rules on PFS issues he makes fair, balanced, thoughtful rulings that are good for PFS*. I think he has done so in this case.

As for James Jacobs, if I wanted to know if the flavor of my character or if their backstory fit Golarion, he would be the person to go to. Although his rulings are generally fair and reasonable, he presents rules based on how he would run things in his home game, not on what the rules actually say or how to best implement them in an OP environment.

Spoiler:
QUACK!

Spoiler:
I say generally as the animal companion rules change (IMO) being labeled as a clarification by Moreland still really grinds my gears when I think about it.

So nobody's perfect, but in this case I think his decision is reasonable, even if it's different from the one I would have made.

*

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

If you wield a 2-handed weapon you no longer "wield" spiked armor, unarmed strikes, blade boots, barbazu beards, and boulder helmets

Shadow Lodge *** Dedicated Voter 2014

harmor wrote:
If you wield a 2-handed weapon you no longer "wield" spiked armor, unarmed strikes, blade boots, barbazu beards, and boulder helmets

The title really doesn't match what was said there.

*

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
harmor wrote:
If you wield a 2-handed weapon you no longer "wield" spiked armor, unarmed strikes, blade boots, barbazu beards, and boulder helmets
The title really doesn't match what was said there.

How would you phrase it? Should we add `...at the same time until you take a free action to change "wield" to those other weapons`?

I'm not sure how to make it succinct.

Dark Archive ****

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
harmor wrote:
If you wield a 2-handed weapon you no longer "wield" spiked armor, unarmed strikes, blade boots, barbazu beards, and boulder helmets

That seems to me a misrepresentation of what was said. The clarification was in regards to armour spikes, which we have been told require limbs. Boulder helmets already take up a head slot, and both helmets and barbazu beards require Exotic Proficiency. I don't see any clarification saying no unarmed strike while wielding a two-handed weapon either.

EDIT: Ugh, found it buried. Since when do all light weapons require limbs? That makes no sense.

Shadow Lodge *** Dedicated Voter 2014

harmor wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
harmor wrote:
If you wield a 2-handed weapon you no longer "wield" spiked armor, unarmed strikes, blade boots, barbazu beards, and boulder helmets
The title really doesn't match what was said there.

How would you phrase it? Should we add `...at the same time until you take a free action to change "wield" to those other weapons`?

I'm not sure how to make it succinct.

Spiked armor requires the use of your arms , which are busy on the pole arm. We don't know if you have some sort of virtual limb requirement that's being taken up by your arm merely holding the pole arm or if your head is effectively a separate limb. They're still afaik "looking into it"

Dark Archive **** Star Voter 2013

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber
Mergy wrote:
harmor wrote:
If you wield a 2-handed weapon you no longer "wield" spiked armor, unarmed strikes, blade boots, barbazu beards, and boulder helmets

That seems to me a misrepresentation of what was said. The clarification was in regards to armour spikes, which we have been told require limbs. Boulder helmets already take up a head slot, and both helmets and barbazu beards require Exotic Proficiency. I don't see any clarification saying no unarmed strike while wielding a two-handed weapon either.

EDIT: Ugh, found it buried. Since when do all light weapons require limbs? That makes no sense.

Absent a full faq, there's no way I see to derive that ruling from the RAW. Mark, we really can't implement that one reasonably until you have a FAQ that clarifies how the following work:

Gauntlets
Armor Spikes
Bladed Boot
Barbezu Beard
Boulder Helmet

Liberty's Edge *****

As I posted above.

Rules and/or clarifications are often written in a very strict way, and they should be sacrosanct until something comes along that breaks those rules. Feats, class/race abilities, gear, skills, spells, et. al. all break the rules as written by creating a new circumstantial rule that works with that small aspect. Basically the more specific overrules the more general.

The game rule set is the general. The feat, skill, spell, ability, gear is the specific.

The only item, on that list of items that is ambiguous as to what can wield it, is armor spikes.

Everything else has a more specific rule written into the item itself, that breaks the general rule.

So, a boulder helmet is worn on the head, and essentially gives you a headbutt. It would be silly to say you need a free hand/limb to wield your head.

A Barbazau Beard is worn on the chin, and essentially gives you a chin attack. It would be silly to say you need a free hand/limb to wield your chin.

A blade Boot is worn on the foot, and essentially gives you a foot attack. It would be silly to say you need a free hand/limb to wield your foot.

Armor Spikes, on the other hand, don’t give you a specific body part attack. Therefore armor spikes will adhere to the general rule, that to use a light weapon, you need a free hand/limb to use them.

There doesn’t need to be further clarification here. Just common sense applied.

Dark Archive ****

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Andrew Christian wrote:

As I posted above.

Rules and/or clarifications are often written in a very strict way, and they should be sacrosanct until something comes along that breaks those rules. Feats, class/race abilities, gear, skills, spells, et. al. all break the rules as written by creating a new circumstantial rule that works with that small aspect. Basically the more specific overrules the more general.

The game rule set is the general. The feat, skill, spell, ability, gear is the specific.

The only item, on that list of items that is ambiguous as to what can wield it, is armor spikes.

Everything else has a more specific rule written into the item itself, that breaks the general rule.

So, a boulder helmet is worn on the head, and essentially gives you a headbutt. It would be silly to say you need a free hand/limb to wield your head.

A Barbazau Beard is worn on the chin, and essentially gives you a chin attack. It would be silly to say you need a free hand/limb to wield your chin.

A blade Boot is worn on the foot, and essentially gives you a foot attack. It would be silly to say you need a free hand/limb to wield your foot.

Armor Spikes, on the other hand, don’t give you a specific body part attack. Therefore armor spikes will adhere to the general rule, that to use a light weapon, you need a free hand/limb to use them.

There doesn’t need to be further clarification here. Just common sense applied.

Well put. This is how I would like to interpret it at my tables. I know everybody's quite busy, but I think an FAQ on not-held light weapons might be helpful.

Paizo Employee ***** Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Since I don't want debates on this awesome post, I'm going to create a new one with the same exact info and lock it. As people post, email or PM me other message board clarifications, I will continue to add and update my post so we can keep it solely for reference and keep it clean from debate. People can always open a new post to debate the merits (or lack thereof) of a message board clarification.

My sincerest thanks to Jiggy for compiling this list.

The Exchange ****

i would word the link as. "Armor spikes require a free hand to attack with" since that is the actual ruling.

Marathon Voter 2013

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

Mike, I think you can get rid of the disclaimer at the bottom of the stickied post now.

Paizo Employee ***** Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator

Cheapy wrote:
Mike, I think you can get rid of the disclaimer at the bottom of the stickied post now.

Thanks

Marathon Voter 2013

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

And for a period of 2 minutes, due to the ruling the once aware of messageboard posts you must follow them, the campaign had no coordinator as Mike posted that he is not official.

It was a dark 2 minutes.

Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 4

Mike, if you can, you might want to change the subject line of this specific thread to:

"Discussion of Messageboard Clarifications"

So that it will not be confused with your new offical locked thread in the short term, and so the discussion already started can continue. Just a suggestion!

Paizo Employee ***** Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jim Groves wrote:

Mike, if you can, you might want to change the subject line of this specific thread to:

"Discussion of Messageboard Clarifications"

So that it will not be confused with your new offical locked thread in the short term, and so the discussion already started can continue. Just a suggestion!

Done and thanks for pointing that out.

Paizo Employee ***** Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cheapy wrote:

And for a period of 2 minutes, due to the ruling the once aware of messageboard posts you must follow them, the campaign had no coordinator as Mike posted that he is not official.

It was a dark 2 minutes.

It was really a test of your Perception skill. You passed!

*

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

I think it is a little premature (yes the thread is over a year old) to put down a specific ruling regarding armor spikes. Jason specifically said that the issue was bigger than he first thought and that he would try to get an FAQ out on it.

Dark Archive **** Star Voter 2013

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber

Yep, and clearly we're not getting an answer while Jason's in Italy!

And not during Mythic playtest...

So it'll be in time for next GenCon, I expect.

Marathon Voter 2013

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

He probably just forgot. It's from over a year ago.

Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 4

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lab_Rat wrote:
I think it is a little premature (yes the thread is over a year old) to put down a specific ruling regarding armor spikes. Jason specifically said that the issue was bigger than he first thought and that he would try to get an FAQ out on it.

I would respectfully counter that Mike and Mark are allowed and expected to guide the campaign in the interim. I agree that Jason is definitive authority on these matters, but PFS has to operative until time permits for Jason to weigh in.

So we have two alternatives:

We allow the individual GM to interpret the rule at their table, OR,

We accept Mike and Mark's ruling in the interim.

The fact that a ruling was ever made, indicates that a GM has already appealed to Mike/Mark for a ruling and the provided one. Once someone asks the question, and they get an answer, the deal is already done.

That being said, if Jason does weigh in I have every confidence that Mike and Mark will take his ruling very seriously and probably (98%) adopt it.

Not poking at you you Lab Rat, I'm just saying that we also have to live in the NOW.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

harmor wrote:
If you wield a 2-handed weapon you no longer "wield" spiked armor, unarmed strikes, blade boots, barbazu beards, and boulder helmets

I actually started a thread to try and clarify whether Mark really meant that every single light weapon ever required a free hand.

His response makes it, in my opinion, pretty safe to continue ruling that helmets and boots do NOT require a free hand to use.

Liberty's Edge ****

Mergy wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:

As I posted above.

Rules and/or clarifications are often written in a very strict way, and they should be sacrosanct until something comes along that breaks those rules. Feats, class/race abilities, gear, skills, spells, et. al. all break the rules as written by creating a new circumstantial rule that works with that small aspect. Basically the more specific overrules the more general.

The game rule set is the general. The feat, skill, spell, ability, gear is the specific.

The only item, on that list of items that is ambiguous as to what can wield it, is armor spikes.

Everything else has a more specific rule written into the item itself, that breaks the general rule.

So, a boulder helmet is worn on the head, and essentially gives you a headbutt. It would be silly to say you need a free hand/limb to wield your head.

A Barbazau Beard is worn on the chin, and essentially gives you a chin attack. It would be silly to say you need a free hand/limb to wield your chin.

A blade Boot is worn on the foot, and essentially gives you a foot attack. It would be silly to say you need a free hand/limb to wield your foot.

Armor Spikes, on the other hand, don’t give you a specific body part attack. Therefore armor spikes will adhere to the general rule, that to use a light weapon, you need a free hand/limb to use them.

There doesn’t need to be further clarification here. Just common sense applied.

Well put. This is how I would like to interpret it at my tables. I know everybody's quite busy, but I think an FAQ on not-held light weapons might be helpful.

The problem with it is that it is treating armor spikes, which presumably cover the entire area of the armor, as though they were spiked gauntlets, which cover the hand and need a hand free to use...

Liberty's Edge *****

kinevon wrote:
Mergy wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:

As I posted above.

Rules and/or clarifications are often written in a very strict way, and they should be sacrosanct until something comes along that breaks those rules. Feats, class/race abilities, gear, skills, spells, et. al. all break the rules as written by creating a new circumstantial rule that works with that small aspect. Basically the more specific overrules the more general.

The game rule set is the general. The feat, skill, spell, ability, gear is the specific.

The only item, on that list of items that is ambiguous as to what can wield it, is armor spikes.

Everything else has a more specific rule written into the item itself, that breaks the general rule.

So, a boulder helmet is worn on the head, and essentially gives you a headbutt. It would be silly to say you need a free hand/limb to wield your head.

A Barbazau Beard is worn on the chin, and essentially gives you a chin attack. It would be silly to say you need a free hand/limb to wield your chin.

A blade Boot is worn on the foot, and essentially gives you a foot attack. It would be silly to say you need a free hand/limb to wield your foot.

Armor Spikes, on the other hand, don’t give you a specific body part attack. Therefore armor spikes will adhere to the general rule, that to use a light weapon, you need a free hand/limb to use them.

There doesn’t need to be further clarification here. Just common sense applied.

Well put. This is how I would like to interpret it at my tables. I know everybody's quite busy, but I think an FAQ on not-held light weapons might be helpful.
The problem with it is that it is treating armor spikes, which presumably cover the entire area of the armor, as though they were spiked gauntlets, which cover the hand and need a hand free to use...

No, what its doing is it is definitively defining what area the spiked armor covers and what it means. That whether the spikes are on the shoulder, the chest, the back, the upper arm, the lower arm, or the belt, that essentially you can't use those while also wielding a two-handed weapon. Requiring a free hand is a misnomer, that rules lawyers are taking to mean that the only spikes available for attack are on the hand. But that isn't the case. What its saying is, that you can't effectively attack with your shoulder, upper arm, elbow, forearm, chest, stomach, waist, or back, while both hands are tied up wielding a weapon or two weapons.

Now some might argue, what about spikes on the thighs, knees, or lower legs. And the argument being made, is that the primary armor spikes used for attacking, are on the upper body, not the lower body.

The Exchange ****

I've always pictured armor spikes you attack with as being off the knees and elbows... but that is just my view.

Liberty's Edge *****

PRD wrote:
Armor Spikes: You can have spikes added to your armor, which allow you to deal extra piercing damage (see “spiked armor” on Table: Weapons) on a successful grapple attack. The spikes count as a martial weapon. If you are not proficient with them, you take a –4 penalty on grapple checks when you try to use them. 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.) An enhancement bonus to a suit of armor does not improve the spikes' effectiveness, but the spikes can be made into magic weapons in their own right.

The bolded language is why a ruling is being made that you can’t attack with armor spikes if you don’t have a free hand to do so. It is actually written right into the description of the item. This shouldn’t have even needed clarification. It’s quite clear by what’s quoted above.

Shadow Lodge *** Dedicated Voter 2014

Andrew Christian wrote:
The bolded language is why a ruling is being made that you can’t attack with armor spikes if you don’t have a free hand to do so.

The bolded section to me just says no off off hand attacks: You can't left hand right hand armor spike.

Using a two handed weapon and armor spikes was explicitely allowed at one point though, which is why people don't think of them as occupying a hand.

Liberty's Edge *****

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
The bolded language is why a ruling is being made that you can’t attack with armor spikes if you don’t have a free hand to do so.

The bolded section to me just says no off off hand attacks: You can't left hand right hand armor spike.

Using a two handed weapon and armor spikes was explicitely allowed at one point though, which is why people don't think of them as occupying a hand.

That's not at all what it says BNW.

Re-read it.

It says:

"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."

see that "vice versa" part?

And your offhand is considered making an attack if you use a two-handed weapon. It is occupied.

I don’t recall it ever being explicitly allowed. In 3.5 or earlier iteration it may have been less clear, or more explicitly allowed, I don’t know. And it may be that Josh Frost allowed it at one time (although I don’t know if he did or didn’t.)

But the way the language that I bolded above is written, I don’t see how anyone could assume they could threaten an area or make an off-hand attack, if their off-hand is otherwise occupied.

It very explicitly says, that to make a melee attack, you do so as an off-hand attack as though it were a light weapon, and that you basically can’t have done anything else with that off-hand.

Shadow Lodge *** Dedicated Voter 2014

Andrew christian wrote:

That's not at all what it says BNW.

Re-read it.

you DO realize that is is possible to read something and reach a different conclusion that cannot be resolved with something as patronizingly simple as a re reading?

Yes, i see the vice versa part. What i don't see is that

1) your mainhand weapon is not an offhand weapon
2) A two handed weapon is not an offhand weapon
3) armor spikes that cover your entire body is occupying a hand at all.
4) That there is a distinction with offhanded weapons during attacks of opportunity.

What i see it preventing is the Long sword short sword Armor spike. The vice versa comment is for the rules lawyers who would then want to long sword armor spike shortsword.

Liberty's Edge ****

Andrew Christian wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
The bolded language is why a ruling is being made that you can’t attack with armor spikes if you don’t have a free hand to do so.

The bolded section to me just says no off off hand attacks: You can't left hand right hand armor spike.

Using a two handed weapon and armor spikes was explicitely allowed at one point though, which is why people don't think of them as occupying a hand.

That's not at all what it says BNW.

Re-read it.

It says:

"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."

see that "vice versa" part?

And your offhand is considered making an attack if you use a two-handed weapon. It is occupied.

I don’t recall it ever being explicitly allowed. In 3.5 or earlier iteration it may have been less clear, or more explicitly allowed, I don’t know. And it may be that Josh Frost allowed it at one time (although I don’t know if he did or didn’t.)

But the way the language that I bolded above is written, I don’t see how anyone could assume they could threaten an area or make an off-hand attack, if their off-hand is otherwise occupied.

It very explicitly says, that to make a melee attack, you do so as an off-hand attack as though it were a light weapon, and that you basically can’t have done anything else with that off-hand.

So, now, you are claiming that armor spikes, even when used by someone proficient with them, will have at least a -2 to their attack, as though they were an off-hand weapon being used as part of a two-weapon attack?

And, to me, make an attack is different than make an attack of opportunity, but YMMV.

*

I see the bold section as saying that armor spikes do not give you an extra attack if you have already made one with you main AND off hand (or vice verse - made a main hand and armor spike attack and so can not use an off hand weapon to attack). It is just explaining that you are still limited to the same number of attacks that you would normally get even though you may be using a different piece of your body to deliver it. It does not say that you need an off-hand or a main hand to use.

As a side note: I think we need to consider that Mark and Mike were making rulings that they believed were NOT binding to PFS before the change to 4.2. They have both used statements in the past that what they were saying was how they would rule it at their table and that it wasn't official until it was in the FAQ. This has obviously changed since then. I think we should only consider threads that came after the change as binding, otherwise we are going to end up with some contradictory statements when we dig back a year or more.

1 to 50 of 108 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder Society® / General Discussion / Discussion of Messageboard Clarifications for PFS 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.