|
That is for flurry. Master of many styles loses flurry.
That is why he has to take TWF
Unarmed Strike: At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply his full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all his unarmed strikes.Under Unarmed Strike, not Flurry. Flurry has its own rules, including allowance for any Flurry "off-hand" attack to get 1x Str to damage so, while a Monk using normal TWF using any manufactured weapon in his off-hand still only gets 0.5x Str, while using Flurry, a manufactured weapon in the off-hand will get 1.0x instead.
Huh. Always thought it came from flurry. Thanks for the heads up.
Double Slice doesn't work for a few reasons. Foremost because it's redundant, secondarily because there is no off-hand attack for unarmed strikes as a Monk.
Double Slice doesn't work for a few reasons. Foremost because it's redundant, secondarily because there is no off-hand attack for unarmed strikes as a Monk.
I was refering to TWF with Unarmed Strikes, not necessarily a Monk.
|
|
And so you have invested two feats to get .5 Strength bonus in a build that has to have 15 Dex and has a 0 BaB.
Meanwhile any martial (need the +1) can take power attack at the same level, and with a -1 (bringing them to your BaB) can add 1.5 AND another 3 damage (equal to the extra damage from the 16 Str you probably max at).
1 less feat, no dex requirement...oh and that will be on a weapon that does more than 1d6.
And why is a 1st level character with BAB +0 the baseline for what a martial character should be able to do?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But only the master of many styles can take Dragon Style at 1st level.
Unarmed Fighter.
And why is a 1st level character with BAB +0 the baseline for what a martial character should be able to do?Ask Rynjin, he brought it up.
As one of about 5 examples.
The other 4 being able to have as much BaB as their class allows, and one being a full BaB class option.
You can't wield a double weapon sized for you in one hand; it's a two-handed weapon.
You could wield a double weapon sized for a creature one or two sizes smaller than you in one hand (so it would be one-handed or light for you), but if you do then you can't use it as a double weapon.
The Taiaha is a one handed double weapon.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What is the difference between quarterstaff/quarterstaff, unarmed strike/unarmed strike, and quarterstaff/unarmed strike?
Why is SKR throwing a 1 + 1 = 3 argument?
Commoners can use quarterstaffs and unarmed strikes.
They always could before.
Never was there a limit on what weapons could be used whilst two weapon fighting before, why now?
Where did the rule come from?
Why is it every individual who disagrees, or asks for clarification being mocked, ruthlessly?
It a schoolhouse bully mentality, and we get called "childish".
It's ugly, and I don't like it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rules semantics and inferences aside, I think the idea of being able to use a two-handed weapon and a non-handed "off-hand" weapon for two-weapon fighting is perfectly fine. Here's a few reasons why-
- I have some knowledge about how people in armor wielding two-handed weapons actually fought. Striking with the weapon and quickly following up with a pommel strike, elbow, or shoulder check is extremely common. There's an entire school of german swordfighting that revolves around the concept of "cut-and-bash".
- The answer to how to threaten adjacent squares while wielding a polearm has pretty much always been "Armor Spikes". If the current FAQ stands, armor spikes couldn't be used this way. They also couldn't even be used to make AoOs later in a round that a polearm has been used. That seems arbitrarily limiting.
- Combining the two styles isn't particularly advantageous, mathematically speaking. You are still taking the penalty to all your attacks for a chance at getting to hit with extra attacks. The extra .5 strength boost you get is balanced by the additional feat expenditure required to make a character who fights well with a two-handed weapon, and also takes the two-weapon fighting tree. This would be a style that would pretty much only be available to fighters simply because of the sheer number of feats involved to make it work well.
- The Thunderstriker Archetype is a strong case for the concept, as is the Temple Sword Monk.
- Melee characters have a hard enough time as it is when compared with archers and casters. Why not give them a few more options?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Never was there a limit on what weapons could be used whilst two weapon fighting before, why now?
Because you've been misinterpreting the RAI for a long time. I've actually been playing it correct because that's how it makes sense to me; if you've expended your attacks, you can't just make more attacks because you have more weapons. Goes to show there's two sides of the coin, and you've been judged to be on the wrong side of it. So what? Get over it, and start a thread in the homebrew section where you can develop an approach you feel is more balanced.
Where did the rule come from?
From the same people who MADE THE GAME. That's where it came from. Where else would you want it to come from?
Why is it every individual who disagrees, or asks for clarification being mocked, ruthlessly?
That's unfair, because that's not the case. People who are being rude, demanding, and/or relying upon the Pathfinder developers for their self esteem are being told to stop that. Your point is made. No matter how much you fight, you will not be right. Take your balancing conversation to the homebrew section. Legitimate questions about how to understand and apply this ruling are appropriate, and I think Rynjyn (i can't even remember) among others is one of the only ones who is asking real questions that apply. When you lace and frame your questions in contempt, frustration, and anger, you get little sympathy.
It a schoolhouse bully mentality, and we get called "childish".
It's ugly, and I don't like it.
No more than this is a "woe is me" victim mentality.
It's really quite pathetic, in my view, that there is so much anger and so many PERSONAL ATTACKS on the people that made the game that you love to play so much (not necessarily talking to you here BBT). This thread is full of nasty comments made about SKR, the developers, and the editors. If you're not going to ask real questions about how to apply this ruling, you need to stop, plain and simple. You're just creating a nasty dynamic between the developers and the community and pretty soon the level of engagement and communication will drop. Nothing the developers ever say will control or dictate how I play at my table, ever, because I get to control that. What I cannot control is how they choose to build the game, and neither can you. Time to move on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rules semantics and inferences aside, I think the idea of being able to use a two-handed weapon and a non-handed "off-hand" weapon for two-weapon fighting is perfectly fine. Here's a few reasons why-
I have some knowledge about how people in armor wielding two-handed weapons actually fought. Striking and quickly following up with a pommel strike, elbow, or shoulder check is extremely common.
Don't be silly. We all know realism and verisimilitude are only valid arguments when the goal is to limit and/or nerf mundane characters.
The answer to how to threaten adjacent squares while wielding a polearm has pretty much always been "Armor Spikes". If the current FAQ stands, armor spikes couldn't be used this way. They also couldn't even be used to make AoOs later in a round that a polearm has been used. That seems arbitrarily limiting.
Pathfinder has a long tradition of pointless equipment. Maybe that's the intention here: Make Armor Spikes completely worse to Gauntlets and Cestus.
It isn't particularly advantageous, mathematically speaking. You are still taking the penalty to all your attacks for a chance at getting to hit with extra attacks. The extra .5 strength boost you get is balanced by the additional feat expenditure required to make a character who fights well with a two-handed weapon, and also takes the two-weapon fighting tree.
The Thunderstriker Archetype is a strong case for the concept, as is the Temple Sword Monk.
Falchions/Greatswords & Longbows are the only weapons allowed to shine. All other combat styles must be incredibly weaker. It's the law.
Melee characters have a hard enough time as it is when compared with archers and casters. Why not give them a few more options?
C'mon, man! That's an easy one! Martials can't have nice things!
If you've expended your attacks, you can't just make more attacks because you have more weapons. Goes to show there's two sides of the coin, and you've been judges to be on the wrong side of it. Get over it, and start a thread in the homebrew section where you can develop an approach you feel is more balanced.
No one is advocating getting extra attacks. No one is saying we should get a 3rd attack because we have armor spikes.
We advocating the ability to choose which weapons we use in each attack. This has always been possible.
|
|
No one is advocating getting extra attacks. No one is saying we should get a 3rd attack because we have armor spikes.
We advocating the ability to choose which weapons we use in each attack. This has always been possible.
You can still choose which weapons you use within boundaries. You simply cannot have a 1.5x +.5x strength on your attacks when using TWF.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No one even considered just limiting the strength bonus to the primary weapon to a max of x1?
No styles are lost, and "loopholes" are closed.
So, what is the difference between quarterstaff/quarterstaff, unarmed strike/unarmed strike, and quarterstaff/unarmed strike?
Why does the last one no longer function?
You can still choose which weapons you use within boundaries. You simply cannot have a 1.5x +.5x strength on your attacks.
So a fighter 6 can attack x1.5 + x1.5 = x3, but not x1.5 + x.5 = x2 because it is too powerful?
Or does this only apply to two weapon fighting?
I am so confused.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can still fight with a polearm and attack with armor spikes. That's what iteratives are for. You just can't do it while you're TWF.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can still choose which weapons you use within boundaries. You simply cannot have a 1.5x +.5x strength on your attacks when using TWF.
While I completely disagree with the notion that such fighting style is OP, this is not even the worst consequence of this FAQ.
Suddenly we need free hands to use armor spikes, making them completely pointless (gauntltes and cestus are superior to them in every way). And we need a free hand to make unarmed strikes, which makes no sense and nerfs an already incredibly weak combat style.
An now there talk about you losing your shield bonus to AC if you TWF with unarmed strikes or even with a shortsword + unarmed strike while holding a shield, which A) makes no sense, B)is not stated or even implied anywhere in the rules C) Nerfs an already weak combat style D) Makes even less sense when we consider weapon + shield bash is still much more effective.
The design team might as well come out and say martials are only allowed to choose one of the following 4 options: sword and shield, 2-handed, TWF with 2 light weapons and archery. All other combats styles are now against the rules.
To think I liked the idea of finding new combos and creating new builds. And here I always thought character customization, innovation and creativity were good things...
|
|
So a fighter 6 can attack x1.5 + x1.5 = x3, but not x1.5 + x.5 = x2 because it is too powerful?
Or does this only apply to two weapon fighting?
I am so confused.
A fighter six can attack x1.5 + x1.5 = x3 with a two handed weapon.
A fighter 6 can also attack x1 + x1 + x1 + x1 = 4x if they have: Dex 17, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Two-Weapon Fighting, and Double Slice.
You can still fight with a polearm and attack with armor spikes. That's what iteratives are for. You just can't do it while you're TWF.Apparently if you use a polearm you no longer threat with the armor spikes. That is an even worst clarification that the THF/TWF.
Where is that coming from? I may have missed it in my skimming, but I don't see how that follows at the moment.
Hands don't need to be free. They just can't have been dedicated to an attack already.
You can't wield a double weapon sized for you in one hand; it's a two-handed weapon.
You could wield a double weapon sized for a creature one or two sizes smaller than you in one hand (so it would be one-handed or light for you), but if you do then you can't use it as a double weapon.
Feel free to cite the rule supporting this. I was under the impression that a person can choose whether to wield a double weapon one or two handed, since that's what the double weapons entry says.
That's unfair, because that's not the case. People who are being rude, demanding, and/or relying upon the Pathfinder developers for their self esteem are being told to stop that. Your point is made. No matter how much you fight, you will not be right.
Monks could flurry with one weapon. Then they couldn't, because the devs made a ruling via FAQ. We protested that it was a bad ruling. Monks can flurry with one weapon again. Just saying.
Can you wield two short swords, and TWF with one of those swords and an Unarmed Strike, Boot Blade, or Armor Spikes? Can you TWF with one end of a double weapon and an Unarmed Strike, a Boot Blade, or Armor Spikes? Can you switch your iteratives between a two-handed weapon and an Unarmed Strike, Boot Blade, or Armor Spikes? Could a three-armed creature dual wield a Greatsword and a short sword? Could a four-armed creature dual wield Greatswords? All of these run into similar principles as the issue at play here, and I can't imagine the answer to all of them can possibly be no.
The fighting style at issue is not remotely unbalanced--for the number of resources needed to sink into it to make up for the considerable penalties associated with it (dual-wielding two different weapons, TWF plus Power Attack penalties together, a terrible off-hand weapon, a feat for Unarmed strike/movement penalties for boot blade/having to buy new armor spikes anytime you get new armor...) it's simply inefficient. It's not silly like TWF with shields--it has much to do with how people actually used two-handed weapons. And forbidding it inevitably creates ripple effects, or creates contradictions, marking it as a kludge, a ruling with no basis in the game world--and the math shows, not even any basis in mechanics.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Hands don't need to be free. They just can't have been dedicated to an attack already.There is a side on the debate that argue that if you attack with a long sword and a kick then you loose the shield bonus.
Right. In that case, your off-hand was dedicated to the unarmed strike. Similar to the buckler case. It still follows.
|
|
You can still choose which weapons you use within boundaries. You simply cannot have a 1.5x +.5x strength on your attacks when using TWF.While I completely disagree with the notion that such fighting style is OP, this is not even the worst consequence of this FAQ.
Suddenly we need free hands to use armor spikes, making them completely pointless (gauntltes and cestus are superior to them in every way). And we need a free hand to make unarmed strikes, which makes no sense and nerfs an already incredibly weak combat style.
An now there talk about you losing your shield bonus to AC if you TWF with unarmed strikes or even with a shortsword + unarmed strike while holding a shield, which A) makes no sense, B)is not stated or even implied anywhere in the rules C) Nerfs an already weak combat style D) Makes even less sense when we consider weapon + shield bash is still much more effective.
The design team might as well come out and say martials are only allowed to choose one of the following 4 options: sword and shield, 2-handed, TWF with 2 light weapons and archery. All other combats styles are now against the rules.
To think I liked the idea of finding new combos and creating new builds. And here I always thought character customization, innovation and creativity were good things...
They are good things. I think you've gone too far in your assumptions. "Suddenly we need free hands to use armor spikes" What makes you think this? You need to have an unexpended attack, and if you're using both hands, you cannot TWF. SO, make a one-handed attack with a longsword, free action grip in two hands, and make an offhand attack with armor spikes. You don't have a free hand, but you've not expended your attacks.
Again, you're not barred from the "Greatsword/punch a guy in the face" fighting style. You just have to fit it into your iteratives.
Two handed double weapons are still two handed.
You can choose to wield them in one hand and attack with only one side.
It still folow from nowhere. At most that rule apply for blucklers, the other shields do not state taht.Right. In that case, your off-hand was dedicated to the unarmed strike. Similar to the buckler case. It still follows.Hands don't need to be free. They just can't have been dedicated to an attack already.There is a side on the debate that argue that if you attack with a long sword and a kick then you loose the shield bonus.
Bucklers have to be explicitly called out because their nature allows you to wield another weapon while using one. It's not a vast chasm between the buckler and applying the concept to other shields.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They are good things. I think you've gone too far in your assumptions. "Suddenly we need free hands to use armor spikes" What makes you think this? You need to have an unexpended attack, and if you're using both hands, you cannot TWF. SO, make a one-handed attack with a longsword, free action grip in two hands, and make an offhand attack with armor spikes. You don't have a free hand, but you've not expended your attacks.
Somewhere in this thread (or the other one about the same subject) there is a link to a FAQ about you needing free hands to use armor spikes, therefore, making them completely pointless.
SKR implied he wouldn't allow a character holding two shortswords to attack with unarmed strikes. Why is that? Do we need free hands to kick?
Now there is talk about characters losing their shield bonus to AC because they are using unarmed strikes, even if this has no base whatsoever in the published rules.
This FAQ is a chain reaction of pointless restrictions and unnecessary nerfs.
They are good things. I think you've gone too far in your assumptions. "Suddenly we need free hands to use armor spikes" What makes you think this? You need to have an unexpended attack, and if you're using both hands, you cannot TWF. SO, make a one-handed attack with a longsword, free action grip in two hands, and make an offhand attack with armor spikes. You don't have a free hand, but you've not expended your attacks.You can still choose which weapons you use within boundaries. You simply cannot have a 1.5x +.5x strength on your attacks when using TWF.While I completely disagree with the notion that such fighting style is OP, this is not even the worst consequence of this FAQ.
Suddenly we need free hands to use armor spikes, making them completely pointless (gauntltes and cestus are superior to them in every way). And we need a free hand to make unarmed strikes, which makes no sense and nerfs an already incredibly weak combat style.
An now there talk about you losing your shield bonus to AC if you TWF with unarmed strikes or even with a shortsword + unarmed strike while holding a shield, which A) makes no sense, B)is not stated or even implied anywhere in the rules C) Nerfs an already weak combat style D) Makes even less sense when we consider weapon + shield bash is still much more effective.
The design team might as well come out and say martials are only allowed to choose one of the following 4 options: sword and shield, 2-handed, TWF with 2 light weapons and archery. All other combats styles are now against the rules.
To think I liked the idea of finding new combos and creating new builds. And here I always thought character customization, innovation and creativity were good things...
We have a second weapon, so we have unexpended attacks--the bonus attacks from two-weapon fighting. The weapon in question is not wielded in our hands, and yet, having used a weapon in two hands, we cannot use those unexpended attacks. That is precisely to say that we need a free hand to use armor spikes, because we've just been prevented from using them for not having a free hand.
There's a large number of people on the forums that react harshly to any criticism of Paizo, the Devs, anything they do, or even how they do it.
Sadly, this is true. But it's also true that for every hostile poster around here, there is at least one boot-licking fanboy who agrees with every word a dev no matter what.
I rarely complain about FAQs, and much more often than not, I agree with the devs. That doesn't mean I shouldn't criticize their decisions if I think they are wrong.
I've never ever been hostile or disrespectful to any Paizo employee, game designer or not. If I ever offended any of them or hurt their feeling, it was unintentionally.
But respecting and admiring someone's work is not the same as blindly defending their work. Pretending everything is perfect and then calling anyone who disagrees a "powergaming nitpicking hater" or some such is not constructive behavior, and it does not lead to a better game. Quite the contrary, actually.
EDIT: Nevermind I just read your post again. You and I seem to agree on the subject.