|
There are no "actual" arms. Or legs.
If shield hand or arm is a game mechanic, in you would need three separate "hand" mechanics to exist.
Your primary, your off-hand, and what you want to be you shield hand.
If you had both a primary and an off-hand apart from a shield hand, why would you need a buckler to be able to use your off-hand for two-handed (or two weapon fighting)?
Why would using your off-hand to shield bash remove your shield "arm" from play?
So again, when it is helpful you want it to be a physical location, but when it is harmful, you want it to be a game mechanic.
If the FAQ says I am wrong, I won't be "shocked" or "dismayed" or...well...anything melodramatic or hyperbolic.
I'll react to it exactly how I reacted to finding out warslingers can't use sling staffs and that you can take 10 even if less than 10 would be dangerous.
I'll shrug, say I was wrong and thank the devs for the imput.
Like someone who is emotionally well adjusted reacts to such things...
No, this argument is about people being ticked off that a loophole they found got closed.I have to agree. After reading this whole thread it sure feels more like anger over the loss of a loophole then a real issue.
Then you're drinking the same cool-aid he is.
I can't speak for everyone, but I know that I, and several other posters here, don't care about loopholes, whether open or closed. We care about ruling making sense, and about being able to come away from the FAQ with a sense of how it applies to other things in the game. We want explanations that don't amount to, "there are hidden rules, that aren't hard and fast rules, but, in this case, we are enforcing the rules you had no way of knowing about."
This thread is rife with examples presented that the FAQ ruling calls into question, without actually addressing them at all, and causing a deal of confusion.
Almost no one cares about the "loophole" some people perceive, and I'd wager that the majority of people never viewed investing a feat (or two), ability points, and items, into a sub-par strategy as a loophole.
The term "off-hand" seems entirely too malleable. At times everyone seems to agree that it only refers to the secondary attack made as part of a full attack action when two-weapon fighting. However, proponents of the recent FAQ seem to feel perfectly justified in demanding that the actual non-primary-weapon hand be available for use, or non-engaged in some way to allow for a secondary attack even with a non-handed weapon.
The secondary attack DOES NOT REQUIRE A PHYSICAL HAND TO PERFORM. That being the case, the only justification for the FAQ is an unwritten, unimplied design philosophy that isn't universally applied across the rules.
Armor Poke feat. Fixes everything.
Why shouldn't I feel perfectly justified?
The feat is called "Two Weapon Fighting". I have two weapons.
I'm spending a feat (likely quite a few more than one), and I'm taking a penalty to my attacks. I am not breaking any rule or balance issue in the game. Nor am I breaking the verisimilitude of combat.
Calling this a loophole or an exploit is purposeless, unless your intent is to villify those who disagree with you. The fact is, the rule used to justify this has not been applied equally across the game. So, for some reason, this is considered a special case. I feel perfectly justified in asking for a reason.
The term "off-hand" seems entirely too malleable. At times everyone seems to agree that it only refers to the secondary attack made as part of a full attack action when two-weapon fighting. However, proponents of the recent FAQ seem to feel perfectly justified in demanding that the actual non-primary-weapon hand be available for use, or non-engaged in some way to allow for a secondary attack even with a non-handed weapon.
The secondary attack DOES NOT REQUIRE A PHYSICAL HAND TO PERFORM. That being the case, the only justification for the FAQ is an unwritten, unimplied design philosophy that isn't universally applied across the rules.
Off hand is not a physical hand. Two handed weapons require you to use the off hand to wield them. The same is true with primary hand.
Primary Hand = X
Off Hand = YTwo-handed weapons require X and Y
Off hand weapons require YYou have X and Y to spend, but attacking with a two handed weapon and off handed weapon costs X + 2Y. You are deficient in resources.
A few quick questions:
How much strength damage do armor spikes deal as an off hand weapon?
Where did you find this information?
Did it refer to the weapon being wielded in the off hand?
This is exactly what I was referring to regarding the malleability of the term "off-hand". There is nothing, (let me be perfectly clear here) NOTHING, in the rules that says that using a two handed weapon is a combined primary and secondary attack. If that were true, then you would need TWF just to mitigate the penalties to wielding a greatsword.
A secondary attack, or "off-hand attack" only exists when you are two-weapon fighting during a full attack action. So, no, no, no, no, NO, NO, NO. Wielding a two-handed weapon DOES NOT use your "primary hand" and your "off-hand". It merely uses two hands.
Since we have established that your secondary attack does not require an actual hand, then using two hands on a primary weapon has absolutely no relationship to the existence of a secondary or "off-hand" attack.
To answer your other questions, Armor Spikes are a light weapon. If used as a secondary weapon, then you apply 0.5x your strength bonus to the damage. This information is all in the CRB.
Lead Designer
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey there folks,
700 posts in just a few days... seems like this one touched a nerve. We understand that this might go against the way that some of you have been playing. Sorry about that, but for ease of gameplay, this is the only way that works.
There is some logic behind all this, which we thought was relatively obvious. Its apparent now that it was not. The game is built around certain concepts of strength and bonus utilization. When you are using a weapon two-handed, you are getting all of that in one attack (or series of attacks if your BAB allows). If you are wielding two weapons, a one handed weapon and an off hand weapon, you are also getting all of that. Getting it all with a two-handed weapon (which by its very nature, uses up both of your "hands") and then adding in unarmed strikes gives you more than is nominally allowed. The system breaks because of the unclear nature of unarmed strikes (and other similar attacks that are not defined as specifically using one of your "hands"). What we are trying to state with this ruling is that you cannot exceed the normal limit. Otherwise, things become terribly unclear and open to a wide variety of abuses (after all, a two handed weapon does not say it uses your primary hand either.. why not get two extra attacks... that hyperbole, but the argument could be made).
I realize that there are folks that dont agree with this ruling. That is unfortunate, but at this time, we are not considering any further change to this system.
Please remember that everyone on these boards is here to express their opinions and to play nice with your fellow posters. Many of the posts in this thread cross the line and if folks cant play nice, we will have to shut it down.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for taking the time to chime in, Jason.
No, this argument is about people being ticked off that a loophole they found got closed.I have to agree. After reading this whole thread it sure feels more like anger over the loss of a loophole then a real issue.Then you're drinking the same cool-aid he is.
I can't speak for everyone, but I know that I, and several other posters here, don't care about loopholes, whether open or closed. We care about ruling making sense, and about being able to come away from the FAQ with a sense of how it applies to other things in the game. We want explanations that don't amount to, "there are hidden rules, that aren't hard and fast rules, but, in this case, we are enforcing the rules you had no way of knowing about."
This thread is rife with examples presented that the FAQ ruling calls into question, without actually addressing them at all, and causing a deal of confusion.
Almost no one cares about the "loophole" some people perceive, and I'd wager that the majority of people never viewed investing a feat (or two), ability points, and items, into a sub-par strategy as a loophole.
Ok, I said this before, but am going to try it again...
There are no "hidden rules" or "secret rules" or anything like that. Paizo, like every game company around, has basic tenets that guide the rules they make. Some are for game balance, some are for coolness factor, some are due to a legacy of how things have been done. Why do you roll a 20 sider to hit? Why not a d6. Why not a marble? Paizo made the decision because it made sense to them to keep the d20 mechanics. I know that some people disagree with the ruling, and that is cool. Change the rules you don't like. Please do not act as if the Paizo Development Team are somehow hiding rules from you. They aren't. They just don't see a reason to triple the length ot every book they put out so as to explain the rules behind the rules.I want to reiterate that I am not knocking anyone for disagreeing with the ruling. I am not making fun of anyone who thought differently than the designers. I am calling out anyone who actually thinks that they are being held hostage to "secret rules".
BTW, one rule to rule them all: have fun and make the game your own....
Crap, that was two rules.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is some logic behind all this, which we thought was relatively obvious. Its apparent now that it was not. The game is built around certain concepts of strength and bonus utilization. When you are using a weapon two-handed, you are getting all of that in one attack (or series of attacks if your BAB allows). If you are wielding two weapons, a one handed weapon and an off hand weapon, you are also getting all of that. Getting it all with a two-handed weapon (which by its very nature, uses up both of your "hands") and then adding in unarmed strikes gives you more than is nominally allowed. The system breaks because of the unclear nature of unarmed strikes (and other similar attacks that are not defined as specifically using one of your "hands"). What we are trying to state with this ruling is that you cannot exceed the normal limit. Otherwise, things become terribly unclear and open to a wide variety of abuses (after all, a two handed weapon does not say it uses your primary hand either.. why not get two extra attacks... that hyperbole, but the argument could be made).
That is definitely not obvious logic because it isn't really discoverable reading the core rulebook. I'd have a hard time saying it's even implied anywhere. If every fighting style had an option of getting 1.5x strength bonus to damage, it might be a noticeable trend. But single weapon fighting and sword and shield fighting styles don't get it and monks exceed it which tends to obscure the pattern. But if that's what you want the rules to be, there are some areas where there are still issues because the FAQ entry and the rules in the Core Rulebook don't successfully combine to make the issue clear.
1) The FAQ on armor spikes should be generalized to include your rationale. Without it, we can't really tell if the FAQ is meant to apply to just the spikes and gauntlet or all methods of two-weapon fighting like unarmed attacks (mainly kicks and methods that don't involve one of the hands currently planted on the two-handed weapon).
2) The barbazu beard needs to be looked at and probably changed. The description of that item implies that two-weapon fighting is kosher with a two-handed weapon as long as the off-hand attack doesn't actually require a hand.
3) If there are any implications for any other issues with something in multiple hands, those need to be addressed. Currently, there's a bit of a furor over whether wielding a sword and shield and striking with the sword while kicking the target using two-weapon fighting causes you to lose the shield bonus. Frankly, that doesn't seem to follow from the logic of you've laid out here yet there are a number of people saying it does.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Basically what I am getting from all this is that the rules weren't clear, the necessary restrictions weren't published, and instead of errata that actually fixes the issue we get an FAQ that in order to be correct has to rely on rules and guidelines that players don't have access to.
This is exactly the sort of thing that people hate. Some people can read between the lines and get to the same spot, but it certainly isn't clear. As is evidenced by all the threads on this topic.
Thanks for chiming in Jason, but it still doesn't address the issue of trying to understand the unwritten rules. Is there a design document somewhere that we can read so that this won't be an issue in the future?
Regarding the specific FAQ, I don't really care one way or the other about the ruling, but I VERY MUCH care on the rationale behind it, in order to apply to other parts of the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey there folks,
700 posts in just a few days... seems like this one touched a nerve. We understand that this might go against the way that some of you have been playing. Sorry about that, but for ease of gameplay, this is the only way that works.
There is some logic behind all this, which we thought was relatively obvious. Its apparent now that it was not. The game is built around certain concepts of strength and bonus utilization. When you are using a weapon two-handed, you are getting all of that in one attack (or series of attacks if your BAB allows). If you are wielding two weapons, a one handed weapon and an off hand weapon, you are also getting all of that. Getting it all with a two-handed weapon (which by its very nature, uses up both of your "hands") and then adding in unarmed strikes gives you more than is nominally allowed. The system breaks because of the unclear nature of unarmed strikes (and other similar attacks that are not defined as specifically using one of your "hands"). What we are trying to state with this ruling is that you cannot exceed the normal limit. Otherwise, things become terribly unclear and open to a wide variety of abuses (after all, a two handed weapon does not say it uses your primary hand either.. why not get two extra attacks... that hyperbole, but the argument could be made).
I realize that there are folks that dont agree with this ruling. That is unfortunate, but at this time, we are not considering any further change to this system.
Please remember that everyone on these boards is here to express their opinions and to play nice with your fellow posters. Many of the posts in this thread cross the line and if folks cant play nice, we will have to shut it down.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
A few things...
1st - the ruling doesn't mention unarmed strikes (or any of the variety of weapons available in Pathfinder that can be used to make an off-hand attack without actually using hands, such as a boot dagger).
2nd - the rules of the game already make clear that you cannot make extra attacks just because you have free hands. Normally, you are allowed to make a single attack, or, as a full attack, make one attack with your primary, and one attack with your "off-hand" weapon, suffering the penalties for two-weapon fighting (for which there is a feat to reduce those penalties). I have NEVER EVER seen anyone argue that you could make a third attack in that instance (aside from having been granted a natural attack, such as a bite, claw, slam, gore, tail, etc...). There's no confusion, no dispute over how number of attacks works, so making a ruling to address this, is making much of a complete non-issue.
3rd - the ruling doesn't mention number of attacks at all.
4th - there are NUMEROUS ways for a character to gain more than 1.5x their Strength bonus in a full attack before they gain iterative attacks or things like Haste. A 2nd level barbarian of ANY RACE can take Beast Totem to make two primary claw attacks, each of which use your full Str bonus, or 2x Str in on full attack. Is there a problem with this? Many races can gain a bite attack, which (according to the rules on natural attacks)may be combined with normal attacks for, again, 2x Str bonus in a full attack (and at level 1) 1x Str for main-hand, .5x Str for off-hand, .5x Str for secondary natural attack. So, clearly, these "rules" aren't hard and fast, and as far as anyone can tell, this hasn't broken the game, even if you ignore casters, and just look at combat as being two guys swatting at each other.
5th - the ruling doesn't even fall under a general combat category, but under Equipment, which implies that it is merely targeting some abuse, or misuse, or spiked armor and gauntlets, yet you, and SKR keep invoking other things--unarmed strikes, the balance of utilizing X amount of Str in a round as a low level character, some non-existent, straw man arguments claiming that, without this ruling, people will be trying to gain more attacks in a round just because they have limbs available despite the actual written rules--none of which are mentioned in the FAQ ruling.
It's not merely a matter of not agreeing with this ruling, but HOW and WHY this ruling was made at all, let alone to this end.
Are you going to clarify that, actually, unarmed strikes require a free hand?
Will natural attacks no longer be permitted to be combined with weapon attacks unless you have a hand free?
Will a pair of claw attacks be changed to a primary and secondary natural attack, so that they no longer break the 1.5x Str "rule"?
That making an unarmed strike and a 1-handed weapon attack in the same round loses you your shield bonus to AC for the round, even though the hand and arm with the shield didn't figure into any of that at all?
Are handless, implicitly off-handed weapons in the system going to be re-categorized as "USELESS unless being employed to make up for having your actual weapons stripped away"?
Are monks, with their unarmed strikes, flurry of blows, and possibly two-handed monk weapons going to be reevaluated (to suck more than they already do)?
The ruling doesn't touch on ANY of that, but yours and SKR's replies seem to indicate that all of those must change. Or is it that you just really dislike armor spikes and spiked gauntlets?
|
|
Why shouldn't I feel perfectly justified?
The feat is called "Two Weapon Fighting". I have two weapons.
I'm spending a feat (likely quite a few more than one), and I'm taking a penalty to my attacks. I am not breaking any rule or balance issue in the game. Nor am I breaking the verisimilitude of combat.
Calling this a loophole or an exploit is purposeless, unless your intent is to villify those who disagree with you. The fact is, the rule used to justify this has not been applied equally across the game. So, for some reason, this is considered a special case. I feel perfectly justified in asking for a reason.
Two-Weapon Fighting feat is not what gives you the ability to make a second attack with your off-hand.
It just reduces the penalty.
You can make a second attack with your off-hand with or without the feat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unwritten rules are a much greater concern to me than the ruling.
Balance is maintained by Dex prerequisites to TWF, and having to spend a feat to gain TWF, and taking a penalty to attack while using TWF, and wealth by level limiting enchantments on your greatsword and armor spikes. Those are the rules that players have access to. Their very reason to exist is to maintain balance.
Secret rules have no reason to exist.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for chiming in Jason. I'm personally apathetic to this one, but I can understand the frustration coming from those who think it's not necessary. More than that though, I think the biggest problem is that it's unclear exactly how deep this ruling goes. Even beyond two-weapon fighting with a sword + kicks while holding a shield, can a Duelist use Crane Style which requires you to use your hand to block an attack and still get their Canny Defense class feature, or is that against the intention of this change as well? As Bill Dunn said, the changes are something that we can look into and accept once we understand the full depth of them. The problem is that this system you guys inherited is inately very complex, so a change like this which may seem simple actually runs VERY deep into the system - much deeper than the stealth change that the team elected to only go half-way on.
I would like to request from myself (and probably many, many others) that Paizo prioritize updating the community on exactly how this ruling effects as many different combinations as possible (and if you have a hard time coming up with them, feel free to peruse the boards, you'll find plenty) so that the questions can subside. Then, for those who are not a fan of the end results, they will know exactly what they need to house-rule in order to get the game they want and the rest of us can move on as well.
at this time, we are not considering any further change to this system.
Sorry ciretose, you lost this one. =)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And more yelling at the people who wrote the game...
Here is what actually happened. Most of us read the rules, understood that Two attacks take two hands and Two handed attacks take two hands and we smiled because it was good.
Then people who were looking for ways to get MOAR POWER said "Technically, with armor spikes I'm not using a hand..."
The key word, of course, being "Technically". Because they knew very well it was an off-hand attack.
So they ignored the "hand" in off-hand for the purposes of spikes ("off-hand doesn't mean hand at all! It is clearly just a mechanical term. I can make an off-hand attack without using an actual hand. Don't be silly!", and then focused on it for benefits they wanted "Of course it means hand, I have a free hand so I can two-hand? What do you think it is just a mechanical term, don't be stupid...."
Then a bunch of them got on optimization boards, where all of them, not surprisingly, agreed with each other about ways to get around limits in the rules (it is an optimization board after all) and then proceeded to shout down anyone who dared challenge them.
Then, the Devs sauid "Uh...actually you are using your off-hand attack for the off-hand attack with the spikes. And since obviously you can't use your off-hand twice, that isn't allowed."
Nerd rage ensued. How dare the people who wrote the game question people on an optimization board on the internet who believe that the Gary Gygax himself designed the first Simulacrum wish machine!
Maybe...and this is going to be a crazy thought so you will have to bare with me...maybe the people who wrote the rules aren't hiding secret Easter Egg loopholes in the game.
Maybe exploits are...well...exploits.
This ruling didn't bother me. The halfling ruling bothered me. Not because they made the ruling that you can't used slingstaffs.
But because they had to rule you can't use slingstaffs because if they didn't, someone on some optimization board somewhere would come up with some trick where half-orcs with racial traits would take halfling slinger with some other combo...
And so, we can't have nice things. Because some people are constantly trying to break the game.
That bothers me.
Unwritten rules are a much greater concern to me than the ruling.
Balance is maintained by Dex prerequisites to TWF, and having to spend a feat to gain TWF, and taking a penalty to attack while using TWF, and wealth by level limiting enchantments on your greatsword and armor spikes. Those are the rules that players have access to. Their very reason to exist is to maintain balance.
Secret rules have no reason to exist.
I agree. Thank god there are NO secret rules. As far as balance, Jason explained the Dev's thinking about why they made the ruling the way they did. If your idea of balance and the Devs don't agree, then home brew the changes you want.
Also, it might be possible that the people at Paizo are looking at a bigger picture... Maybe they are thinking about introducing a type of spiked armor that does d12 damage... Since they have a much better idea what is going to come out in the future for Paizo, they may be trying to head off a future issue... If so, they, for business reasons, probably aren't going to tell us about new weapons.Not that I think that this is the case, but just trying to point out that we don't know everything coming up in the game system.
|
|
Further change, as in making a change to the rule. The is as it was and is. There will be no change.
The creative reading dept missed the
"There is some logic behind all this, which we thought was relatively obvious."
As in, this was always a part of the rules. We thought it was obvious.
But keep fighting the good fight...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, I said this before, but am going to try it again...
There are no "hidden rules" or "secret rules" or anything like that.
You can say whatever you like, but it doesn't make you correct. SKR, in one of his replies, said that there ARE hidden rules, and directly implied that the crux of the ruling being discussed here relies on them. Are you saying he's lying?
And if they aren't hidden, or secret, show me them in print, because if they aren't visible, if I can't read them anywhere, then what do you call that, if not hidden?
Now, I'm not saying that all unwritten rules need be written. As I put forth in an earlier comment, there are many unwritten rules that don't need to be written, because they are obvious, such as being unable to take actions when you're dead. We aren't discussing an obvious unwritten rule here. Anyone who claims it WAS obvious, either does so because they didn't understand the rules they were working with in the first place, felt uncomfortable about the MULTITUDE of published (written) options that break this unwritten rule and now feel justified in Paizo's supporting their discomfort, or are experiencing a bout of double-think.
Paizo, like every game company around, has basic tenets that guide the rules they make. Some are for game balance, some are for coolness factor, some are due to a legacy of how things have been done.
This bears almost zero relevance to the case at hand. Unwritten tenets like the ones you refer to work because they are consistent, or implied, or draw upon common sense (or common experience of the human condition and the physical world: ie., are seated firmly in a universal reality, like the bit about not acting while dead).
Why do you roll a 20 sider to hit? Why not a d6. Why not a marble?
BECAUSE THE RULES AS WRITTEN GOVERN THIS ACTIONS CLEARLY AND EXPLICITLY. These aren't basic, unwritten tenets that guide their decisions...these are WRITTEN rules. And this is the problem with many of the posters on the side of the ruling as it stands: they keep making unequal comparisons, using straw man arguments, or unrealistic examples, or lend greater meaning to a word or phrase than is actually ever implied by the books we have. And this is the problem with the ruling: that it stems from these unwritten guidelines, which are NOT consistent across the entirety of the game, and does not explain itself fully, creating confusion, because it SEEMS like this ruling should apply to many, many more things than just spiked armor and gauntlets, yet doesn't say so, and we have zero way of knowing.
As for balance, how is it balanced vs a normal two weapon fighter that follows the rules?
It's actually inferior due to the fact that certain Feats most TWFers rely on to boost damage (Improved Critical, Weapon Focus to offset the penalties, and so on) would need to be taken twice to match effectiveness. Meaning other Feats couldn't be taken as early or at all (The Improved/Greater TWF, Double Slice, Two-Weapon Rend, and so on).
Even at 1st level if memory serves it did something like 1-4 damage extra a round, falling behind TWFing with the same weapon by level 3 or 5, always being below GReatsword only fighting, and just slightly above TWFing with 2 different weapons (which is the worst combat style in the game).
So it poses no balance issue. That's why some of us are so confused as to why it needed to be changed at all.
The ruling is clear, and I can see how some read it that way to start with, but it's the "Why was it necessary?" part of it that I don't get.
|
Lead Designer
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with this system, is of course, that there are a million rules that interface with it. As a general guide, you get a primary hand and an off hand attack each round as a humanoid character. Two handed weapons use up both of those (CRB 141, they use up two hands). I can see how you might try and interpret that to not relate to the "primary hand" and "off hand" language, but considering that the previous two entries both talk to that language, I find it a bit of a stretch that folks would assume that the two-handed entry does not speak to the same system.
Thats really all there is to it. Now, there are a lot of other things that can monkey with these rules, and I am not sure I have the time here today to go into all of them (natural attacks alone screw all of this up).
Ill check back in later here folks, but keep things civil.
Jason
|
|
The problem with this system, is of course, that there are a million rules that interface with it. As a general guide, you get a primary hand and an off hand attack each round as a humanoid character. Two handed weapons use up both of those (CRB 141, they use up two hands). I can see how you might try and interpret that to not relate to the "primary hand" and "off hand" language, but considering that the previous two entries both talk to that language, I find it a bit of a stretch that folks would assume that the two-handed entry does not speak to the same system.
Thats really all there is to it. Now, there are a lot of other things that can monkey with these rules, and I am not sure I have the time here today to go into all of them (natural attacks alone screw all of this up).
Ill check back in later here folks, but keep things civil.
Jason
Thank you Jason. Please don't let things like this make you avoid FAQ topics that are "controversial".
If anything, this should demonstrate GMs need back up in the face of people who won't even take the word of a Developer.
Even when I disagree with a ruling, it is nice that the ruling is clear and concrete.
Keep it up, we love the product. I don't send you guys 20+ bucks a month out of the kindness of my heart :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now, there are a lot of other things that can monkey with these rules, and I am not sure I have the time here today to go into all of them (natural attacks alone screw all of this up).
Yeah, and that's my one minor beef with the ruling itself. If it were a balance issue (As SKR said, 1st level characters should never get more than 2x Str from any combination of their attacks), then why are there so many ways to get 3x or more Str at first level, and a whole ton of them before 6th (the sort of cut-off point he was talking about)?
Because obviously those don't break the game, so why would allowing manufactured weapons to do something similar be gamebreaking?
It just bugs me. =/
|
|
There aren't ways to get 3x strength that don't come with using weapons with really low damage output in builds that have to spread points out to other areas.
Your dragon style example gets to 2.5 and requires a 15 dex and all of your first level feats in a class that also needs wisdom.
EDIT: With a 1d6, low crit weapon. At 0 BaB.
Or you can go fighter and get the +1 BaB, but have 1d4 and using another feat on double slice...
|
Lead Designer
|
Now, there are a lot of other things that can monkey with these rules, and I am not sure I have the time here today to go into all of them (natural attacks alone screw all of this up).Yeah, and that's my one minor beef with the ruling itself. If it were a balance issue (As SKR said, 1st level characters should never get more than 2x Str from any combination of their attacks), then why are there so many ways to get 3x or more Str at first level, and a whole ton of them before 6th (the sort of cut-off point he was talking about)?
Because obviously those don't break the game, so why would allowing manufactured weapons to do something similar be gamebreaking?
It just bugs me. =/
There are, admittedly, various options and possibilities in the game that allow you to circumvent the overall power guidelines. When we put those in, they are an intentional part of the design. This issue is different. It is a piece of the rules with some mildly unclear language that we are attempting to clean up. Its not that this would "break" the game per se. Its that this is unclear and could be viewed as going either way (with some creative interpretation), so we cleaned it up. We expect people to try and get the most out of their characters. Thats fine, we encourage it. But we have to try and keep things clear. Its not easy, but it comes with the job.
Jason
Ok, I said this before, but am going to try it again...
There are no "hidden rules" or "secret rules" or anything like that.You can say whatever you like, but it doesn't make you correct. SKR, in one of his replies, said that there ARE hidden rules, and directly implied that the crux of the ruling being discussed here relies on them. Are you saying he's lying?
And if they aren't hidden, or secret, show me them in print, because if they aren't visible, if I can't read them anywhere, then what do you call that, if not hidden?
Now, I'm not saying that all unwritten rules need be written. As I put forth in an earlier comment, there are many unwritten rules that don't need to be written, because they are obvious, such as being unable to take actions when you're dead. We aren't discussing an obvious unwritten rule here. Anyone who claims it WAS obvious, either does so because they didn't understand the rules they were working with in the first place, felt uncomfortable about the MULTITUDE of published (written) options that break this unwritten rule and now feel justified in Paizo's supporting their discomfort, or are experiencing a bout of double-think.
Paizo, like every game company around, has basic tenets that guide the rules they make. Some are for game balance, some are for coolness factor, some are due to a legacy of how things have been done.This bears almost zero relevance to the case at hand. Unwritten tenets like the ones you refer to work because they are consistent, or implied, or draw upon common sense (or common experience of the human condition and the physical world: ie., are seated firmly in a universal reality, like the bit about not acting while dead).
BECAUSE THE RULES AS WRITTEN GOVERN THIS ACTIONS CLEARLY AND EXPLICITLY. These aren't basic, unwritten tenets that guide their decisions...these are WRITTEN rules. And this is the problem with...
Why do you roll a 20 sider to hit? Why not a d6. Why not a marble?
You are not understanding my post. My point is that the basic tenets that a game company has for making new rules or clarifying old rules are not "secret rules". They are the product of thousands of hours of creating and developing the game. If you want a rulebook that explains the ratioal behind every rule, the rulebook would be impossibly large and unwieldy. The FAQ clearly clarified the intent of the origional rule. You now have a written rule. But you don't want a written rule. You seem to want a written rationale behind the rule. Jason gave you a written rationale behind the ruling, but you still are complaining about secret rules. Maybe SKR used the phrase "hidden rules", but I believe that was just an unfortunate choice of words. As far as comparisons and straw man arguments, let me give you another analogy. I play chess. The rules say that a pawn can only move one space forward, except it can move two spaces on it's first move. Now, I could have one of three reactions to this rule. 1. I could accept the rule and play the way it is intended. 2. I could change the rule (except in competitions) as long as the person I played against understood and agreed with the change. Or 3. I could go hunting for the "secret rules" behind why this rule was put in place because the rule doesn't make sense to me. So, I guess my question for you and the others who are worried about "secret rules" is why does it bother you that a game company that puts out a product you are obviously passionate about does not explain the rules behind the rules? Especially in a game in which YOU CAN CHANGE THE RULES WHENEVER YOU WANT.
Sorry about the all-caps, but no one seems to remember that very important (and written down) rule.
You can say whatever you like, but it doesn't make you correct. SKR, in one of his replies, said that there ARE hidden rules, and directly implied that the crux of the ruling being discussed here relies on them. Are you saying he's lying?
No, actually, he didn't. What he said was:
• A 1st-level standard-race PC can either make one melee attack without TWF or you can make two melee attacks with TWF.
• The most damage you can do without TWF is using a 1H or 2H weapon in two hands for x1.5 Str damage, and the most damage you can do with TWF is x1 in the main hand and x.5 in the off-hand (for a total of x1.5 Str added to your weapons), so optimally you're getting no more that x1.5 Str no matter which attack mode you choose.
• While the game doesn't explicitly limit your attacks to "hands," that's the basic assumption, and you shouldn't be able to pile on additional attacks per round just because you can think up additional or alternative body parts to attack with.
• Because if one character uses 2H weapon and is NOT allowed to make an additional attack with armor spikes or a metal gauntlet because his hands are occupied by his 2H weapon, and a different character uses a 2H weapon and IS allowed to make an additional attack with a metal boot because he's not using his hand, that second character is gaining a game mechanics advantage simply by changing the flavorful description of his extra attack's origin from, and that is not good game design.
There is a hard (but not-explicity-stated-in-the-rules) limit to what a standard-race PC should be able to do in one round of combat. Even though it's not stated in the rules, it is a real limit (in the same way that there's no printed rule that says "don't make a first-tier feat that gives more than +3 to one skill for a 1st-level character," or "don't make a first-tier feat that gives more than a +1 to attack rolls with one type of weapon," but it's still a rule we follow), and you shouldn't be allowed to break that limit.
Which, if you then go on to read the rest of the discussion, he makes it clear that this isn't a "hidden" rule, it's a rule that's implied by a combination of other portions of the rules text.
A "hidden rule" would be something like, "Anyone named Bill automatically gets a 20th level character," since a person reading the text could not normally take away that such a rule is directly stated or implied by any combination of the rules.
Now, you do have a valid argument that the implication is not clear enough.
But because there have been numerous people chiming in on the various threads that this is the way that they've always run it at their tables, then to claim that it's completely not implied is disingenuous; it just means that they read unclear text differently than you did, and happened to come away with the answer the designers implied.
And as to the examples that seem to 'break' this ruling, I will point out that 'specific trumps general' doesn't apply only when it's convenient.
|
|
@Crash_00 and Rynjin - And that also forgets that the fighter doesn't have to start TWF Armor spikes. Later, when his equipment raises his dex to levels where he can get the feats (remember fighters can retrain) he can do both with basically no trade off.
You start off with a fighter with a 13 dex, one +2 item gets you to 15 and a +4 item gets you to 17, and finally the +6 item gets you to +19.
And I never invested anything but gold and 3 of by ability points in point buy.
By the way, SKR didn't use the phrase hidden rules, or secret rules. He said it wasn't explicitly stated. The "hidden rules" and "secret rules" language came from people who didn't like the ruling.
So, this thread exploded hard.
Am I correct in assuming that a ruling has been handed down that has barred using Two Weapon Fighting to do anything other than use two one-handed or light weapons (1 weapon in each hand)?
I'd like to see the actual FAQ, but theres so much crap in here it's a little hard to wade through.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just to chime in a bit, this was something (like all FAQ questions) that the entire Design Team has input on, deliberates on, and then makes a ruling on.
Some days I think we should make podcasts of FAQ and rules discussions. I think you would all be entertained. We argue, we laugh, we cry, we rant, we rage, we swear (okay...usually it is me swearing) and by the end we make decisions that we feel are best for the game as a whole.
We are all in total agreement when it comes this ruling.