|
You CAN'T use the 3.5 FAQ or any other 3.5 rules for Pathfinder, they are not the same game. You can't use 4.0 or AD&D or Rolemaster or Hero System or any other rules systems rules to determine what the Pathfinder rules are.
Unlike AD&D, 4th ed, Hero System or Rolemaster, 3.5 is Pathfinder....except where it's been changed! Remember 'backwards compatibility'? A deliberate design goal of PF.
Although PF has changed several things from 3.5, the rules for TWF haven't changed. The rules for the three weapon categories haven't changed. The rules for armour spikes and spiked gauntlets haven't changed. Therefore, the logical conclusions about how 2H weapons and armour spikes interact with TWF haven't changed.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unlike AD&D, 4th ed, Hero System or Rolemaster, 3.5 is Pathfinder....except where it's been changed! Remember 'backwards compatibility'? A deliberate design goal of PF.
Although PF has changed several things from 3.5, the rules for TWF haven't changed. The rules for the three weapon categories haven't changed. The rules for armour spikes and spiked gauntlets haven't changed. Therefore, the logical conclusions about how 2H weapons and armour spikes interact with TWF haven't changed.
Exactly! That's why we know you can't one-hand a bastard sword without the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat.
|
|
Exactly! That's why we know you can't one-hand a bastard sword without the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat.Unlike AD&D, 4th ed, Hero System or Rolemaster, 3.5 is Pathfinder....except where it's been changed! Remember 'backwards compatibility'? A deliberate design goal of PF.
Although PF has changed several things from 3.5, the rules for TWF haven't changed. The rules for the three weapon categories haven't changed. The rules for armour spikes and spiked gauntlets haven't changed. Therefore, the logical conclusions about how 2H weapons and armour spikes interact with TWF haven't changed.
I don't want to derail the TWF thread with the particular can of worms which is the bastard sword, but as I pointed out in those threads, the relevant 3.5 FAQ would require an errata to make the words match that intent. Without an errata (which never came) the words mean the opposite of that intent.
No such confusion surrounded the 3.5 TWF FAQ. The questioner just wanted to get his head around how the rules as written worked with regard to 2H/armour spikes, and the answer given was simply a result of applying the written rules.
And those rules have not changed. The 3.5 FAQ isn't the source of those rules, they simply inform the enquirer how those rules apply to that weapon combo.
|
|
I don't want to derail the TWF thread with the particular can of worms which is the bastard sword, but as I pointed out in those threads, the relevant 3.5 FAQ backpedal backpedal backpedal backpedal backpedal...
There never has been a need, nor will there ever be a need, to "errata" anything. Either the 3.5 FAQ is a valid source to help us interpret the rules (as you assert in this thread), or it isn't (as you assert in the other thread due to some strained notion of what you think the printed rules mean).
Agreed with HangarFlying; it's preferable to have a consistant notion of how relevant the 3.5 rules and/or FAQ (one may put different weight to those as the PF devs may not have read the FAQ as precisely as the rules), and only avert from this notion when there is a clear and large difference.
Cool personal attack man.
Where's the personal attack? Criticizing inconsistent debate tactics isn't a personal attack, if that's what you're referring to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unrelated subject is unrelated.
The subject matter may be unrelated (to a degree), but the question is in regards to debate tactics and where we may look to for support.
If a person directs attention to a particular source which that same person has decried in a previous but completely analogous situation, it undercuts that person's reliance on said source in the present instance (as well as undercutting their criticism of it in the former instance).
So it's relevant to the persuasiveness of the argument being made.
Unrelated subject is unrelated.The subject matter may be unrelated (to a degree), but the question is in regards to debate tactics and where we may look to for support.
If a person directs attention to a particular source which that same person has decried in a previous but completely analogous situation, it undercuts that person's reliance on said source in the present instance (as well as undercutting their criticism of it in the former instance).
So it's relevant to the persuasiveness of the argument being made.
and its happened more than once
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I had a quick scan to see if this had come up in the thread but didn't find it and so
Here´s what I found:
Armor spikes are treated as light weapons for the purpose of threatening adjacent squares. Light weapons require the use of limbs, so you would only be able to make attacks with them if you have a free hand. Thus, wielding a two-handed reach weapon would negate your ability to "wield" (and thus threaten with) armor spikes. This isn't necessarily clear in the rules, but I just discussed it with Jason, and we're both on the same page about the intent.
Jason Bulmahn later followed that up (after much b+@!&ing in the thread) with:
Hey there Everybody,Alright everybody. Lets just take it down a notch. I got a few quick points.
- We are currently looking into the whole armor spike/misc non-hand weapons and how they threaten. This was a slightly bigger issue than I first thought when I gave an off the cuff opinion.
- The thing to remember here, that I want to stress, is that generally speaking, the only places where a PFS judge is required to follow rulings is the rulebooks, updates, FAQ posts, and PFS rules documents. Everything else is left to judge discretion at the table. There is no way around this. We cannot ask our judges to be familiar with every ruling or thought from every messageboard post, even if it comes from a staff member.
- For you home game, you don't even have to pay attention to the above sources. Its your game after all.
I hope to get a FAQ on this issue soon.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
That's from 2011 and I don't see a FAQ on it? I also note that many of the same faces appear in each thread that touches upon this.
So I'll take the same view as Jason and Mark (which is easy as I agree with it) and until a definitive FAQ appears that's how I'll play it, when I GM. I won't spend long arguing the toss about it when a player, as it causes bad blood.Been an informative thread though and most entertaining.
That's a good find CountofUndolpho. It leads to some very weird results, but a good find none the less.
I withdraw my stance on intent; I'm not sure how to gauge things now.
Do you know I just went and looked in my First ed Players Handbook to check if it had anything in about this...it doesn't. I jumped 3 and only did a couple of campaigns of 3.5 and these rules never came up so thanks for the refresher.You'd find that in the DMG rather than the PHB in 1st edition.
Also there was a dragon article that expanded two weapon fighting if I recall correctly... but it's been ages.
-James
A very long time, 36 years of D&D. I can remember getting the PHB (from the US) first and trying to make it work with basic...nightmare! PF is so much better - simpler and more fun, yet retaining the variety and depth of D&D. I think that's the most important thing when looking at the rules - are you making it simpler and more fun to play or complicating it for a minor advantage.
|
|
I think that's the most important thing when looking at the rules - are you making it simpler and more fun to play or complicating it for a minor advantage.
While I agree with this, it has to be said that mileage varies as to what is simple and what is complex.
To some, A leads to B leads to C leads to D...as easy as dominos falling. To others, it's not so easy, becoming 'too complicated', and therefore 'not fun'.
Until Ilja linked to it, I was completely unaware of that 3.5 FAQ. And yet, I had read and understood the game rules on weapon categories, actions in combat, using a weapon in one or two hands, two-weapon fighting and the descriptions of both the spiked gauntlet and armour spikes (all of these rules being identical in 3.5 and Pathfinder), and understood what the rules consequences are for how these rules interact when TWFing with greatsword and armour spikes.
And when I read that FAQ, it reached the exact same conclusion, from the exact same rules.
If A+B+C=7, then as long as the values of A, B and C remain unchanged, and as long as the rules of addition remain unchanged, then the answer will always be 7, no matter where the equation is placed.
If the rules on weapon category, using a weapon in one or two hands, actions in combat, TWF, and the description of armour spikes remain unchanged, then their interaction will result as described in the FAQ, whether you read the FAQ or not (since it doesn't set or change any rules, just describe the result), and whether or not these rules appear in the 3.5 PHB or the PFCRB.
I think that's the most important thing when looking at the rules - are you making it simpler and more fun to play or complicating it for a minor advantage.While I agree with this, it has to be said that mileage varies as to what is simple and what is complex.
To some, A leads to B leads to C leads to D...as easy as dominos falling. To others, it's not so easy, becoming 'too complicated', and therefore 'not fun'.
Until Ilja linked to it, I was completely unaware of that 3.5 FAQ. And yet, I had read and understood the game rules on weapon categories, actions in combat, using a weapon in one or two hands, two-weapon fighting and the descriptions of both the spiked gauntlet and armour spikes (all of these rules being identical in 3.5 and Pathfinder), and understood what the rules consequences are for how these rules interact when TWFing with greatsword and armour spikes.
And when I read that FAQ, it reached the exact same conclusion, from the exact same rules.
If A+B+C=7, then as long as the values of A, B and C remain unchanged, and as long as the rules of addition remain unchanged, then the answer will always be 7, no matter where the equation is placed.
If the rules on weapon category, using a weapon in one or two hands, actions in combat, TWF, and the description of armour spikes remain unchanged, then their interaction will result as described in the FAQ, whether you read the FAQ or not (since it doesn't set or change any rules, just describe the result), and whether or not these rules appear in the 3.5 PHB or the PFCRB.
That is a very complicated answer. You've been arguing for it to be legal for a couple of years now - why don't you just have it as legal in your games. You can always change your mind when the FAQ eventually appears.
Only a suggestion, I'm assuming he won't take it.
If you aren't careful endless debate merely serves to enforce dogma rather than enlighten.
Don't mind me I'm only jealous because I can't compete with your fine separation of concepts due to my mind being unhoned.
Though still entertained.
I think I'm more Win98 than NT.
I think I'm more Win98 than NT.What's Win98?
|
|
Windows 98.I think I'm more Win98 than NT.What's Win98?
Forgive me, but I barely know how to switch computers on (Oooohhh, you have to press control, alt and delete at the same time!), let alone being familiar with different programs.
Could you explain why Win98 is funny?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
10 pages in, I'm surprised the design team hasn't chimed in yet.
If one responds, it might be considered a ruling.
So, are you a OSX personality?
I am.
Windows 98.I think I'm more Win98 than NT.What's Win98?Forgive me, but I barely know how to switch computers on (Oooohhh, you have to press control, alt and delete at the same time!), let alone being familiar with different programs.
Could you explain why Win98 is funny?
I may be wrong on some things here and have tried to simplify it, sorry if the text is long but sometimes writing longer can make it more easy to understand. And this can be good to know if you ever need to call support or similar.
An "operating system", or "OS" for short, is the program that is the basic system determining how everything else should be interpreted - it's the link between the machine itself and all other programs you run. It's also what you use to control all the documents you have - you know, going through folders and similar? That's part of the operating system.
Think of it like a roleplaying game - the operating system is the game system itself, like D&D, Pathfinder or World of Darkness, while the adventures you play are the programs, and you, the group, is the machine that does the actual thinking. The operating system/Pathfinder rules system works as a link between the adventure text and your minds, to allow you to understand what is going on.
The program/adventure has to be compatible to your specific operating system/game system, because if you pick up a GURPS adventure when playing pathfinder the numbers won't make sense.
The most well-known for average users is "Windows" for PC's. There's two main other "brands" or "types", there is those made by Apple for macintosh computers, and a free (as in not private, think like the OGL just much more free) one called Linux.
Likewise, one can compare World of Darkness to OSX and other macintosh systems; it's heavy on style and flavor, tries to be simple for new users, and sacrifices a lot of customizability for it. It's really good for certain things it's designed for, but it can be hard to get to do anything else even remotely wel..
The last operating system, Linux, is kind of like GURPS; It's a bit nerdier, can be hard to get a grasp on if you don't know much about it, but those that understand it can create some truly marvelous stuff with it. The main difference between them is that while GURPS is a closed system and can't be reposted anywhere (compare to the d20 OGL), Linux is free to copy, edit and release as much as you want.
When you start your computer you can usually see the symbol and name of the operating system when it is loading. (this is how it looks for me, showing I use Windows (windows 7 more specifically, though that doesn't show there). It's like slapping the Dungeons & Dragons logo on the cover of each book.
But there are many different versions of each of those, just like there are different versions of D&D/Pathfinder, using different techniques. As time goes by the operating systems have evolved - you might have seen the difference if you bought a new computer that even if both had windows, the newer one looked better.
Windows has had versions, much like D&D/Pathfinder, using different structures. There are mainly 3 "eras" of windows operating systems, using different techniques, that while they are similar have different limitations.
- The first era lasted many years and was based upon a text-based operating system called DOS. It's major releases (I think) was windows 3.1, Windows 95 (released around 95) and Windows 98 (released around 98).
- The era before that was made up of Windows XP, Windows 2000, and Windows NT (and some other more minor releases). Windows NT that was mentioned upwards, meant "new technology" and was a major reworking of the system used before that. It was an enormously much safer system than the DOS-based one.
- The current "era" is windows 8/windows 7, which all new computers have (there might be a windows 9 now? I don't know...). I have windows 7, for example. It has a different basis than XP/NT/2000.
Compare this to the eras/editions of D&D; while Pathfinder, D&D 3.5 and D&D 3 all work on the same structure they are not the same version of the game. On the other hand, both 2e and 4e has quite different structural systems, much like the difference between Windows 98 (DOS-based) and Windows NT (NT-based).
So when they say they're a WinNT guy, I assume they mean they prefer the kind of system. The comment "That would make you a Guardian type... they like historical relics. " about liking Windows 98 is because in a way, Windows 98 is a historical relic - it's very old for a computer system, and it's based on a technology no longer in use. Meanwhile, while Windows NT itself isn't in use anymore, the system it uses is still in use in "quite old" computers (and in many parts of the world, they're more or less the standard).
Question answered (I think):
No.
I see no reason to think that a spiked gauntlet would be any different.
Why though?
Because PDT said so?
I'd guess it's the same logic that was applied to natural attacks and manufactured weapons in the same limb.
Official Rules Response
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
FAQ: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qv3
Armor Spikes: Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?
No.
Edit: Likewise, you couldn't use an armored gauntlet to do so, as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nope. By putting two hands on your 1H or 2H weapon, you're giving up any extra attacks you'd get if you were using a 1H weapon and using two-weapon fighting. Doesn't matter if you're trying to make punches, kicks, headbutts, knees, or whatever, the game is giving you a choice:
• fully commit to one attack with two hands for extra damage, or
• make an extra attack with TWF at the cost of not getting the extra damage from using two hands on one attack.
I don't even understand your question. The rules are what they are.
So, free hand to kick. Fun.
not quite... you could mix kicks with a 2H weapon, just with normal iteratives, not 2WF.
I don't really find the FAQ as-is adequately explaining the paradigm Sean just described, which goes way beyond armor spikes.
The FAQ should be 'can I use (gain the STR bonus of) a 2Handed weapon and also make 2WF attacks?'
This question also bears on how Double Weapons are used, per RAW there is nothing clear taking away the 2H STR bonus on main-hand.
As far as I can tell, armor spikes is NOT being associated with a limb in any way though.