| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
are you "using" your hands to "have a free hand"?
wasn't it ruled that 2WF with UAS as off-hand qualifies as having a "free hand"? (e.g. dervish dance/ duelist)
Yes, blackblood, using your hands is what prevents the weapon from being used. Even though the unarmed strikes that you two weapon fight with aren't actually your physical hands (which are holding the longspear), they count as hands for the purpose of attacking. Since you've used your hands, you can't use them at the same time with the longspear.
It's like this.
You have $20 in the bank.
You can buy something online with your debit card for $20.
You can pull $20 cash out and buy something with $20 of physical cash.
You can't do both, because you only have $20.
Actually, yes you can. Because of the delays between debit and credit sides of a debit card. I've actually overdrawn my account accidently when my wife took $40 out of an ATM, and I bought lunch with the card as a credit card ($50) when we only had $60 in the bank.
|
When are Primary Hand and Off Hand referring to your physical hands?A nice place to see exactly this would be in bestiary's multiweapon fighting, but honestly in all instances you can read them as referring to physical hands.
Now do you have to be a bit silly when you come to something like armor spikes? Certainly, but let's face it.. they are a silly weapon.
-James
There is still nothing, that states you need a free physical hand, to attack, with a non-hand weapon.
Actually, as long as one is clear in _never_ interpreting hands as physical hands when it comes to weapons it makes sense.
So for the barbazu beard, the relevant portion is this:
Description: A barbazu beard can be used as an off-hand weapon that requires no hands to use; thus, a warrior could combine use of a barbazu beared with a two-handed weapon.
That's the exception - not that it can TWF with a two-handed weapon directly, but that it doesn't require any hands to wield. Armor spikes does not say they don't require any hands.
It's counterintuitive, but if we simply replace any instance of "hand" with "wield" or "wield point" (if main hand/off hand is just a mechanical construct this should make no difference) in our head (and "two-handed" with "two-wielded") the rules become very consistent.
The weapon wielding rules would say:
Light, One-Wielded, and Two-Wielded Melee WeaponsThis designation is a measure of how much effort it takes to wield a weapon in combat. It indicates whether a melee weapon, when wielded by a character of the weapon's size category, is considered a light weapon, a one-wielded weapon, or a two-wielded weapon.
Light: A light weapon is used with one wield. It is easier to use in one's off-wield than a one-wielded weapon is, and can be used while grappling (see Combat). Add the wielder's Strength modifier to damage rolls for melee attacks with a light weapon if it's used in the primary wield, or half the wielder's Strength bonus if it's used in the off-wield. Using two wields to wield a light weapon gives no advantage on damage; the Strength bonus applies as though the weapon were held in the wielder's primary wield only. An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon.
One-Handed: A one-wielded weapon can be used in either the primary wield or the off wield. Add the wielder's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with a one-wielded weapon if it's used in the primary wield, or 1/2 his Strength bonus if it's used in the off wield. If a one-wielded weapon is wielded with both wields during melee combat, add 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls.
Two-Handed: Two wields are required to use a two-wielded melee weapon effectively. Apply 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon (see FAQ at right for more information.)
Two-weapon fighting rules would say:
If you wield a second weapon in your off-wield, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary wield and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off wield when you fight this way.
Armor spikes would say:
You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-wield 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-wield weapon, and vice versa.)
And the barbazu beard would say:
Description: A barbazu beard can be used as an off-wield weapon that requires no wield to use; thus, a warrior could combine use of a barbazu beared with a two-wielded weapon.
I realize this is changing the rules as written, but if hands are really a mechanical construct changing a single word shouldn't make much of a difference - yet the rules after the change feel much more consise and understandable.
Of course, what is not included in the rules (nor the RAW) itself, is how many hands or wields each character has. Nothing says elves don't have 8 arms, except art, and art is a poor rules mechanic!
^Agreed.
Of course, we didn't know about the unwritten rules. How could we?
Because the desired end result, here referred to as the unwritten rule, was stated in late 2011 and the link was given to you on page 4 of this thread.
| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
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.
If I'm a monk wielding a two-handed reach weapon, can I attack with the reach weapon when an enemy approaches as an attack of opportunity, then attack with my unarmed strikes (while still holding the reach weapon) on my turn? Would your answer differ if the order of attacks changed at all?
Pole-arm-wielding monks seem like a common build to me and I want to know how this ruling/clarification might effect them.
EDIT: Or is this ruling ONLY meant to effect those who are two-weapon fighting as Crash 00 states below?
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Ravingdork: I _think_ you can. The FAQ only applies to using two-weapon fighting, not regular attacks.
|
Because the desired end result, here referred to as the unwritten rule, was stated in late 2011 and the link was given to you on page 4 of this thread.
Of course, we didn't know about the unwritten rules. How could we?
Private correspondence with Mark Moreland re: how stuff works in PFS is not 'obvious' to those players whose knowledge of the rules is gained by...reading the rules.
It cannot be the assumption that reading the rules isn't enough, and that to really know the rules you have to have a private line to a Pathfinder developer.
This 'hard cap' of 1.5 x Str mod is not written in the rules. By SKR's own admission, this is not written down in the rules. These are developer guidelines.
Simply adding up the Str bonus to damage and getting 1.5 doesn't result in 1.5 being an actual rule! Especially when this alleged hard cap is broken so frequently in the written rules that it's invisible!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PRD is missing a lot of material.
This is because not all is Open Content.
False. With a handful of exceptions, all rules content Paizo publishes is Open content.
However, the PRD only has the game content from the hardcover core rulebooks, as we don't have enough staff to add every single book we publish to the PRD.
Even if it's not on the PRD, a book's declaration of Open content (on the title page) tells you it's Open.
If that content wasn't Open, sites like d20pfsrd.com wouldn't be able to have all of that content online.
I was wondering how d20pfsrd got away with that. Now, about my above questions...
|
It violates the basic idea of 2 weapon and comes off as cheese. why do people feel the need to see how far they can push things? One handed and light weapons are the clear intent so why keep looking for more? Is the next step going to be "can i weapon cord 2 greatswords and make an attack then dropit and attack with the other as TWF?"
ooh thats a good idea! Im gonna use that! XD
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is that deliberately parodying Sean by using the FAQ itself to rationalize 3 iterative attacks? ;-)
Rather than change the words define the meaning like -
"All melee weapons have a light/ one-handed/ two-handed weapon descriptor. For any circumstances not specifically mentioned in the item's description it should be counted as a weapon of that type."
Put it just above the descriptors themselves and then put a couple of examples in the usual style i.e. Fred the fighter has a Great sword and armour spikes etc
@Ravingdork in the example you quote I don't see a problem. An AoO and main attacks are different. If you are TWF the penalty doesn't count against AoOs only against your normal attacks, similarly if you are using a double weapon you can take the AoO 2H with one end even if you have been TWF for your main attacks.
Dear Pathfinder Design Team,
Is it a legal Two-Weapon Fighting combination to use a longsword in two hands (to get 1.5 x Str bonus to damage) as my main weapon, and a spiked gauntlet as my off-hand weapon?
I understand that there has been an FAQ answer that already says "No", but I look at it this way...
I have an 11th level fighter with TWF, ITWF and GTWF. He has two hands. Left and right are never mentioned, so we will call them Hand 1 and Hand 2. I put a glove of storing on each of his hands.
So this fighter has a greatsword. He declares he is two-weapon fighting and attacks with his primary attack at +9, +4 and -1, declaring that his Hand 1 is his primary hand. Then, as a free action he pulls his greatsword into his Hand 1 glove. He then pulls his second greatsword from his Hand 2 glove into his off hand. Hand 1 is free, so he puts it on the greatsword because a two-handed weapon requires "both hands". He then proceeds to attack with his second greatsword at +9, +4 and -1 as his off-hand attacks.
So, that works. Right? Except that the FAQ says "No"?
Now, all devs, and those of understanding, note that the classification of "primary/off-hand" does not equate to actual, physical hands.
So, what about the attack with a weapon wielded in two hands, eats up the off-hand attack?
Is it damage?
Is it effort?
It's a purely mechanical restriction, like "you can only make one attack of opportunity per round" or "you can only have max skill ranks equal to your level". It really has no real motivation beyond game balance. It's a game, and not everything has to be explained beyond that's the way the rules work. Not that I think it'd be imbalanced, and I'd prefer if they'd ruled the other way, but that's how it is.
|
|
Dear Pathfinder Design Team,
Is it a legal Two-Weapon Fighting combination to use a longsword in two hands (to get 1.5 x Str bonus to damage) as my main weapon, and a spiked gauntlet as my off-hand weapon?
I understand that there has been an FAQ answer that already says "No", but I look at it this way...
I have an 11th level fighter with TWF, ITWF and GTWF. He has two hands. Left and right are never mentioned, so we will call them Hand 1 and Hand 2. I put a glove of storing on each of his hands.
So this fighter has a greatsword. He declares he is two-weapon fighting and attacks with his primary attack at +9, +4 and -1, declaring that his Hand 1 is his primary hand. Then, as a free action he pulls his greatsword into his Hand 1 glove. He then pulls his second greatsword from his Hand 2 glove into his off hand. Hand 1 is free, so he puts it on the greatsword because a two-handed weapon requires "both hands". He then proceeds to attack with his second greatsword at +9, +4 and -1 as his off-hand attacks.
So, that works. Right? Except that the FAQ says "No"?
Yes. Bear in mind that, since you designated one greatsword as your off hand weapon for that full attack, you only get 0.5 x Str bonus to damage with it no matter how many hands you use, and all your attacks have a -4 penalty because you off hand weapon is not 'light'.
While acknowledging that higher level characters are capable of doing all sorts of things to get around the 'hard cap' of 1.5 x Str, SKR's point was that first level characters shouldn't be able to get round the cap for no cost.
Twenty grand worth of gloves is, in fact, a cost. Also, if your first level characters have so much money that they are willing and able to spend twenty grand just on gloves, 'hands' isn't the problem with your campaign!
|
|
It's a purely mechanical restriction, like "you can only make one attack of opportunity per round" or "you can only have max skill ranks equal to your level". It really has no real motivation beyond game balance. It's a game, and not everything has to be explained beyond that's the way the rules work. Not that I think it'd be imbalanced, and I'd prefer if they'd ruled the other way, but that's how it is.Now, all devs, and those of understanding, note that the classification of "primary/off-hand" does not equate to actual, physical hands.
So, what about the attack with a weapon wielded in two hands, eats up the off-hand attack?
Is it damage?
Is it effort?
Exactly.
They're not saying anything about hands. Just imagine that the TWF rules include a line that says 'You can't use a weapon in two hands in the same full attack as TWF'.
The current FAQ precludes making an off-hand 2WF attack with Armor Spikes or Gauntlet while making a mainhand 2WF attack with a 2H weapon. It doesn't say anything that prevets using the same weapons in reverse, with the 2H weapon as the off-hand attack (at only 0.5 STR, and with nasty attack penalties). It also doesn't say anything about UAS combos or anything else. It really needs to be adjusted to something like you wrote:
"Imagine the 2H weapon rules said "You can't make 2WF main-hand attacks with a weapon wielded in 2 hands"."
(That isn't any longer than the current FAQ or any more difficult to write)
...so that the interaction of the ruling with RAW is CRYSTAL CLEAR. Such a FAQ really no longer belongs in the 'Gear' section of the FAQ, but in the Combat section, re: 2WF or 2H wielding. EDIT: It could also state something along the lines of the rule that prevents using a limb for both natural weapons and iteratives, that 2WF main-hand attacks cannot use the same limbs as the off-hand, just as they (already, per RAW) must be different weapons, not the same weapon.
A BUNCH of ancilliary questions have been posted (Shield bonuses, simultaneous threatening with 2H wpn/Armor Spikes for AoOs, etc) and have yet to be answered. I'm not sure if all of them need to be individually answered if they can just adjust the FAQ to be a crystal-clear revision to the RAW. Although since some posters in these threads apparently thought those implications were justified by the RAW itself (although some poster's definition of that seems nebulous), they could still justify issuing distinct rulings for.
Dear Pathfinder Design Team,
Is it a legal Two-Weapon Fighting combination to use a longsword in two hands (to get 1.5 x Str bonus to damage) as my main weapon, and a spiked gauntlet as my off-hand weapon?
I understand that there has been an FAQ answer that already says "No", but I look at it this way...
I have an 11th level fighter with TWF, ITWF and GTWF. He has two hands. Left and right are never mentioned, so we will call them Hand 1 and Hand 2. I put a glove of storing on each of his hands.
So this fighter has a greatsword. He declares he is two-weapon fighting and attacks with his primary attack at +9, +4 and -1, declaring that his Hand 1 is his primary hand. Then, as a free action he pulls his greatsword into his Hand 1 glove. He then pulls his second greatsword from his Hand 2 glove into his off hand. Hand 1 is free, so he puts it on the greatsword because a two-handed weapon requires "both hands". He then proceeds to attack with his second greatsword at +9, +4 and -1 as his off-hand attacks.
So, that works. Right? Except that the FAQ says "No"?
Yes. Bear in mind that, since you designated one greatsword as your off hand weapon for that full attack, you only get 0.5 x Str bonus to damage with it no matter how many hands you use, and all your attacks have a -4 penalty because you off hand weapon is not 'light'.
While acknowledging that higher level characters are capable of doing all sorts of things to get around the 'hard cap' of 1.5 x Str, SKR's point was that first level characters shouldn't be able to get round the cap for no cost.
Twenty grand worth of gloves is, in fact, a cost. Also, if your first level characters have so much money that they are willing and able to spend twenty grand just on gloves, 'hands' isn't the problem with your campaign!
Good catch on the -4 instead of -2. You are right, your off hand is not light so it would be -4.
At first level the same character just buys two greatswords and takes the Quick Draw feat (he can swap it out after he gets his gloves). So first level he attacks with greatsword at -3 with his main hand. Drops it and quick draws his second greatsword and attacks at -3 with his off hand. He has to drop the first sword and draw the second to attack because he isn't quick enough to just attack with the same sword twice.
|
|
Well, if an attack with a weapon using two hands eats up a potential off-hand attack, then how does it do that?
Hands themselves cannot be the answer, as "primary/off-hand" are not equated to actual hands.
If one has multiple potential off-hand attacks, say through feats like Improved Two Weapon Fighting, then combining a two handed weapon attack with two weapon fighting, should still be possible, if the correct amount of off-hand attacks were sacrificed.
Unless, somehow, one two handed weapon attack eats up all potential off-hand attacks, but then, why does that happen?
If you are granted extra attacks, like through the Haste spell, could that attack be made with a two handed weapon attack, even if the rest were not so, and you were two weapon fighting?
|
|
The OP in this case wants his cake and he wants to eat it too. He wants to have the two handed damage bonus for his longsword and still get the off hand attack with his spiked gloves. The essential trade off in this game has always been either using a weapon with both hands for more damage, or using two things in two hands, whether it be two weapons, a weapon and a shield, or a weapon and a wand, ad nauseum.I can certainly understand the dislike of someone trying to get something for nothing, and my 2H/off-hand idea obviously seems that way to some.
But there is a price to pay. The spiked gauntlet does 1d4 damage with a crit of 20/x2. You'd have to actually try to get a worse off-hand light weapon.
A kukri does the same 1d4 damage, but has a crit range of 18-20, well worth keen or Improved Critical to make it 15-20; almost 1 in 3 attacks a crit threat!
A light pick does the same 1d4 but a crit multiplier of x4. Also worth increasing the crit range to 19-20.
A dagger can be thrown.
The classic off-hand weapon, the short sword, does more damage and has a better crit range.
What you gain on the swings you lose on the roundabouts. So I do slightly more damage with my 'main' weapon. I do slightly less, all told, with my off-hand weapon.
Not something for nothing.
My case is even worse,
I have a Barbarian who fights with a Nodachi and, at 13º level, bought improved two weapon fighting to make unarmed strikes when using the nodachi. That is: -2 to all her nodachi attacks to make 1d3+2 extra damage (her strength is 20, raging). Is that worth? For the coolness to impersonate actual real life two handed medieval style, yes! But mechanically? lauguable, why i didn't get cleave, great cleave or cleaving finis? why stick wif TWF and UIS at 13º level!? For sheer coolness, not for gain, but for fun.
Alas, i am convinced that using TWG + the loathed armor spikes at level 1 may be a bit stressfull, because, cleary, this style is better than longsword + shortsword. But i like rullings that make things goes up, not goes down. Why not make longsword+shortsword more appeling? Why prohibit TWG + TWF?
On note: I hate armor spikes, except for grappling. None of my characters had armor spikes and i find them ridiculous. But i love unarmed strikes and the combinations of unarmed strikes and swordplay that was so common in our history, but so alien in pathfinder.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What was the reason for the 'no' to armour spikes?Because the game has an unwritten rule which essentially states the following:
• A 1st-level standard-race PC can either make one melee attack without TWF or you can make two melee attacks with TWF.
So.. any standard race monk goes against this bullet point when flurrying.
A draconic or abyssal lineage sorcerer of any standard race is bending rules when he uses claws?
Im assuming standard races with standard traits, so i will not mention the toothy half-orc.
• 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.
Flurrying monk do str x2 without TWF - draconic/abyssal sorceres do str x2 without TWF - Toothed half orcs, beaked tengus, bittings barbarians, clawed barbarians and kitsune do 2x str damage without TWF. Double Sliced TWFighters do 2x damage.
• 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.
A always assumed up to two attacks with up to two different weapons (not counting iterative attacks at BaB +6, and Improved TWF).
• 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.
Pretty, but Magus cast quickened spells at level 1, pretty much more than a additional 1d6 damage +1/2 str. They spend a feat to have the same to hit range of the fighter, with the bonus of magical attacks, +1 damage and a quickened spell - at level 1. This hard limit was way bended at this class with just one example i could think of, using only that class features and, maybe, one feat (Arcane Strike).
I understand the urge to impend the ridiculousness of the armors spike/blade gauntlet/boot whatever abuse, but i think this FAQ was not the answer.
How does this new ruling/clarification impact juggling pistoleer builds?
|
|
Ah, reading a few more lines i realize some things, first: monks are apart from this FAQ, they can bend rules, so they can us flurry with a Temple Sword (str x3 at level 1).
Also i realize that the problem is that, buying only one feat (TWF) you would have a slight advantage doing THW + TWF against the more traditional longsword+ shortsword style (a net of +1 damage).
But then, doing x2 str damage with TWF is justified because the spend of a feat (Double Slice).
Thoughts: I have spent a feat (Improved Two Weapon fightinig, in the case) to do TWF + THW, so i'm in the same logic of the Double Slice/TWFighter, but, because one sloppy weapon (armor spikes) i'm to be prejudiced?
Then again, i could take Double Slice too, and, at the cost of two feats, have str x2,5 Int the case of the armor spikes users it would cost only one feat.
Verdict: Although being a major overall of the rules, as they were understood, the FAQ makes sense. But were given too hasty and to late, many classical builds must be reviewed, as was already noted. It was like burning the house to get rid of a spider problem. But it solved the problem anyways (and you can reform the house).
About my character: I will Retrain Improved unarmed strike, and get Extra Rage Power (Animal Fury) and re-texture the bite attack with a nice punch or kick, and retrain two weapon fighting to have cleaving finish and pretend that is the extra attack. My character will be in the rules, nice and easy, and WAY better than it was. But not as i wanted her to be :(
Pistols are two handed now?
There's an implication that if your hands are too busy loading and firing one gun, then they can't do the same with another.