|
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.
Same with crossbows? Hand crosbows? And what about hurling charge + THW? The Mwangi narbarian hurling charge with a spear and using another spear with his two hands to make the melee attack at the end of a charge is rule breaking (he does 2x str) but is still legal? or because he don't use TWF, unarmed strikes and penalties to attack (heck, he receives a bonus!) he is legal?
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"?
This doesn't work for the simple reason that you can only use one Glove of Storing.
Glove of Storing
Price 10,000 gp; Aura moderate transmutation; CL 6th; Weight—
This device is a single leather glove. On command, one item held in the hand wearing the glove disappears. The item can weigh no more than 20 pounds and must be able to be held in one hand. While stored, the item has negligible weight. With a snap of the fingers wearing the glove, the item reappears. A glove can only store one item at a time. Storing or retrieving the item is a free action. The item is shrunk down so small within the palm of the glove that it cannot be seen. Spell durations are not suppressed, but continue to expire. If the glove's effect is suppressed or dispelled, the stored item appears instantly. A glove of storing uses up the wearer's entire hands slot. The wearer may not use another item (even another glove of storing) that also uses the hands slot.
That is just not even implied.
I disagree that there is no implication.
The text clearly implies that your hands are only capable of one task at a time.
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"?
This doesn't work for the simple reason that you can only use one Glove of Storing.
...Glove of Storing
Price 10,000 gp; Aura moderate transmutation; CL 6th; Weight—
This device is a single leather glove. On command, one item held in the hand wearing the glove disappears. The item can weigh no more than 20 pounds and must be able to be held in one hand. While stored, the item has negligible weight. With a snap of the fingers wearing the glove, the item reappears. A glove can only store one item at a time. Storing or retrieving the item is a free action. The item is shrunk down so small within the palm of the glove that it cannot be seen. Spell durations are not suppressed, but continue to expire. If the glove's effect is suppressed or dispelled, the stored item appears instantly. A glove of storing uses up the wearer's entire hands slot.
That's a change from 3.5, isn't it? Don't know why they disallowed that then added weapon cords, which are even more ridiculous (and cheaper). Let's do that instead.
If you haven't caught on yet. I think the idea of dual wielding greatswords is... well... stupid.
Almost as stupid as loading and firing a flintlock pistol in one hand, then dropping it on a cord, pulling another pistol into your offhand, and loading and firing it with opposite hands.
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.
How does it do that? How does initiative rolls be based on a d20? Why does taking an AoO against someone casting eat up your AoO against someone moving past you? Because that's what the rule is.
You have two "hands" in combat, main and off. These are not necessarily physical hands. A two-handed weapon uses both hands. Hands work like resources in combat: You have two hands to designate in your round so to speak.
Test replacing the word "hands" with the word "glork". Then your question is:
"Well, if an attack with a weapon using two glorks eats up a potential off-glork attack, then how does it do that?"
that was addressing questions of penalties for using two different weapons with different hands only using iteratives.
It's somewhat long, but the main conclusion for this was that at BAB 6, a character wielding a longsword and mace could do the following in a full attack without using two-weapon fighting penalties:
(A) longsword at +6, longsword +1
(B) mace +6, mace +1
(C) longsword +6, mace +1
(D) mace +6, longsword +1I'm not sure if the sequence James proposed is valid or not (I think so based on the base attack bonus and haste attack, but I'm not sure of the text for all of the different weapons and this is all pre-caffeine), but that FAQ seems to support his example.
I know of that FAQ, but it concerns two one-handed weapons - and thus, if you are limited to two hand per attack action, this wouldn't change the answer to that question. The question is if you can use more weapons occupying more than two hands during a single full-attack. Had the example given by James been, say, Greatsword + Armor Spikes or Greatsword + Dagger or Longsword + Mace + quickdrawn dagger at the end, the FAQ would have been relevant, but I just don't see it now.
I am also not sure why you think one can make all those attacks in a single full-attack. I do not see how that is supported by the rules, has there been some dev comments or statblocks to that effect?This is why the entire rules section on this should be slated to be rewritten.. it is easy for it to be unclear to people, even those that frequent these boards.
One could, via quickdraw, attack and then drop a weapon with each and every attack and not be TWFing.
-James
I am not saying using more than one weapon for iteratives is two-weapon fighting. Clearly you can use iteratives to attack with a longsword and mace (as given in the FAQ) for example without TWF'ing. But I'm not seeing how it's so clear that you can use weapons occupying a total of more than two hands in a single full attack, TWF or not. I'm not saying you _cannot_, I'm not that sure, but I don't see how you can be so sure on it from the text in the book.
|
One problem I have with the new FAQ is this: I have two attacks and have a drawn greatsword in hand and I'm wearing spiked gauntlets.
Can I take one attack with the greatsword and the other attack with the spiked gauntlets?
Before the FAQ: Yes. You can use free actions to adjust your grip as required.
After the FAQ: It depends! Hasted? Yes, of course!
Monk? Yes, of course!
BAB +6? Yes, of course!
Two-Weapon Fighting? How dare you, you dirty cheater!
There is no in-game justification to render your hands unable to do this, nor is there a (written) rule saying you can't. But it is apparently so horrible that the devs are now going to re-write the rulebook specifically to stop it.
Before the FAQ: TWF with a Two handed weapon was illegal on at least as many tables as it was permitted at.
After the FAQ: You can still do this, you just have to houserule it.
By the way: "As required" is NOT the same as requiring a GM approved free action. You guys keep talking about free actions as if you get an unlimited number per round. The rules on free actions clearly state that you get as many as the GM deems reasonable.
Just a thought. Carry on.
-Weslocke of Phazdaliom-
|
|
You guys keep talking about free actions as if you get an unlimited number per round. The rules on free actions clearly state that you get as many as the GM deems reasonable.
Since this sequence only requires one free action, the DM would have to determine that one free action is too many!
Who'd play with a DM who's grasp of the rules is so tenuous that he sincerely believes that one free action is too many?
Who'd play with a DM who thinks that more than one free action is fine, but changes the rules for you to limit you to...none?
One problem I have with the new FAQ is this: I have two attacks and have a drawn greatsword in hand and I'm wearing spiked gauntlets.
Can I take one attack with the greatsword and the other attack with the spiked gauntlets?
Before the FAQ: Yes. You can use free actions to adjust your grip as required.
After the FAQ: It depends! Hasted? Yes, of course!
Monk? Yes, of course!
BAB +6? Yes, of course!
Two-Weapon Fighting? How dare you, you dirty cheater!
There is no in-game justification to render your hands unable to do this, nor is there a (written) rule saying you can't. But it is apparently so horrible that the devs are now going to re-write the rulebook specifically to stop it.
Not sure what you are getting at here Malachi.
If I am hasted (at BAB +5 or less) or have BAB +6, I get two attacks.
That might be two attacks with the greatsword, two attacks with the spiked gauntlet, or one from each.
If I add TWF into the mix I have now added a 3rd attack. The FAQ merely states that you cannot use a TH weapon (thereby getting the 1.5 damage bonus) and still get your 3rd attack.
You guys keep talking about free actions as if you get an unlimited number per round. The rules on free actions clearly state that you get as many as the GM deems reasonable.Since this sequence only requires one free action, the DM would have to determine that one free action is too many!
Who'd play with a DM who's grasp of the rules is so tenuous that he sincerely believes that one free action is too many?
Who'd play with a DM who thinks that more than one free action is fine, but changes the rules for you to limit you to...none?
I never said that I was referencing that specific sequence of actions. In fact I said, "guys" and "keep talking about" indicating that I was talking about several different posts. Not just yours, Malachi.
Wow, talk about thin skin. Step away from the computer and BREATHE.
|
|
So, we now just have it as a 1 for 1 trade, correct?
Every attack with a two handed weapon eats up a potential off-hand attack.
So, this means, that two weapon fighting with two handed weapons, is still possible, but you will need access to multiple off-hand attacks, to have enough to pull it off.
I can picture the following:
You use Unarmed Strike as your main-hand weapon and wield a Greatsword in your hands and declare it your off-hand weapon. We'll say, for the sake of example, you have up to ITWF (2 off-hand attacks). Your main-hand attacks with Unarmed Strike are, essentially, a non-issue; you can make as many as you want. But for your off-hand attacks, you're using a potential off-hand attack (your standard off-hand) to make an off-hand attack with the Greatsword, but this also eats your ITWF off-hand attack because it's being wielded in 2 hands.
ITWF doesn't give you an additional off-hand, it gives you one more attack with the off-hand weapon that you used to TWF, after you make your first such attack. These attacks can't be made to work simultaneously.
How does this ruling interact with someone with four arms wielding a pair of two-handed weapons?
|
|
ITWF doesn't give you an additional off-hand, it gives you one more attack with the off-hand weapon that you used to TWF, after you make your first such attack. These attacks can't be made to work simultaneously.So, we now just have it as a 1 for 1 trade, correct?
Every attack with a two handed weapon eats up a potential off-hand attack.
So, this means, that two weapon fighting with two handed weapons, is still possible, but you will need access to multiple off-hand attacks, to have enough to pull it off.
I can picture the following:
You use Unarmed Strike as your main-hand weapon and wield a Greatsword in your hands and declare it your off-hand weapon. We'll say, for the sake of example, you have up to ITWF (2 off-hand attacks). Your main-hand attacks with Unarmed Strike are, essentially, a non-issue; you can make as many as you want. But for your off-hand attacks, you're using a potential off-hand attack (your standard off-hand) to make an off-hand attack with the Greatsword, but this also eats your ITWF off-hand attack because it's being wielded in 2 hands.
Are you confusing the off-hand attack with an actual hand?
Can my warhorse still use his armor spikes and hooves in the same full attack action?
|
|
Are you confusing the off-hand attack with an actual hand?ITWF doesn't give you an additional off-hand, it gives you one more attack with the off-hand weapon that you used to TWF, after you make your first such attack. These attacks can't be made to work simultaneously.So, we now just have it as a 1 for 1 trade, correct?
Every attack with a two handed weapon eats up a potential off-hand attack.
So, this means, that two weapon fighting with two handed weapons, is still possible, but you will need access to multiple off-hand attacks, to have enough to pull it off.
I can picture the following:
You use Unarmed Strike as your main-hand weapon and wield a Greatsword in your hands and declare it your off-hand weapon. We'll say, for the sake of example, you have up to ITWF (2 off-hand attacks). Your main-hand attacks with Unarmed Strike are, essentially, a non-issue; you can make as many as you want. But for your off-hand attacks, you're using a potential off-hand attack (your standard off-hand) to make an off-hand attack with the Greatsword, but this also eats your ITWF off-hand attack because it's being wielded in 2 hands.
No, I somewhat expected that reading, but if I meant "additional off-hand attack", that's what I should have written.
Kazaan wants to use two-weapon fighting with a kick (primary) and greatsword (off-hand), because he thinks he can use his off-hand attack plus the attack granted by Improved Two-Weapon Fighting to wield the greatsword. That does not work. The attacks he wants to use cannot be simultaneous, because one explicitly comes after the other and uses the same hand. At no time in this sequence does he have two off-hands available in which to wield his two-handed weapon.
|
|
So, now a single attack with a Two handed weapon uses up all potential off-hand attacks?
How does it do that?
No, it uses up one off-hand attack. Kazaan only has one off-hand to attack with, though he can use it twice in succession.
To put it another way, he needs to use two hands and has two hands available: his primary hand and his off hand.
|
|
So, he uses up one off-hand attack, as part of a primary attack, with two hands, then uses the other off hand attack, to attack with a non-two handed weapon, like Armor Spikes, or an unarmed strike.
So, one less attack, but now able to combine the two handed weapon, with the two weapon fighting full attack action.
|
|
So, he uses up one off-hand attack, as part of a primary attack, with two hands, then uses the other off hand attack, to attack with a non-two handed weapon, like Armor Spikes, or an unarmed strike.
So, one less attack, but now able to combine the two handed weapon, with the two weapon fighting full attack action.
Benefit: In addition to the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you get a second attack with it, albeit at a –5 penalty.
He doesn't have an off-hand weapon and hasn't taken a first extra attack (both of these because he hasn't used two-weapon fighting), so he doesn't get a second extra attack from Improved Two-Weapon Fighting. If he did, he would have to take it with the same weapon.
Two-handed weapons cannot be used in the off-hand.
I just had a thought (someone else may have come up with it and I didnt see).
Assume for a moment a user has BAB of +11/6/1 and TWF, Imp. TWF, and Gr. TWF.
Using the current interpretation of the FAQ is this possible and if not, why?:
Attack 1: Bastard sword used with two hands. This uses up both the Primary and Off-hand attack.
Free Action: switch to 1-handed grip.
Free Action: Use Quickdraw to draw a second Bastard Sword (not ideal, but just go with it).
Attack 2: Bastard Sword used with one hand in primary hand at +6BAB-4 (for TWF).
Attack 3: Bastard Sword used with one hand in off-hand at +6BAB-4(for TWF).
Attack 4: Bastard Sword used with one hand in primary hand at +1BAB-4 (for TWF).
Attack 5: Bastard Sword used with one hand in off-hand at +1BAB-4(for TWF).
- Gauss
Two-handed weapons cannot be used in the off-hand.Do you mean, as an off hand attack, during two weapon fighting?
Outside of two weapon fighting, you don't have an off-hand.
What do you mean?
Well, it's been said before so I'm not sure why you would listen to me but...
CRB pg 141
Light, One-handed, Two-handed Melee Weapons:
Light: primary or off-hand
One-handed: primary or off-hand
Two-handed: two hands required
Two-handed weapons cannot be used as an off-hand weapon.
@Gauss,
Two-Weapon Fighting (Combat) - You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands.
When you initiate the combat you describe you are not wielding a separate weapon in each hand and are thus not TWF. This would then preclude you from slipping into TWF for the remaining attacks.
Are you confusing the Off-hand attack with an actual physical hand?
Didn't think you would listen.
An Off-hand attack does not even need to be made with a weapon that uses a hand.
But it cannot be made with a two-handed weapon.
|
|
But it cannot be made with a two-handed weapon.An Off-hand attack does not even need to be made with a weapon that uses a hand.
Only in that it cannot be used with a off-hand alone.
Then again, nothing is explicitly restricting the use of a two handed weapon as an off-hand attack.
It was more than available before the FAQ.
Where does it say you can use a two-handed weapon for an off-hand attack? I can show you where it says you can use light or one-handed weapons for primary or off-hand attacks. It's page 141. Why is it listed for light and one-handed but not two-handed weapons?
|
|
I just had a thought (someone else may have come up with it and I didnt see).
Assume for a moment a user has BAB of +11/6/1 and TWF, Imp. TWF, and Gr. TWF.
Using the current interpretation of the FAQ is this possible and if not, why?:Attack 1: Bastard sword used with two hands. This uses up both the Primary and Off-hand attack.
Free Action: switch to 1-handed grip.
Free Action: Use Quickdraw to draw a second Bastard Sword (not ideal, but just go with it).
Attack 2: Bastard Sword used with one hand in primary hand at +6BAB-4 (for TWF).
Attack 3: Bastard Sword used with one hand in off-hand at +6BAB-4(for TWF).Attack 4: Bastard Sword used with one hand in primary hand at +1BAB-4 (for TWF).
Attack 5: Bastard Sword used with one hand in off-hand at +1BAB-4(for TWF).- Gauss
Although I was 'certain' before this FAQ, the reality is that none of us know if your example is now possible or not, not even the devs who are basically making up as they go along. The main design parameter is denying a 2HW in TWF, but they can't quite work out why yet because they haven't finished writing the rule.