Every single rule is an abstraction. The realism involves providing a believable rationale that supports the rules.
So, yes, I imagine PC's moving about in their 5-foot squares each rounds, frantically jabbing, stabbing and slashing at one another instead of two dudes just standing there, trading a single blow every six seconds.
Likewise, I don't mind the ruling here, stating you can't use spikes as an off-hand attack together with your greatsword.
The rationale I use is this: your brain only has so much processing power to do two things at once. If one of those things requires lots of effort (strength), things get even more difficult. Having two hands perform different actions at the same time can be taxing enough - throwing in a kick / body check /whatever only compounds that.
To me, that's enough of an explanation to support and lend realism to what I think is a pretty good ruling.
Naturally, your mileage may vary.
*edit: I share Mathmuse's views on this one*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except for the fact that many real world martial arts use 2-handed weapons with kicks, elbow strikes and even the occasional shoulder slam.
Having spikes on the ends of these limbs wouldn't get in the way of your attack if you're trained in using them (i.e.: Armor Spike weapon proficiency)
Except for the fact that many real world martial arts use 2-handed weapons with kicks, elbow strikes and even the occasional shoulder slam.
Have spikes on the ends of these limbs wouldn't get in the way of your attack if you're trained in using them (i.e.: Armor Spike weapon proficiency)
Sure, that's true enough. But I prefer simplicity as well. You could also argue that, given six seconds time, a Fighter could easily get an attack with his greatsword, another with shoulder spikes, two knee attacks, one kick and a headbutt.
It's not that he can't do it. Maybe my Fighter actually does all that during the combat round and the net atk/dam is just represented by a single die roll. He simply does not have the mental and physical resources for each of those attacks to have a noticeable effect on the combat that round.
|
Every single rule is an abstraction. The realism involves providing a believable rationale that supports the rules.
So, yes, I imagine PC's moving about in their 5-foot squares each rounds, frantically jabbing, stabbing and slashing at one another instead of two dudes just standing there, trading a single blow every six seconds.
Likewise, I don't mind the ruling here, stating you can't use spikes as an off-hand attack together with your greatsword.
The rationale I use is this: your brain only has so much processing power to do two things at once. If one of those things requires lots of effort (strength), things get even more difficult. Having two hands perform different actions at the same time can be taxing enough - throwing in a kick / body check /whatever only compounds that.
To me, that's enough of an explanation to support and lend realism to what I think is a pretty good ruling.
Naturally, your mileage may vary.*edit: I share Mathmuse's views on this one*
The reason I don't see it this way is that the 'extra' attacks granted by TWF are not simultaneous with any other attack in that full attack; all you're attacks (TWF or not) are taken one after the other. You can completely finish each attack (including seeing if that last hit dropped the baddy) before you choose who to target with your next attack.
You can certainly attack with greatsword/armour spikes with iteratives, and since the attacks in TWF are just as consecutive I see no reason to discriminate against armour spikes.
In 3.5 the devs described attacking with armour spikes while using a greatsword as 'kicking or kneeing' your opponent with the spikes.
|
|
Except for the fact that many real world martial arts use 2-handed weapons with kicks, elbow strikes and even the occasional shoulder slam.
Have spikes on the ends of these limbs wouldn't get in the way of your attack if you're trained in using them (i.e.: Armor Spike weapon proficiency)
Sure, that's true enough. But I prefer simplicity as well. You could also argue that, given six seconds time, a Fighter could easily get an attack with his greatsword, another with shoulder spikes, two knee attacks, one kick and a headbutt.
It's not that he can't do it. Maybe my Fighter actually does all that during the combat round and the net atk/dam is just represented by a single die roll. He simply does not have the mental and physical resources for each of those attacks to have a noticeable effect on the combat that round.
The game already represents and balances this by use of the number of attacks each character is allowed.
If a creature has four attack because of BAB or haste or TWF or whatever, that is the limit and that's how many attacks he gets with whatever weapons he is capable of wielding.
Well, I have my TWF player commit to his attacks before rolling them. So, yes, you roll em one after the other, but you make the attacks against the target(s) you declared before the round. I thought that's how it was supposed to work (makes sense to me) but I'm not sure that's the official way to do things.
Anyway, the kicking or kneeing could be done; I'm just saying that the two-handed fighter doing the kicking is spreading himself too thin that round for the kick to add anything extra to the outcome.
Not trying to antagonize or anything, just sharing my views - I do realize they're not gospel ;-)
Except for the fact that many real world martial arts use 2-handed weapons with kicks, elbow strikes and even the occasional shoulder slam.
Have spikes on the ends of these limbs wouldn't get in the way of your attack if you're trained in using them (i.e.: Armor Spike weapon proficiency)
Sure, that's true enough. But I prefer simplicity as well. You could also argue that, given six seconds time, a Fighter could easily get an attack with his greatsword, another with shoulder spikes, two knee attacks, one kick and a headbutt.
It's not that he can't do it. Maybe my Fighter actually does all that during the combat round and the net atk/dam is just represented by a single die roll. He simply does not have the mental and physical resources for each of those attacks to have a noticeable effect on the combat that round.
I can understand you preference for simplicity and distaste for Greatsword + Armor Spikes... I have no problem with that...
What I really don't understand is this sentiment of "I don't like this, therefore, it should be banned" that so many posters seem to have. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying or even implying you are one of them... Only that's such way of thinking is sadly way too common around here...
People who want too see Ninjas, Gunslingers or whatever removed from the game because they don't like. Not because it's unbalanced, not because it's problematic, but simply because it doesn't match their personal taste.
This is what annoys me in these "this should be banned" discussions... People who want everyone to lose an option just because it doesn't fit their personal preference, as if said option were being forced on them...
IMHO, unless something is too powerful, it shouldn't be nerfed or removed. If you don't like something, just ignore it. Don't try to stop others from using it.
Except for the fact that many real world martial arts use 2-handed weapons with kicks, elbow strikes and even the occasional shoulder slam.
Have spikes on the ends of these limbs wouldn't get in the way of your attack if you're trained in using them (i.e.: Armor Spike weapon proficiency)
Sure, that's true enough. But I prefer simplicity as well. You could also argue that, given six seconds time, a Fighter could easily get an attack with his greatsword, another with shoulder spikes, two knee attacks, one kick and a headbutt.
It's not that he can't do it. Maybe my Fighter actually does all that during the combat round and the net atk/dam is just represented by a single die roll. He simply does not have the mental and physical resources for each of those attacks to have a noticeable effect on the combat that round.
I can understand you preference for simplicity and distaste for Greatsword + Armor Spikes... I have no problem with that...
What I really don't understand is this sentiment of "I don't like this, therefore, it should be banned" that so many posters seem to have. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying or even implying you are one of them... Only that's such way of thinking is sadly way too common around here...
People who want too see Ninjas, Gunslingers or whatever removed from the game because they don't like. Not because it's unbalanced, not because it's problematic, but simply because it's not their personal taste.
This is what annoys me in these "this should be banned" discussions... People who want everyone to lose an option just because it doesn't fit their personal preference, as if said option were being forced on them...
IMHO, unless something is too powerful, it shouldn't be nerfed or removed. If you don't like something, just ignore it. Don't try to stop others from using it.
Oh, we're on the same page here!
I'm all for keeping as many options in the game as possible and I'm not against combining 2H weapons and spikes (why would I be? It's cool!).For me, the rules as they are today don't adequately support that combination. Until they do so in a simple and elegant way, I choose to resolve the situation as per the FAQ ('no') for simplicity's sake. The game must go on, after all. It's personal taste, nothing more.
The main reason I'm following this thread is because I'm curious whether, in the end, such an elegant and simple rule will result (which I might or might not implement in my own game). All I wanted to say was 'don't overthink things - there are many abstractions out there already and they serve the game well. Always weigh complexity against perceived realism'.
|
If it were an added caveat to Armor Spikes themselves, that they could not be used in two weapon fighting with a two handed weapon, it would be less confusing.
This solves the "problem", but does not create a confusion as to the aspect of what an off-hand attack, or the off-hand in general, means within the rules.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I choose to resolve the situation as per the FAQ ('no') for simplicity's sake.
Actually, this is kind of the greatest problem with that FAQ... It opened a huge can of worms... Rules that were pretty clear, suddenly became rather confusing because of unwritten rules and design assumptions that are not mentioned or even implied anywhere...
It created a lot of confusion in order to solve a non-existent problem.
The reason I don't see it this way is that the 'extra' attacks granted by TWF are not simultaneous with any other attack in that full attack; all you're attacks (TWF or not) are taken one after the other. You can completely finish each attack (including seeing if that last hit dropped the baddy) before you choose who to target with your next attack.
Well, I have my TWF player commit to his attacks before rolling them. So, yes, you roll em one after the other, but you make the attacks against the target(s) you declared before the round. I thought that's how it was supposed to work (makes sense to me) but I'm not sure that's the official way to do things.
The role of simultaneity in two-weapon fighting is an even bigger can of worms than the nature of the off hand. Though the two attacks are not necessarily simultaneous, since one hand could be slower than the other, they do overlap in time. In a story, the opponent blocks the two-weapon fighter's longsword with his shield, but that leaves an opening for the fighter to stab with her shortsword while the shield is busy blocking the longsword.
But the two-weapon fighting rules don't mention overlapped time at all. The rules instead insist on separate hands. It is an oversimplification, which sometimes creates paradoxes. In fact, this thread is arguing about one of those paradoxes.
But as I said, I prefer simplicity. The turn structure of the game with no characters acting simultaneously already throws time out the window.
How many uses are there for the word 'level'?
|
|
I choose to resolve the situation as per the FAQ ('no') for simplicity's sake.Actually, this is kind of the greatest problem with that FAQ... It opened a huge can of worms... Rules that were pretty clear, suddenly became rather confusing because of unwritten rules and design assumptions that are not mentioned or even implied anywhere...
It created a lot of confusion in order to solve a non-existent problem.
I wish I could 'favourite' this more than once!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of course, just because it only notes two weapon fighting, it doesn't mean some people will use it to change everything, everywhere, no matter how unrelated, to make some point, involving a totally separate issue.
Who doesn't love this "clarification"?
What does "clarification" mean again?
Note: I understand this sounds bad, but the intent is to express the level of frustration. I apologize if it offends anyone.
A somewhat related question regarding the "off hand" ....
If your "off hand" is occupied with a second weapon, do you gain the benefit of Two Weapon Defense even when the "off hand" is not used to attack?
A somewhat related question regarding the "off hand" ....
If your "off hand" is occupied with a second weapon, do you gain the benefit of Two Weapon Defense even when the "off hand" is not used to attack?
Obviously because both hands are wielding a weapon when wielding a two handed weapon you get the bonus with two handed weapons!
Anyways... the wording is wielding. If your wielding two weapons or a double weapon you get it, and you don't have to be attacking for wielding. Just holding a dagger should be enough to qualify. Its a pretty poor feat anyway imo.
When wielding a double weapon or two weapons (not including natural weapons or unarmed strikes), you gain a +1 shield bonus to your AC.
Of course, now people want the to use the change in what the "off hand" means, to change what "wielding" means.
The fact that the two unrelated, and only one has changed, doesn't mean some try to force them to be related, in complete spite of evidence that one has not changed the other.
Not sure if this was directed at me but it was my understanding you only got to the TWD bonus when you used your off hand attack (a full attack). Now that your off hand is occupied, I wonder if that now qualifies for the weilding requirement.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You need to remember that attacking with a weapon, and wielding a weapon, are different things.
So, the recent FAQ notes that an attack with a two handed weapon leaves the off-hand unavailable for two weapon fighting.
It takes it no further.
To push this farther, and somehow put this to mean that this now effects wielding, threatening, and attacks outside of two weapon fighting, is to extrapolate from a stance that is unsupported within RAW.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of people are creating their own confusion because the rules were clarified to mean what they've always meant.
Alright, I never got to state my opinion on the ruling, but now seems like an okay time to go into length.
They were clarified in a certain way, but people already had the idea that you could use two weapon fighting with 2hand + No hand. Doesn't give you any extra attacks, two handed fighting is still subpar, and really you usually end up getting a weak offhanded attack.
The current FAQs comes off as arbitrary and "martials can't have nice things" or something similar. Did it really hurt the game to allow 2h+no hand? Not really. Was it okay from a narrative or simulationist? I think it was, but that's an opinion and those things are subjective sometimes.
That's also why I ask "Why?" Did it really help to clarify it in the way they did? They could've just as easily clarified that you could use a 2handed weapon and then a no handed weapon in tangent because you weren't using both hands at the time and it didn't hurt anything. In fact that kind of ruling doesn't take any options away. With the current ruling people don't have this option(Why take it away?), and it also results in more confusion rather than clarification, and people have a tendancy to jump on a bandwagon of "the dev is always right!" and make excuses for them as they go along, which doesn't help the people who they want to clarify the ruling for at all.
Edit: There's a difference between telling someone "Oh hey cool you found a way to do that?" and "No! Bad player bad! You play the way I tell you too!" I would rather they take the first than the later. Especially if it didn't hurt anything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What do we know?
Wielding a two handed weapon uses your off hand.
You can use a Light/1HW and another Light/1HW that doesn't require a physical hand, at the same time you wield a shield for AC, because you don't use your off hand on the shield unless you attack with the shield.
The Off Hand does not have to be an actual hand.
So, I can use a longsword with my primary hand (let's just say my right hand), and put a tower shield in another hand (let's just say my left hand), and still get 1.5x STR bonus and -1/+3 Power Attack Bonus by applying my ephemeral "off-hand" (you know, the Armor Spike wielding one) to a two-handed attack?
Crash_00, I'm beginning to like your version of the rules!
I don't think it's a matter of how they feel about the strategy logically or how balanced it is. That was never the question. The questions was can I do this legally. The answer is no because the rules did not allow it.
A ruling shouldn't exist "Just because" that's a horrendous reason. If that's the case then don't make the ruling at all. Blindly following doesn't help anyone.
Of course, the GM is perfectly within his rights to point out the implied rules and play a game of Pimp the Backhanding.
The GM never has a right to play 'Pimp the Backhanding'. Ever.
If being against the rules isn't enough of a reason for the design team to say no on an FAQ, then I'm losing faith in this industry's player base.
That's just it though, your saying its just rules because rules. There isn't a reason. There isn't a logic. Just rules. If it was about balance I could deal. If it was about narrative maybe. I might even take simulationist better than "because its the rules because rules". Rules do require reasons. If I tell you not to step over the yellow line, I better have a reason to tell you why not to step over it. Your acting like because I said so is more than enough of a reason ever. Its a pretty awful reason.
Rules shouldn't be arbitrary.
Which is why it will probably get changed in an errata or future edition. The rules are a mess. They could be clearer in many places. A lot of styles need buffs to get back into par. I'm not saying that the rules are perfect. Jason has made it clear that these rules need a thorough purging since they give him a headache.
Its much easier to empathize and understand a statement like that than "Deal with it its the rules" sort of talk. Also less circular.
Anyways, I do agree its a headache sometimes. I preferred it before it was clarified personally. Atm its a nerf to martials if anything. An edition is not something I can wait for either. That's years away. Something is broken or problematic in core it really has to be fixed ASAP. Waiting until 2015+ to fix something from 2008 is a pretty long time.
I'm saying that an FAQ ruling should follow the rules if at all possible. When someone asks for an FAQ, they aren't asking for the intent or how to best balance something, they are asking if it is allowed by the rules.
I realize this, but this FAQs didn't do a great job clarifying things I don't think. More so many people felt they already had a grasp of how to do things and the FAQs took that away, then gave them a really heavy handed approach to things which doesn't help. It also goes against the 3.5 ruling in a game that's supposed to be backwards compatible. Lots of banging your head against the wall on that one.
There are some detrimental side effects of allowing THF TWF into the game. The primary being that it makes a traditional TWFer completely obsolete. There is no reason to use a one handed and light weapon ever if you can use a two handed and light weapon.
I disagree. In the case of using a two handed weapon in your off hand(You can totally do that!) you still take another -2, and the only character who can do this dipped alchemist costing an additional BAB and then spent an additional 2 feats on it. In the case of a no handed weapon your weapon is a weak one. The no handed weapons(spiked gauntlet, armor spikes, unarmed) are all meh weapon choices. Low threat, low damage, always light, and no special qualities on most of them.
Likely I'd say this is a problem with TWF more than anything.
Again, its likely that the problem was with TWF itself. Most weapon combinations were subpar, if not two weapon fighting itself. For the amount of feats you dump into TWF, THF still being better than anything it can do despite only really requiring power attack is just sad. The fact its more powerful while mobile is even worse. You also require a lot of dexterity.
Are you taking straight numbers? Dual Kukri fighter or dual kukri rogue? Or dual kukri barbarian? All of those characters get a different bonuses and sources. I didn't see this builds posted. Did we also have saw tooth sabers posted?
I don't see errata coming. I don't see a lot of errata in the game. The policy resembles "no errata" if anything from my point of view, but that's just an opinion so take it with a grain of salt.
|
|
I've exposed my CRB to ultra-violet and infra-red, x-rays and radio waves, bloodhounds and sonar, held it upside down, translated it into ancient Aramaic and transferred it to vinyl, played it backwards until my ears bled and I still can't detect these invisible hands.
....though Satan might be trying to communicate with me....I'll just give him Crash's number...
and I still can't detect these invisible hands.
Pfft, we can solve this with science! No worries. Just get a scroll of see invisibility and put some ranks in UMD and we can totally see whatever invisible hands are in the area.
I love how most of the the FAQs go with my understanding of the rules....and then I see people going WHAT THAT'S ABSURD!!!
And then I chuckle.
I love how most of the the FAQs go with my understanding of the rules....and then I see people going WHAT THAT'S ABSURD!!!
And then I chuckle.
Oh, so it works for you so therefore everyone else is an idiot?
Oh, so it works for you so therefore everyone else is an idiot?I love how most of the the FAQs go with my understanding of the rules....and then I see people going WHAT THAT'S ABSURD!!!
And then I chuckle.
Did I say I thought anyone was an idiot? No IF that's what I thought I'd say that.
Let's put it this way, in video games you can wield two one handed weapons or one big weapon not both it takes up your "hands" slot why is that such a horrible thing?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Remember how totally obvious it was that the Monk had to alternate weapons during Flurry, and that it was "always like that"?
Yeah, that same smug attitude was apparent before by those who agreed, especially by those who worship the Devs like gods.
The Devs are great guys, and Pathfinder is a great game, but it is all done by humans.
Humans make mistakes, get confused, misremember, and sometimes make bad decisions.
Let's just keep those things in mind.
Let's put it this way, in video games you can wield two one handed weapons or one big weapon not both it takes up your "hands" slot why is that such a horrible thing?
Because this isn't a video game. In video games there are all sorts of things you can do depending on the game. In a lot of games you mix martial arts with your two handed attacks(Nightmare and Siegfriend in Soul Calibur for example).
Its horrible because its arbitrary. Its horrible to say "people don't like my way, but I WIN! LOL!"
Ok, I'll repeat hands are not "hands" they are a figure of speech they mean the number of attacks I can attack with a longsword and a boot blade because that is two "hands"
But a greatsword takes up two "hands" it's just the way I works. It's to avoid 1.5 strength damage from a two handed weapon plus .5 or even full strength damage from another source.
Or so I assume. Again there are limits in this game like any other.
But there is hope a monk can wield a two handed weapon and still kick elbow knee shoulder headbut what have you.
Wait! If I use a dagger in my teeth, a greatsword in my hands, armor spikes, and a boot blade can I qualify for multiweapon fighting?
it's just the way I works.
Doesn't have to be. I posted earlier that rules like that are arbitrary. You have to have a reason.
Wait! If I use a dagger in my teeth, a greatsword in my hands, armor spikes, and a boot blade can I qualify for multiweapon fighting?
You need 3 or more hands. Do metaphysical or pseudo-ones count or only physical? Apparently legitimately growing an arm doesn't count... This ruleset is weird.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's put it this way, in video games you can wield two one handed weapons or one big weapon not both it takes up your "hands" slot why is that such a horrible thing?
In each video game it will have a 'rule' about the action required/time taken in order to 'equip' different weapons; so does Pathfinder. It takes a free action to let go of a 2HW with one hand, and a free action to re-grip. Therefore, in PF, the rules allow you to attack with a 2HW, let go with the hand wearing the gauntlet as a free action, and continue with your full attack using the spiked gauntlet.
The rules for TWF modify the combat rules in specific and specified ways, written in the rules. However, the inability to use a 2HW in TWF is not one of them. The current devs have ruled that a 2HW is incompatible with TWF and are busy re-writing the rules to support that ruling.
So the different attacks (2HW and spiked gauntlets) take place at different moments and the correct number of hands are using/are free to use each weapon at the moment each weapon is used to execute an attack.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If being against the rules isn't enough of a reason for the design team to say no on an FAQ, then I'm losing faith in this industry's player base.That's just it though, your saying its just rules because rules. There isn't a reason. There isn't a logic. Just rules. If it was about balance I could deal. If it was about narrative maybe. I might even take simulationist better than "because its the rules because rules". Rules do require reasons. If I tell you not to step over the yellow line, I better have a reason to tell you why not to step over it. Your acting like because I said so is more than enough of a reason ever. Its a pretty awful reason.
Rules shouldn't be arbitrary.
In this case, it's more like saying, "We've never had a line here before, but we decided ten years ago that we should have intended to have had a line here. So, you had better not cross it because the line was always supposed to have been here!"