The Off-hand

[Happler]

So, how does this FAQ effect the monk armed with a quarterstaff? Can he flurry with it in two-hands, and kick in the same round (assuming that he has the BaB for the strikes)? I know that they called out that Flurry is different the TWF (letting you do all attacks with the same weapon), but is it also different in this stand point?

Also, does this FAQ effect the Sea Knife?

[MrSin]

Happler wrote:

Also, does this FAQ effect the Sea Knife?

That weapon specifies that it can be used as an off hand weapon while using a two handed weapon. It looks like it implies its meant to be used as with a two handed weapon or with a sword and board. You however can't use it for walking and running... for some reason.

[blackbloodtroll]

I am still not seeing anything in the FAQ that mentions wielding, threatening, or attacks outside of two weapon fighting.

Is this one unwritten things that are totally clear to all those totally awesome folks people keep talking about?

[blackbloodtroll]

Why should there be a need to worry if my physical hand is an off hand, or my metaphysial hand is an off hand, if I am not making an off hand attack?

Shouldn't off hands, real or metaphysical, really only come into play when making an off hand attack?

Why can't off hand, just refer to a type of attack?

Not the pseudo measurement of effort and metaphysical limiter of all things combat, or otherwise.

[blackbloodtroll]

Before, it was easy to explain the off-hand.

What is an off-hand?

The hand used to make an off-hand attack.

What is an off-hand attack?

It's the extra attack you get when you two weapon fight, a special full attack, in which you attack with two different weapons, at a penalty to both attacks.

What is an off-hand weapon?

Whatever weapon you make an off-hand attack with.

What can I use as an off-hand weapon?

Whatever weapon you are able to attack with, though there are different penalties depending on what you use.

That pretty much summed up for many, and was the basis for how to run even the weirdest of combos.

[james maissen]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Before, it was easy to explain the off-hand.

What is an off-hand?

The hand used to make an off-hand attack.

What is an off-hand attack?

It's the extra attack you get when you two weapon fight, a special full attack, in which you attack with two different weapons, at a penalty to both attacks.

What is an off-hand weapon?

Whatever weapon you make an off-hand attack with.

What can I use as an off-hand weapon?

Whatever weapon you are able to attack with, though there are different penalties depending on what you use.

That pretty much summed up for many, and was the basis for how to run even the weirdest of combos.

BBT, now go through the rules and assume that each character has a primary (left or right) hand and a secondary (right or left) hand.

This is not tracked in the rules anymore for simplicity, but let us assume that they are tied to actual hands.

Is there a rule inconsistency anywhere?

I don't think so.

I don't buy into this 'imaginary' hand argument, though the rules do use some terms badly enough for this to actually be the case... regardless it is poor game design. In my mind, the dev comments are trying to put errata over on to the FAQ.

Let us consider the FAQ for a moment without the dev comments on the boards. Given that it was originally in the equipment section, one could surmise that the initial ruling was specific to armor spikes. Now read the revised statement with that in mind, and wonder if it merely was trying to say that armor spikes required a hand to use.

After all that is what the devs are saying on the boards, they are just further dividing 'hands' with 'imaginary hands'. Forget that division, and the ruling makes sense if you can reconcile that armor spikes require a hand to use.

Sadly this begs the question for unarmed strikes which was not addressed in the FAQ, rather a gauntlet strike which while a type of unarmed strike.. certainly it requires a hand to use!

If we further accept that sea knife and barbazu beard are not being errata'd, then we have to conclude that one can TWF with a two-handed weapon and still kick with unarmed strikes just as much as TWF with a two-handed weapon and either of those special weapons.

Again, the devs can change the rules as they see fit. But if we are debating where things currently stand, I think that the FAQ is, at the moment, clarifying that armor spikes require a hand to use as a melee weapon.

Can we reconcile this? We can assume that such attacks would need to be punches rather than kicks or closer forms of strikes. It does imply that the spikes are not on the feet and lower legs, but then again one can ride horses while wearing such armor (I suppose) and this would reconcile that.

Personally I hope that they lay out how they want things to be, and then look to clearly achieve it via really rewriting the rules. I'm sure that the end result will be superior to what they inherited from WotC.

-James

[Margrave]

james maissen wrote:

the ruling makes sense if you can reconcile that armor spikes require a hand to use.

My thoughts exactly - that little thing seems to be the real core of the issue.

I imagine that using armour spikes together with THF is an action that requires mental/physical resources equal to the use of the off-hand. In other words, it can't be done according to this ruling.

[Crash_00]

Margrave wrote:

james maissen wrote:

the ruling makes sense if you can reconcile that armor spikes require a hand to use.

My thoughts exactly - that little thing seems to be the real core of the issue.

I imagine that using armour spikes together with THF is an action that requires mental/physical resources equal to the use of the off-hand. In other words, it can't be done according to this ruling.

That's pretty much it in a nut shell. The Primary and Off Hand represent the effort you're putting into wielding a weapon. Just because a weapon doesn't use a physical hand, doe not mean that it doesn't still require the effort that is normally associated with it.

Once you wrap your mind around that, it all falls into place. For most people that I've played with, the first sentence of the section: "This designation is a measure of how much effort it takes
to wield a weapon in combat." made it become clear.

[Malachi Silverclaw]

Crash_00 wrote:

That's pretty much it in a nut shell. The Primary and Off Hand represent the effort you're putting into wielding a weapon. Just because a weapon doesn't use a physical hand, doe not mean that it doesn't still require the effort that is normally associated with it.

This is the imaginary hand.

Your assertion relies on this wording, that 'primary' and 'off' hand' represent, not real hands, but imaginary hands, and that the system has 'always been this way'.

But you know that this absolutely could not have been true in 3.0 because it doesn't have that wording, therefore that this could not have been the combat system.

You are also asking us to believe that the combat system was changed between 3.0 and 3.5 so drastically that it now relied on imaginary hands worth of effort to use weapons, rather than the 3.0 system of real hands to use weapons combined with the number of attacks in a full attack as outlined in the combat chapter. You're also asking us to believe that this major (and unrealistic and pointless) change went completely unreported and unnoticed for ten years!

When we compare your construct, that of a new combat system relying on imaginary hands worth of effort that is not in the combat chapter and went completely unreported, to the alternative explanation that the weapon category doesn't change the combat system at all, that imaginary hands are an imaginary game system, and are just repeating the combat chapter's instructions on how to apply the Str bonus to damage (including in TWF), well you're construct is not credible.

[Margrave]

I read it more as being a caveat, specific to this particular situation (A. spikes and THF). Implying that the situation gives rise to the general rule / assumption of imaginary hands seems to (needlessly?) overcomplicate things.

[Malachi Silverclaw]

(Bear with me)

There's a right way to do science and a wrong way to do science.

The right way is to follow the evidence to reach a conclusion, then test that conclusion. The test involves trying different ways to prove your own conclusion wrong, and when you can't, then it must have been right.

The wrong way to do science is to decide what your conclusion is first, then ignore evidence which disproved it and twist evidence so that it seems to support it.

Unfortunately, the devs decided that they didn't want 2HW to be useable in TWF. Instead of errataing the rules to say that, they tell us that the existing rules say that all along. Each time they post they have a different explanation as to why 2HW can't be used in TWF, featuring a new twist on an old rule each time.

Can you use a 2HW with armour spikes in TWF? No!

Why? Because neither can spiked gauntlets, and they require a hand! (twist: armour spikes require a free hand)

Er, you can use free actions to make sure that you have two hands on the 2HW when you attack with that, and a free hand to attack with gauntlets/armour spikes when you attack with them. No, because even if the required number of hands are on the weapon, if you've used your off hand on one weapon you can't use it on another! (twist: having the required number of hands on a weapon is not enough to use it)

But we can attack with one weapon at +6 and the other at +1 by switching grip as a free action, so we can do the same with TWF since the attacks are not simultaneous in TWF. Ah, but attacking with a 2HW 'consumes' two attacks in TWF, 'primary' and 'off hand'! (twist: the 'off hand' is now not limited to 'off hand attacks in TWF)

Good science leads to technologies that function. Bad science leads to confusing dead-ends.

Before the FAQ, the rules worked very smoothly, with only the ability to use a 2HW in TWF annoying some people.

But after the FAQ, where the conclusion came first and the twisting of existing rules to support it, left us with twisted rules!

Right now, we have people believing that combat relies on imaginary hands, that the rules for combat are hidden in the description of the weapon categories and the (3.0) description of the buckler, that you need a free (real AND imaginary) hand to kick, and that you lose a buckler's AC bonus if you kick as an off hand attack but keep it if you make a normal attack with the buckler arm.

That's why the FAQ was bad.

They could have just said, 'we don't like being able to use a 2HW in TWF, so we'll put that in the next printing'.

[Margrave]

Malachi, I get what you're saying here - I do.

But consider that the scientific method applies only to science or things that can be considered science. Civil law isn't science, for instance and neither is the PFRPG rulebook.

So yes, you are correct when you infer the creation of imaginary hands and when you point out the confusion and lack of consistency the ruling causes. I agree that it's not pretty and the picture doesn't quite fit anymore.

Then again, there are plenty of other potential problems like this one -the rules are good, but they aren't perfect. Rather than address every single issue in depth, I tend to agree with Crash_00's idea. That 'solution' might not fit the rules (and we thus agree it's not 'correct') but it works. Until the system gets a complete overhaul (and I hope that never happens, since that will create even bigger problems) I'm happy to work with this.

All that effort might not be worth the ideal solution you're aiming for here.

[Malachi Silverclaw]

Margrave wrote:

Malachi, I get what you're saying here - I do.

But consider that the scientific method applies only to science or things that can be considered science. Civil law isn't science, for instance and neither is the PFRPG rulebook.

So yes, you are correct when you infer the creation of imaginary hands and when you point out the confusion and lack of consistency the ruling causes. I agree that it's not pretty and the picture doesn't quite fit anymore.

Then again, there are plenty of other potential problems like this one -the rules are good, but they aren't perfect. Rather than address every single issue in depth, I tend to agree with Crash_00's idea. That 'solution' might not fit the rules (and we thus agree it's not 'correct') but it works. Until the system gets a complete overhaul (and I hope that never happens, since that will create even bigger problems) I'm happy to work with this.

All that effort might not be worth the ideal solution you're aiming for here.

I respect your perspective here, Margrave, but my mileage definately varies when it comes to the idea that the 'imaginary hands' rule 'works'.

Quote:

So yes, you are correct when you infer the creation of imaginary hands and when you point out the confusion and lack of consistency the ruling causes. I agree that it's not pretty and the picture doesn't quite fit anymore.

And this is why.

[Margrave]

Different views :-)

Of course I would also prefer to have a solid ruleset (which is why I'm interested in following this thread) but I'm not sure whether it's going to happen. Still, some great points are being made on both sides.

Carry on, chaps!

[Crash_00]

3.0 is not the same system as Pathfinder. It isn't the same system as 3.5. You can argue that the wielding system in pathfinder is the same as the 3.5 version because they use the same wording. That is correct.

When I say the system has always been this way, I mean Pathfinder and 3.5. Not 3.0 that isn't the same system. You've already agreed that 3.0 is a different system, so quite trying to say that it is.

You're in a trench of, everything is the way I want it to be when I want it to be, but it's the opposite when I don't want it to be. That's a horrible way to try and logically walk through a set of rules. It's a terrible way to do a critical analysis. No good comes of it.

Imaginary hand is what you want to call it, that's fine if it works for you, although it clearly doesn't.

I say that it's effort. The word that we're told the wielding rules represent.

In the end it doesn't matter. Everything works the same way no matter how you look at it, you just don't like it.

The FAQ did not change what the rules in your CRB say. The buckler description isn't the key to the rules either, it's just one way to clarify how they work (for people that can't seem to read in context). Pre and Post FAQ rules are the same. You use hands of effort on weapons that require so many hands of effort. Even if the weapon doesn't require a physical hand it does require a hand of effort.

PS: We're discussing grammar, not science.

[MrSin]

Crash_00 wrote:

When I say the system has always been this way, I mean Pathfinder and 3.5. Not 3.0 that isn't the same system. You've already agreed that 3.0 is a different system, so quite trying to say that it is.

Actually, 3.5 you could use armor spikes with a two handed weapon. Its on page 53 of their main FAQs. Its actually pretty clear and concise, unless the "No and here's an unrelated example" we have for the PF FAQs on it. There's actually a lot of FAQs and in depth detail for 3.5. Its 116 page PDF for the main FAQs though, so I could see why someone might not want to dig.

Quote:

3.5 FAQs wrote:

If you attack only with your armor spikes during your turn

(or use the armor spikes to make an attack of opportunity), you
use them just like a regular weapon. If you use the full attack
action, you can use armor spikes as either a primary light
weapon or as an off-hand light weapon, even if you’re using a
shield or using a two-handed weapon. In these latter two cases,
you’re assumed to be kicking or kneeing your foe with your
armor spikes.
Whenever you use armor spikes as an off-hand weapon,
you suffer all the penalties for attacking with two weapons (see
Table 8–10 in the PH). When using armor spikes along with a
two-handed weapon, it is usually best to use the two-handed
weapon as your primary attack and the armor spikes as the offhand
weapon. You can use the armor spikes as the primary
weapon and the two-handed weapon as the off-hand attack, but
when you do so, you don’t get the benefit of using a light
weapon in your off hand.
You cannot, however, use your armor spikes to make a
second off-hand attack when you’re already fighting with two
weapons. If you have a weapon in both hands and armor spikes,
you can attack with the weapons in your hands (and not with
the armor spikes) or with one of the weapons in your hands and
the armor spikes (see the description of spiked armor in
Chapter 7 of the PH)

[Crash_00]

At a few points, yes you could do it in 3.5. We've already been over this MrSin. Even the devs have mentioned it. At a few points, no, you couldn't do it in 3.5. You see, they went back and forth on it in 3.5. When they allowed it, they didn't point to any rules that allowed it. When they didn't allow it, they pointed to the same rules being pointed to by the current Pathfinder devs.

Even with that FAQ, it wasn't allowed in most regions of LGR (their organized play campaign) because the FAQ was not allowed to change the rules and that FAQ was changing the rules. An FAQ that changed the rules was not considered to be RAW or an official change (that was the role of errata).

The Pathfinder devs have decided to go with what the rules actually say instead of taking the WotC path of saying yes to make a few people quite whining about it.

So, no, the rules have never allowed it in 3.5 or Pathfinder. The rules in 3.5 and Pathfinder have always worked this way.

[Malachi Silverclaw]

Crash_00 wrote:

You're in a trench of, everything is the way I want it to be when I want it to be, but it's the opposite when I don't want it to be. That's a horrible way to try and logically walk through a set of rules. It's a terrible way to do a critical analysis. No good comes of it.

Well, I accuse you of doing that with your 'Schrödinger's Hand' theory, where a hand is either real or imaginary depending on what you think best supports your argument in any particular sentence.

This has led you to state that the second hand on my greatsword isn't a real hand, and when I say it bloody well is, you then say it's a real hand AND an imaginary hand. I'm not the only one who sees your arguments this way.

As for the 3.5 FAQ, it's alleged that some of the 3.5 devs weren't happy with it. Why didn't they point out the rules which disallow it? Because there are no such rules to point to!

You say there are no rules which 'allow' 2HWs in TWF. The TWF rules say that weapons can be used in TWF(!), and don't say that 2HW can't be used in TWF. That's enough to say that they are allowed.

[Chris Lambertz]

Removed a few posts and their replies. Again, dial back the hostility, or this thread will be locked.

[james maissen]

Crash_00 wrote:

At a few points, yes you could do it in 3.5. We've already been over this MrSin. Even the devs have mentioned it.

Ergo, at a 'few points' during 3.5, these 'phantom' hands ceased to exist.

I posit, that they never actually existed.

Hands meant hands.

I posit that the change from 3e to 3.5 was that 3.5 no longer tracked the 'off' hand, but that 'off-hand' still referred to an actual hand.

I further conclude that the variance in 3.5 on whether or not armor spikes could be used for TWF with a two-handed weapon dealt in actuality with said spikes needing a physical hand with which to attack.

This is not unreasonable. You can imagine armor spikes dealing damage to those grappling/wrestling with the wearer. And then you can imagine that the spikes by the arms were sufficiently long to let the wearer reach out with them to strike adjacent targets.

I can further contend that the way the FAQ was written initially and in the subsequent stages that it supports this reasoning far more than the reasoning supplied by the devs after the fact on these boards. It also dovetails with prior board statements by them to this subject.

-James

[Crash_00]

That is exactly what Rule 0 is there for, James, to ignore what the devs have stated and the rules in the book.

[james maissen]

Crash_00 wrote:

That is exactly what Rule 0 is there for, James, to ignore what the devs have stated and the rules in the book.

I'm sorry?

The devs aren't quite sure what exactly they want. Some easy consequences of their explanation demonstrated this.

I'm sure that they will decide upon something vastly superior to the current rules and wording.

But I'm not sure where your 'rule 0' is coming into play here, unless that is merely a reference to the 0s in your handle.

As far as the RAW goes, hands are hands. There is nothing stated anywhere against this. From 3e these hands were fixed as 'left' and 'right' with the player assigning one permanently to 'off-hand' and the other to 'primary' hand. In 3.5 they stopped tracking this, but the association of 'hand' to hand did not end as you wish to claim.

What you have claimed as an 'easy reading of the rules' actually differs from the devs explanation on how they wish to change the rules to model. It doesn't really matter, but this is the academic debate currently and is separate from the direction that the devs are going to evolve the rules into the future.

-James

[Crash_00]

Yet, the direction they are going to change the rules in the future, is not what the rules are now, which is the subject we are discussing. It does not matter if they are going to change them in the future. They are agreed on what they currently say. RAW right now, Primary Hand and Off Hand are used on attacks that don't require a physical hand. This is stated in the rules. This is stated by the devs. It was even confirmed once upon a time in 3.5 as well.

Rule 0 is your ability to change anything in your game. It exists for the sole purpose of you deciding you don't like the way things are ruled to work so you can change it, as you were proposing in your last post.

[james maissen]

Crash_00 wrote:

It was even confirmed once upon a time in 3.5 as well.

So you believe that in 3.5 these phantom hands of yours winked in and out of existence?

How ghost-like!

-James

[blackbloodtroll]

I still wonder what the end goal of this stealth errata was.

Is it to deny THW and TWF altogether?

Is it to deny THW and Armor Spikes?

Either way, there must be a better way than having to tell us to squint our eyes, and see "the truth that was always there" hidden between the lines, and to disregard all that was 3.5, even if the wording and function are the same.

[Crash_00]

What stealth errata, blackblood?

[blackbloodtroll]

Sorry, FAQ.

[MrSin]

Crash_00 wrote:

What stealth errata, blackblood?

I thought it was a joke about how it was an errata in disguise as a FAQs.

[Crash_00]

Wouldn't that require it to change the rules?

[Malachi Silverclaw]

Crash_00 wrote:

Wouldn't that require it to change the rules?

Exactly!