"Off-hand" Vs "Off-hand attack"

[Nicos]

Is there any diference between the "Off-hand attack" and the "Off-hand"? does the "Off-hand" paly some role outside TWF?

[DeltaOneG]

not really. There's main-hand and off-hand but RAW, all characters are completely ambidextrous.

[Crash_00]

From the lead designer of the game:

Quote:

Each round, a generic human warrior has two possibilities for an attack when taking a full attack action. His "primary hand" and his "off hand". Setting aside for a moment whether or not these are hands at all, those are his options. If he attacks with both using more than one "weapon" he takes huge penalties (weapon being an actual weapon or an unarmed strike). TWF reduces these depending on the "weapons" used. He can, without penalty use both to make an attack with a two-handed weapon, but in doing so, he has used both and cannot make any others. The core rulebook is a little vague here, but if you look at the rules for two-handed weapons on page 141, it is clear that it uses two hands. Now this is where the confusion comes in. An attack does not have to actually be a "hand", but it does have to be assigned to your "primary" or "off". Unfortunately the two-handed weapon description does not spell that out properly. However, taken in context of the two paragraphs before it, that a light weapon and a one handed weapon both speak to the "primary" or "off" language, it can be understood that the two-handed weapon is taking up both.

The last part of the paragraph is the most important. It clarifies that the off hand is also used in making a two handed attack. If you prefer a source from the CRB that clarifies this, the buckler description uses this phrase:"using your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon"

Between both sources it should be obvious that the off hand is not just something that magically appears for two weapon fighting. It is always around as an option and is used anytime you two hand a weapon (whether its a two handed weapon, a one handed weapon in two hands, or the absolutely no reason to ever do light weapon in two hands).

[lemeres]

A good example of a "off" weapon that does not actually use a hand would be the blade boots.

[blackbloodtroll]

Find the core discussion here.

[Malachi Silverclaw]

Crash_00 wrote:

From the lead designer of the game:

Quote:

Each round, a generic human warrior has two possibilities for an attack when taking a full attack action. His "primary hand" and his "off hand". Setting aside for a moment whether or not these are hands at all, those are his options. If he attacks with both using more than one "weapon" he takes huge penalties (weapon being an actual weapon or an unarmed strike). TWF reduces these depending on the "weapons" used. He can, without penalty use both to make an attack with a two-handed weapon, but in doing so, he has used both and cannot make any others. The core rulebook is a little vague here, but if you look at the rules for two-handed weapons on page 141, it is clear that it uses two hands. Now this is where the confusion comes in. An attack does not have to actually be a "hand", but it does have to be assigned to your "primary" or "off". Unfortunately the two-handed weapon description does not spell that out properly. However, taken in context of the two paragraphs before it, that a light weapon and a one handed weapon both speak to the "primary" or "off" language, it can be understood that the two-handed weapon is taking up both.

The last part of the paragraph is the most important. It clarifies that the off hand is also used in making a two handed attack. If you prefer a source from the CRB that clarifies this, the buckler description uses this phrase:"using your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon"

Between both sources it should be obvious that the off hand is not just something that magically appears for two weapon fighting. It is always around as an option and is used anytime you two hand a weapon (whether its a two handed weapon, a one handed weapon in two hands, or the absolutely no reason to ever do light weapon in two hands).

It should be 'obvious' that both he and the CRB are referring to TWF.

[Crash_00]

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Crash_00 wrote:

From the lead designer of the game:

Quote:

Each round, a generic human warrior has two possibilities for an attack when taking a full attack action. His "primary hand" and his "off hand". Setting aside for a moment whether or not these are hands at all, those are his options. If he attacks with both using more than one "weapon" he takes huge penalties (weapon being an actual weapon or an unarmed strike). TWF reduces these depending on the "weapons" used. He can, without penalty use both to make an attack with a two-handed weapon, but in doing so, he has used both and cannot make any others. The core rulebook is a little vague here, but if you look at the rules for two-handed weapons on page 141, it is clear that it uses two hands. Now this is where the confusion comes in. An attack does not have to actually be a "hand", but it does have to be assigned to your "primary" or "off". Unfortunately the two-handed weapon description does not spell that out properly. However, taken in context of the two paragraphs before it, that a light weapon and a one handed weapon both speak to the "primary" or "off" language, it can be understood that the two-handed weapon is taking up both.

The last part of the paragraph is the most important. It clarifies that the off hand is also used in making a two handed attack. If you prefer a source from the CRB that clarifies this, the buckler description uses this phrase:"using your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon"

Between both sources it should be obvious that the off hand is not just something that magically appears for two weapon fighting. It is always around as an option and is used anytime you two hand a weapon (whether its a two handed weapon, a one handed weapon in two hands, or the absolutely no reason to ever do light weapon in two hands).

It should be 'obvious' that both he and the CRB are referring to TWF.

Quote:

An attack does not have to actually be a "hand", but it does have to be assigned to your "primary" or "off". Unfortunately the two-handed weapon description does not spell that out properly. However, taken in context of the two paragraphs before it, that a light weapon and a one handed weapon both speak to the "primary" or "off" language, it can be understood that the two-handed weapon is taking up both.

Please point out the two weapon fighting reference in this post. I'm seeing a direct statement that two-handed weapons use both the Primary Hand and Off Hand.

So, yes, I guess it is obvious that he means the exact opposite of what he's saying. /sarcasm

[Malachi Silverclaw]

Crash_00 wrote:

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Crash_00 wrote:

From the lead designer of the game:

Quote:

Each round, a generic human warrior has two possibilities for an attack when taking a full attack action. His "primary hand" and his "off hand". Setting aside for a moment whether or not these are hands at all, those are his options. If he attacks with both using more than one "weapon" he takes huge penalties (weapon being an actual weapon or an unarmed strike). TWF reduces these depending on the "weapons" used. He can, without penalty use both to make an attack with a two-handed weapon, but in doing so, he has used both and cannot make any others. The core rulebook is a little vague here, but if you look at the rules for two-handed weapons on page 141, it is clear that it uses two hands. Now this is where the confusion comes in. An attack does not have to actually be a "hand", but it does have to be assigned to your "primary" or "off". Unfortunately the two-handed weapon description does not spell that out properly. However, taken in context of the two paragraphs before it, that a light weapon and a one handed weapon both speak to the "primary" or "off" language, it can be understood that the two-handed weapon is taking up both.

The last part of the paragraph is the most important. It clarifies that the off hand is also used in making a two handed attack. If you prefer a source from the CRB that clarifies this, the buckler description uses this phrase:"using your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon"

Between both sources it should be obvious that the off hand is not just something that magically appears for two weapon fighting. It is always around as an option and is used anytime you two hand a weapon (whether its a two handed weapon, a one handed weapon in two hands, or the absolutely no reason to ever do light weapon in two hands).

It should be 'obvious' that both he and the CRB are referring to TWF.

Quote:

An attack does not have to actually be a "hand", but it

...

He's answering a question about TWF using text which references TWF.

[Crash_00]

Read his post. He answers a question about wielding two handed weapons which references wielding weapons in general. Quit getting tied up in TWF, THF is the key to the FAQ and his post. The key to THF is that it uses both hands. Hands are the key to wielding weapons. It's all tied together, and he states that in the post that you've quoted but apparently have still failed to read.

[The Crusader]

Quote:

An attack does not have to actually be a "hand", but it does have to be assigned to your "primary" or "off". Unfortunately the two-handed weapon description does not spell that out properly. However, taken in context of the two paragraphs before it, that a light weapon and a one handed weapon both speak to the "primary" or "off" language, it can be understood that the two-handed weapon is taking up both.

A head can be your "primary". A foot can be your "off".

By this ruling, you can now two-hand a weapon with your head and your foot.

They closed a loophole that could not have mattered less, and opened others that will give them headaches for years to come.

Before this FAQ, a hand was a hand. Now it isn't. Shouldn't FAQ's make things clearer?

[Crash_00]

It's been this way all along. Could you not primary hand your boulder helm and off hand you boot blade before?

They didn't rule this way to close a loophole. They ruled this way to tell you what the rules actually say. Kind of the whole point for an FAQ.

If your GM lets you two hand a weapon with your head and foot, props to that munchkin table. Nothing in the rules implies that you can use anything but your physical hands for you Primary Hand and Off Hand unless specific rules trump it. Armor Spikes, Blade Boots, Barbazu Beards, Boulder Helms, etc. all specify how they are attacked with.

Any further issues with these rules are of the communities own making. It is quite clear that Primary Hand and Off Hand are not physical hands, yet are represented by physical hands unless the weapon does not require physical hands.

[Nicos]

Crash_00 wrote:

They didn't rule this way to close a loophole. They ruled this way to tell you what the rules actually say. Kind of the whole point for an FAQ.

Nah, it does not matter if you want to accept it or not but it was a change.

[Crash_00]

On page 141 of the CRB under the weapon categories, are any hands referenced other than Primary Hand or Off Hand? No. Do Light Weapons require one hand? Do One Handed Weapon require one hand? Is it specified what each hand you can wield them with does for the weapon's damage? Do Two handed weapons require both hands?

There is no other way to read it unless you ignore the rest of the rules. I stated that this was how it works before they clarified it in the FAQ. It was not a change. It was actually fairly basic english.

[Kazaan]

Ok, here's how it all breaks down.

First off, "off-hand" only comes into play if you're using Two-Weapon Fighting to gain extra attack(s) over your normal BAB allowance. If you have Bab+6 (2 iterative attacks), a Longsword in one hand, and a Shortsword in the other, you could make a total of two attacks, both with the Longsword, both with the Shortsword, or one with each (either one coming first) and in all these cases, you are not using Two-Handed Fighting; you don't take any penalties, and attacks with both weapons get 1x Str mod to damage. Only by declaring you're leveraging the TWF rules to gain a third attack do you take penalties and declare one weapon to be your off-hand (to determine what penalties apply) and this off-hand weapon gets 0.5x str mod to damage. To continue the example, lets say you declare using TWF and declare your Shortsword as your off-hand Weapon. Before, neither attack was truly "main-hand" or "off-hand", they were just "attacks". But now that TWF is in play, attacks with your designated off-hand weapon (the Shortsword) are off-hand attacks and attacks with any other weapon are main-hand attacks. Your Shortsword is your "off-hand weapon" and, without ITWF and GTWF, you're allowed the single standard "off-hand attack". So you can take one attack with your Shortsword and two attacks with your Longsword. If you had additional weapons available such as Unarmed Strike, Armor Spikes, Boot Blade, etc. they could all be options for main-hand iterative attacks, but only your Shortsword qualifies for off-hand attacks because that is what you designated. Additionally, you can "shuffle" your main-hand attacks and off-hand attacks as you please so long as your main-hand attacks follow "decreasing BAB order" and your standard off-hand happens earlier than your ITWF attack and that happens earlier than the GTWF attack. So you could, for example, take your off-hand first followed by two iteratives, put the off-hand between the iteratives, or take the off-hand last in this example.

Now, lets say you have a Greatsword and a Boot Blade. The Boot Blade is not a hand-held weapon while the Greatsword requires two hands to wield. With your two iterative attacks, you could make two attacks with the Greatsword, two attacks with the Boot Blade, or one attack with each and all these cases are allowed because, again, you aren't Two-Weapon Fighting. However, if you wanted to use TWF to gain an extra attack, this is where the problem kicks in. The result of the FAQ addressing the issue is that making an attack with a two-handed weapon (or a 1-h weapon in two hands) effectively "eats" your next potential off-hand attack. So, if you make an attack with the Greatsword, you've not only used one iterative attack but also you've "sacrificed" your next off-hand attack; for the sake of this example, you don't have ITWF or GTWF so you only have the one standard off-hand attack. This means you no longer have an attack available to make with your off-hand weapon. Conversely, if you make an off-hand attack, you have an "off-hand debt" which prevents you from doing an end-run around the system by taking all off-hand attacks first and then saying "Well, I can make main-hand attacks with a two-handed weapon even if I don't have that many off-hand attacks". The "off-hand debt" requires you to match your off-hand attacks with one-handed main-hand attacks. For example, if you started with an off-hand Boot Blade, you have a "debt" of one 1-h main-hand attack. So, your next main-hand attack cannot be made with the Greatsword since it requires two hands just to wield; you could make an attack with Unarmed Strike to satisfy your debt and then make your second iterative attack with the Greatsword (or another Unarmed Strike at your option).

Does that make it clear as mud?

[Crash_00]

Yes, he uses quotes to place emphasis for people that don't get. It's a fairly common practice. I am amazed that you haven't seen it used before Crusader. I stand by my statement. It's fairly basic english.

Quote:

Only by declaring you're leveraging the TWF rules to gain a third attack do you take penalties and declare one weapon to be your off-hand (to determine what penalties apply) and this off-hand weapon gets 0.5x str mod to damage.

Here is where you are making a basic flaw. The weapon is never declared as your [/b]off hand[/b]. It is declared to be your off hand weapon. It is in your off hand, that does not mean that it is your off hand. An attack with it is an off hand attack, but the attack is not your off hand.

Quote:

Before, neither attack was truly "main-hand" or "off-hand", they were just "attacks".

Flaw number two. Every attack has to be in a Primary Hand, Off Hand, or both. Read page 141. There is no option for an attack to be in none of your hands.

The rest of your examples are based on your two flawed principles and are, therefore, fundamentally flawed.

Your primary concept seems to be that Off Hand and Primary Hand only exist when TWF. This concept is not true. If you believe it to be so, please show me the rules that statse it is. Give me a single reference that states that the off hand itself (as opposed to Off Hand weapon or Off Hand attack which share part of the name because they only exist with the off hand) only exists when TWF. Pg. 141 tells us the qualities of Off Hand and Primary Hand fairly well and not once does it have any statement that they only exist when TWF. This TWF limitation for off hand to exist is completely made up and never even implied by the rules.

[Malachi Silverclaw]

The 3.0 version wrote:

Light: Light weapons are easier to use in your off hand, and you can use them while grappling. You can use a light weapon in one hand. You get no special bonus when using it in two hands.

One-Handed: If you use a one-handed melee weapon two-handed, you can apply one-and-a-half times your Strength bonus to damage (provided you have a bonus). Thrown weapons can only be thrown one-handed, and you receive your Strength bonus to damage.

Two-Handed: You can use a two-handed melee weapon effectively in two hands, and when you deal damage with it, you add one-and-a-half times your Strength bonus to damage (provided you have a bonus).

(I have not included the parts where the weapon size is compared to the wielder's size to determine which weapon category a weapon is for you; it's not relevant as it was changed in 3.5)

For context, the fact that you usually add your Str bonus to melee damage is stated elsewhere, so is not repeated; only if that changes is it mentioned above.

You'll see that there is no mention of 'primary' or 'off' hand. This is because these terms are not part of normal combat. In 3.0 'off hand' was a constant -4 penalty with everything you did with whichever hand your character was non-dominant, along with only half Str bonus to damage. This didn't need to be stated in the quoted rules as they were stated elsewhere.

This shows that 'primary' and 'off' hand are simply not part of the basic combat system. Although some things changed between 3.0 and 3.5, the only part of these rules which changed was the fact that all creatures became ambidextrous, taking away that meaning of 'off hand', leaving only the 'off hand attack' of two-weapon fighting.

In 3.5 the writers included in this section the Str to damage modifiers for the primary and off hand attacks in TWF. This was not a change to the combat system to one which had 'Schrödinger's hand', where suddenly instead of requiring two hands a two-handed weapon suddenly requires the 'primary' and 'off' hands which are real and not real to suit your current argument. The primary and off hands now only are relevant rules-wise in TWF, and this section is specifying how the Str bonus is applied to the different attacks in TWF.

[Crash_00]

Malachi, are we playing 3.0 ? No, we're playing pathfinder. 3.0 has absolutely no relevance. What rules meant, has absolutely no relevance.

If you change the definition of a term, and keep all references to that term, all the references have to go by the new definition. This is basic logic. Editing, Programming, Algebra, this rule holds true across the board.

The cry of "well it didn't use to mean that so it still doesn't" is completely useless, because now it's meaning has changed, and it means a different thing than it did in 3.0.

Primary and Off Hand are a part of the weapon categories now. Not just when two weapon fighting, but always. Again, show me the rule, in pathfinder, that TWF is the only time Primary Hand and Off Hand exist.

It does not exist. Primary Hand and Off Hand always exist. The rules for them don't even reference TWF. Disagree? Show me the two weapon fighting link from pg. 141. I can't see it. There is no mention of TWF on the page that defines primary hand and off hand as a players two hands.

You try to use the fact that strength is normally added as an excuse for off hand and primary hand to be placed in the weapon category rules. By that logic, they would only need to discuss Off Hand (since Primary Hand adds strength to damage just like the normal rules state). They don't. They discuss both of them. They discuss both of them, because they are your two hands. Every time you wield a weapon it is with one, or both, of these hands.

Disagree? Show me the rule that allows you to wield a weapon without your Off Hand or Primary Hand on it. Should be pretty simple if it exists, right?

The change from 3.0 to 3.5 was not the removal of the off hand. It was a change in definition of the off hand. Off hand was no longer your physical off hand, because that use of it went away. Now it was your second "hand" for wielding a weapon. Whatever that weapon is, be it two handed or no-handed, you use your off hand to wield it. The exception is the Barbazu Beard that states it requires no hands to use.

[Malachi Silverclaw]

Crash_00 wrote:

Malachi, are we playing 3.0 ? No, we're playing pathfinder. 3.0 has absolutely no relevance. What rules meant, has absolutely no relevance.

You have to take context into consideration. You can't look at one piece of the puzzle in isolation. You've said something similar yourself.

Quote:

If you change the definition of a term, and keep all references to that term, all the references have to go by the new definition. This is basic logic. Editing, Programming, Algebra, this rule holds true across the board.

Even in 3.0, when the buckler description mentions 'off hand' it's talking about whichever hand the buckler is strapped to, as the usual assumption is that it's strapped to the off hand. Just like the off hand attack is so named because the usual assumption is that the off hand weapon is wielded by a real hand.

Quote:

The cry of "well it didn't use to mean that so it still doesn't" is completely useless, because now it's meaning has changed, and it means a different thing than it did in 3.0.

Here's where your argument is least convincing. In the build-up to the change from 3.0 to 3.5, Dragon magazine ran several articles over several months about the crucial changes. If the combat engine itself were to change so fundamentally that hands would become quantum objects subject to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, sometime being real and sometimes hypothetical, where an attack with a two-handed weapon 'consumes' two attacks, where there stated intent of removing handedness (and therefore Ambidexterity) from the game but shoved it back in unannounced in the rules for weapon categories, well that would have been worth a mention.

Compare that level of paranoia with keeping that part of the rules unchanged but clarifying how the Str bonus to damage works in TWF....!

Quote:

Primary and Off Hand are a part of the weapon categories now. Not just when two weapon fighting, but always. Again, show me the rule, in pathfinder, that TWF is the only time Primary Hand and Off Hand exist.

Have you been playing Call Of Cthulhu now? As if the CRB is required to add a footnote to every single section to say 'There is no off hand in this part!'

Quote:

It does not exist. Primary Hand and Off Hand always exist. The rules for them don't even reference TWF. Disagree? Show me the two weapon fighting link from pg. 141. I can't see it. There is no mention of TWF on the page that defines primary hand and off hand as a players two hands.

It doesn't need to specify that it's talking about TWF since the only time these terms have a rules effect is in....TWF!

Quote:

You try to use the fact that strength is normally added as an excuse for off hand and primary hand to be placed in the weapon category rules. By that logic, they would only need to discuss Off Hand (since Primary Hand adds strength to damage just like the normal rules state). They don't. They discuss both of them. They discuss both of them, because they are your two hands. Every time you wield a weapon it is with one, or both, of these hands.

They mention the primary hand so people don't think that both weapons get half Str bonus to damage. Their inclusion in this section is for completeness, so it would be very strange if they left it incomplete.

Quote:

Disagree? Show me the rule that allows you to wield a weapon without your Off Hand or Primary Hand on it. Should be pretty simple if it exists, right?

p141 wrote:

Two-Handed: Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively. Apply 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon.

There ya go!

Quote:

The change from 3.0 to 3.5 was not the removal of the off hand. It was a change in definition of the off hand. Off hand was no longer your physical off hand, because that use of it went away. Now it was your second "hand" for wielding a weapon. Whatever that weapon is, be it two handed or no-handed, you use your off hand to wield it. The exception is the Barbazu Beard that states it requires...

When we compare your version of events to reality, your's is simply not credible. It's been almost exactly ten years since 3.5 replaced 3.0, and we're just hearing about 'Schrödinger's Hand' now? Such a major change to the system was not only left unmentioned then, it hasn't been mentioned for ten years?

I know you don't want to hear it, but Jason's explanation where he referenced p141 was talking strictly about TWF, he was answering a FAQ about TWF, the references to primary and off hand are references to TWF, and Jason was explaining why he believes that using a 2HW was incompatible with TWF (one of several). He doesn't subscribe to the 'Schrödinger's Hand' theory any more than me, he was talking strictly about TWF.

The test is simple. If 'off hand' is only referencing TWF then the half Str bonus to damage is limited to the bonus 'off hand attack(s)' granted by TWF. If 'off hand' exists all the time, then any attack with this off hand, even outside TWF, would only get half Str bonus to damage. Ask them! FAQ it! Better yet, check out each stat block published by Paizo to see which it is.

[Crash_00]

You never showed a reference that allow you wot wield a weapon without your Off Hand or Primary Hand on it. You showed a reference that allowed you to wield a weapon with both on it congratulations. Two hands is not a hand, it is the number of hands you need on the weapon. Congratulations again.

Quote:

When we compare your version of events to reality, your's is simply not credible. It's been almost exactly ten years since 3.5 replaced 3.0, and we're just hearing about 'Schrödinger's Hand' now? Such a major change to the system was not only left unmentioned then, it hasn't been mentioned for ten years?

I know you don't want to hear it, but Jason's explanation where he referenced p141 was talking strictly about TWF, he was answering a FAQ about TWF, the references to primary and off hand are references to TWF, and Jason was explaining why he believes that using a 2HW was incompatible with TWF (one of several). He doesn't subscribe to the 'Schrödinger's Hand' theory any more than me, he was talking strictly about TWF.

The test is simple. If 'off hand' is only referencing TWF then the half Str bonus to damage is limited to the bonus 'off hand attack(s)' granted by TWF. If 'off hand' exists all the time, then any attack with this off hand, even outside TWF, would only get half Str bonus to damage. Ask them! FAQ it! Better yet, check out each stat block published by Paizo to see which it is.

Whew, you just wasted a lot of time not managing to come up with anything really, but let's go ahead and get into your last three paragraphs. They're pretty spectacular in how wrong you are, so the responses will be pretty easy.

A.) They felt it was obvious, and to many of us it was. Why give a detailed explanation of something that is obvious?
B.) So the part where he explicitly talks about two handed fighting is just a reference to two weapon fighting? Got it. I think there is a river in Egypt for you.
C.) Existing at all times does not mean that it is used at all times. Give an example of what you are trying to say, and I'll gladly show you where your logic fails.

Quote:

Have you been playing Call Of Cthulhu now? As if the CRB is required to add a footnote to every single section to say 'There is no off hand in this part!'

It is required to give important information on it's defined terms. I'd say that noting that both defined terms used often and freely in the wielding rules only exist during a particular special full attack action would be a noteworthy inclusion to the CRB. It aint there. It's inclusion in the rules is merely a figment of your imagination. Fortunately, it is not a figment of the design teams imagination, so they don't agree with you.

Quote:

It doesn't need to specify that it's talking about TWF since the only time these terms have a rules effect is in....TWF!

And any time the character wields a weapon ever.

Quote:

Even in 3.0, when the buckler description mentions 'off hand' it's talking about whichever hand the buckler is strapped to, as the usual assumption is that it's strapped to the off hand. Just like the off hand attack is so named because the usual assumption is that the off hand weapon is wielded by a real hand.

No. Off Hand referred specifically to Off Hand. Defined terms don't change their definition just because you logically want them to. Abstract mechanics are abstract mechanics no matter how you want them to work.

Quote:

You have to take context into consideration. You can't look at one piece of the puzzle in isolation. You've said something similar yourself.

3.0 is not part of the context of the Pathfinder ruleset. The pathfinder rulebook is the context of the Pathfinder ruleset.

[Malachi Silverclaw]

Crash_00 wrote:

You never showed a reference that allow you wot wield a weapon without your Off Hand or Primary Hand on it. You showed a reference that allowed you to wield a weapon with both on it congratulations. Two hands is not a hand, it is the number of hands you need on the weapon. Congratulations again.

And here's 'Schrödinger's Hand' again. You challenged me to show where weapons are used without reference to 'primary' or 'off', and when I do you say that 'both hands', which are real hands, must mean 'primary' and 'off', but you also say that 'primary' and 'off' are not real hands, just effort. But when we say, okay, use two hands worth of 'effort' using one real hand and 'Schrödinger's Hand' appears again!

Quote:

A.) They felt it was obvious, and to many of us it was. Why give a detailed explanation of something that is obvious?

B.) So the part where he explicitly talks about two handed fighting is just a reference to two weapon fighting? Got it. I think there is a river in Egypt for you.
C.) Existing at all times does not mean that it is used at all times. Give an example of what you are trying to say, and I'll gladly show you where your logic fails.

A.) It's been 'obvious' to everyone else that it's talking about TWF.

B.) He's specifically talking about why two-handed weapons are incompatible with TWF, so yes, he's talking about TWF every single moment, and any time he mentions 2HWs, 'primary' hand and 'off' hand he is talking about these things in the context of TWF.

C.) 'Schrödinger's Hand' again!

Quote:

No. Off Hand referred specifically to Off Hand. Defined terms don't change their definition just because you logically want them to. Abstract mechanics are abstract mechanics no matter how you want them to work.

Your flawed thinking leads you to believe that if you kick as your off hand attack in TWF then you lose the buckler's bonus to AC, and also that if you only make a single attack with a weapon used by the arm to which the buckler is strapped then you keep its AC bonus. The rest of us realise that if you use the arm to which it's strapped then you lose its AC bonus, and if you don't then you keep its AC bonus. The only reason you insist otherwise is to support the rest of your flawed construct.

Quote:

3.0 is not part of the context of the Pathfinder ruleset. The pathfinder rulebook is the context of the Pathfinder ruleset.

So you criticise others for not reading the rules in context, while refusing to acknowledge that these rules have an evolutionary history in which we can trace evidence which reveals the truth. So now it's 'Schrödinger's Context'?

[Durngrun Stonebreaker]

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Crash_00 wrote:

You never showed a reference that allow you wot wield a weapon without your Off Hand or Primary Hand on it. You showed a reference that allowed you to wield a weapon with both on it congratulations. Two hands is not a hand, it is the number of hands you need on the weapon. Congratulations again.

And here's 'Schrödinger's Hand' again. You challenged me to show where weapons are used without reference to 'primary' or 'off', and when I do you say that 'both hands', which are real hands, must mean 'primary' and 'off', but you also say that 'primary' and 'off' are not real hands, just effort. But when we say, okay, use two hands worth of 'effort' using one real hand and 'Schrödinger's Hand' appears again!

Alright, I've been trying to stay out of this lately but this bugged me for some reason. You expect Crash (and therefore everyone else) to read the CRB with 3.0, 3.5, and 3.5 FAQs in context but don't hold yourself to the standard of reading the wielding rules with the two previous paragraphs in context. CRB pg. 141 states light weapons can be primary or off hand, one handed weapons can be primary or off hand, two handed weapons require both hands. Seems fairly simple logic at this point.

[Malachi Silverclaw]

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Crash_00 wrote:

You never showed a reference that allow you wot wield a weapon without your Off Hand or Primary Hand on it. You showed a reference that allowed you to wield a weapon with both on it congratulations. Two hands is not a hand, it is the number of hands you need on the weapon. Congratulations again.

And here's 'Schrödinger's Hand' again. You challenged me to show where weapons are used without reference to 'primary' or 'off', and when I do you say that 'both hands', which are real hands, must mean 'primary' and 'off', but you also say that 'primary' and 'off' are not real hands, just effort. But when we say, okay, use two hands worth of 'effort' using one real hand and 'Schrödinger's Hand' appears again!

Alright, I've been trying to stay out of this lately but this bugged me for some reason. You expect Crash (and therefore everyone else) to read the CRB with 3.0, 3.5, and 3.5 FAQs in context but don't hold yourself to the standard of reading the wielding rules with the two previous paragraphs in context. CRB pg. 141 states light weapons can be primary or off hand, one handed weapons can be primary or off hand, two handed weapons require both hands. Seems fairly simple logic at this point.

It is!

Since 'primary' and 'off' hand only exist in the context of TWF, their inclusion here is referring to TWF. Nothing it says is untrue: if a weapon is used in the 'primary' hand (which only exists in TWF), it does get the full Str bonus, and if a weapon is used in the 'off' hand (which only exists in TWF), it does only get half the Str bonus! It tells the truth.

If you were to ignore the fact that, in purely rules terms (as opposed to descriptive fluff), 'primary' and 'off' hand are limited to TWF, then 'off' hand exists all the time, and any time you hit with a weapon in your non-dominant hand then you'd only get half your Str bonus to damage. This is not the case. You get full damage no matter which hand uses which weapon, with the single exception of 'off hand attacks' in Two-Weapon Fighting!

[Durngrun Stonebreaker]

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Crash_00 wrote:

You never showed a reference that allow you wot wield a weapon without your Off Hand or Primary Hand on it. You showed a reference that allowed you to wield a weapon with both on it congratulations. Two hands is not a hand, it is the number of hands you need on the weapon. Congratulations again.

And here's 'Schrödinger's Hand' again. You challenged me to show where weapons are used without reference to 'primary' or 'off', and when I do you say that 'both hands', which are real hands, must mean 'primary' and 'off', but you also say that 'primary' and 'off' are not real hands, just effort. But when we say, okay, use two hands worth of 'effort' using one real hand and 'Schrödinger's Hand' appears again!

Alright, I've been trying to stay out of this lately but this bugged me for some reason. You expect Crash (and therefore everyone else) to read the CRB with 3.0, 3.5, and 3.5 FAQs in context but don't hold yourself to the standard of reading the wielding rules with the two previous paragraphs in context. CRB pg. 141 states light weapons can be primary or off hand, one handed weapons can be primary or off hand, two handed weapons require both hands. Seems fairly simple logic at this point.

It is!

Since 'primary' and 'off' hand only exist in the context of TWF, their inclusion here is referring to TWF. Nothing it says is untrue: if a weapon is used in the 'primary' hand (which only exists in TWF), it does get the full Str bonus, and if a weapon is used in the 'off' hand (which only exists in TWF), it does only get half the Str bonus! It tells the truth.

If you were to ignore the fact that, in purely rules terms (as opposed to descriptive fluff), 'primary' and 'off' hand are limited to TWF, then 'off' hand exists all the time, and any time you hit with a weapon in your non-dominant hand then you'd only get half your Str bonus to damage. This is not the case. You get full damage no matter...

Again, you have proven the FAQ correct. You say primary hand and off hand only exist when two weapon fighting. So going by your reading, light weapons can be used in the primary or off hand, one-handed weapon can be used in primary or off hand so either of these weapons are good for two weapon fighting. Two handed weapons do not say primary or off hand (now I read both hands as primary and off hand but we are going with your reading that primary and off hand are not mentioned) so logically two handed weapons cannot be used for two weapon fighting.

[Malachi Silverclaw]

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

Again, you have proven the FAQ correct. You say primary hand and off hand only exist when two weapon fighting. So going by your reading, light weapons can be used in the primary or off hand, one-handed weapon can be used in primary or off hand so either of these weapons are good for two weapon fighting. Two handed weapons do not say primary or off hand (now I read both hands as primary and off hand but we are going with your reading that primary and off hand are not mentioned) so logically two handed weapons cannot be used for two weapon fighting.

Although this section helpfully clarifies how to apply the Str bonus in situations other than using a single weapon in one hand, this section does not contain the rules for Two-Weapon Fighting! Those rules are in the section on TWF!

Since the rules for weapon category are not the rules which define what weapons may or may not be used in TWF, the lack of reference to the TWF terms in the 2HW section does not mean they can't be used in TWF.

In 3.0, no part of this section mentioned 'primary' or 'off' hand, and yet these weapons could certainly be used in TWF, otherwise there would be no weapon useable in TWF! This section does not tell which weapons may or may not be used in TWF, it just tells you how to apply the Str bonus if you do.

If you use a 2HW in TWF, it will either be your designated off hand weapon (in which case you'll get half your Str bonus to damage, per the combat chapter), or it won't be your off-hand weapon, in which case the rules for TWF do not change how the Str bonus is applied.

[Durngrun Stonebreaker]

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

Again, you have proven the FAQ correct. You say primary hand and off hand only exist when two weapon fighting. So going by your reading, light weapons can be used in the primary or off hand, one-handed weapon can be used in primary or off hand so either of these weapons are good for two weapon fighting. Two handed weapons do not say primary or off hand (now I read both hands as primary and off hand but we are going with your reading that primary and off hand are not mentioned) so logically two handed weapons cannot be used for two weapon fighting.

Although this section helpfully clarifies how to apply the Str bonus in situations other than using a single weapon in one hand, this section does not contain the rules for Two-Weapon Fighting! Those rules are in the section on TWF!

Since the rules for weapon category are not the rules which define what weapons may or may not be used in TWF, the lack of reference to the TWF terms in the 2HW section does not mean they can't be used in TWF.

In 3.0, no part of this section mentioned 'primary' or 'off' hand, and yet these weapons could certainly be used in TWF, otherwise there would be no weapon useable in TWF! This section does not tell which weapons may or may not be used in TWF, it just tells you how to apply the Str bonus if you do.

If you use a 2HW in TWF, it will either be your designated off hand weapon (in which case you'll get half your Str bonus to damage, per the combat chapter), or it won't be your off-hand weapon, in which case the rules for TWF do not change how the Str bonus is applied.

Off-hand is a game mechanic that either exists outside of two weapon fighting and the rules on pg 141 show that it is used when wielding a two handed weapon (requires both hands)

Or

It only exists within the confines of two weapon fighting and the rules on pg 141 preclude the use of two handed weapons while two weapon fighting by its absence (since the rules are explicitly stated for light and one handed weapons.)

[blackbloodtroll]

As we saw with the shield bash, there are certain assumptions of how you will be fighting, and the rules reflect this.

This does not mean that style is the only possibility.

When mentioning things like two weapon fighting, it is assumed that you will fight with one weapon in your physical hand, and another weapon in your other physical hand.

This was why they felt no need to mention it within the entry for two handed weapons.

This is also why things like the Buckler refer to the off-hand, as they expect you to be wearing the Buckler on the same arm that you use to attack with an off-hand weapon, you wield with that hand, whilst two weapon fighting.

So, to clarify how the damage is figured, with a primary and off-hand weapon, which are only relevant whilst two weapon fighting, they only discuss the weapons they assume you will be attacking with.

[Durngrun Stonebreaker]

So even though the rules are written in such a way as to not allow it, and the design team confirmed it is not allowed, it is still RAW not because of what is written but because of what you think they assumed?

[blackbloodtroll]

This is why the FAQ is problematic, as it does not quite explain the how the off-hand is unavailable to be used to make an attack with a Gauntlet or Armor Spikes.

Is it an actual hand that is used, or a metaphorical hand that is used, that creates the restriction?

Many have come up with their own conclusions, and a number make sense, but there is really nothing clearly stating how that is the final conclusion, of what, and why, it is restricted.

[The Crusader]

It can't be both ways. It can't transition from real to theoretical and back again to be convenient for you and your argument. A hand is either a hand, or a "hand". Pick one and stick with it.

If it is a hand, then prepare for an onslaught of revisions, since you now will always need a free hand to wield armor spikes or a boot blade or an unarmed strike or what-have-you.

If it is a "hand", then prepare for a whole new level of rules exploitation that never would have existed prior to the FAQ. Who wouldn't love to wield a weapon at 1.5x STR bonus and still have hands free to cast spells or use a wand or drink a potion or what-have-you.

Pick one. Stick with it.

[blackbloodtroll]

There is a problem with there being an off-hand outside of two weapon fighting.

This would mean that one could make an off-hand attack, outside of two weapon fighting.

There is no evidence that you can do this.

If it some sort of resource, then you have to decide if it is available outside of two weapon fighting.

If this "resource" is unusable outside two weapon fighting, then it is impossible to attack with a two handed weapon, for it now requires this "resource" to do so.

[Crash_00]

Blackblood, Jason broke it down into great detail exactly why the FAQ ruling was a No. I suggest you read his post thoroughly. Don't use Malachi's X-ray machine or UV scanner though, just your normal eyes will suffice. I'll post the most relevant pieces.

Post 1:

Quote:

Each round, a generic human warrior has two possibilities for an attack when taking a full attack action. His "primary hand" and his "off hand". Setting aside for a moment whether or not these are hands at all, those are his options. If he attacks with both using more than one "weapon" he takes huge penalties (weapon being an actual weapon or an unarmed strike). TWF reduces these depending on the "weapons" used. He can, without penalty use both to make an attack with a two-handed weapon, but in doing so, he has used both and cannot make any others. The core rulebook is a little vague here, but if you look at the rules for two-handed weapons on page 141, it is clear that it uses two hands. Now this is where the confusion comes in. An attack does not have to actually be a "hand", but it does have to be assigned to your "primary" or "off". Unfortunately the two-handed weapon description does not spell that out properly. However, taken in context of the two paragraphs before it, that a light weapon and a one handed weapon both speak to the "primary" or "off" language, it can be understood that the two-handed weapon is taking up both.

Post 2:

Quote:

The rules for two-handed weapons state that they use up two hands (CRB 141). While this does not say it is your primary and off hand, those are the one two hands you have during an attack (and the descriptions of a light and one handed weapons in the preceding paragraphs do speak to that language). So, when you attack with a THW, you are using both your primary and off hand to make the attack. You cannot then swap into two weapon fighting and use the off hand (or your primary for that matter, since the THW rules do not state which hand you are using at all, because you are using both) to make additional attacks.

Let's look at a few points he makes that should blatantly clarify things:

A) Each round, a generic human warrior has two possibilities for an attack when taking a full attack action. His "primary hand" and his "off hand". Setting aside for a moment whether or not these are hands at all, those are his options.

Every character in the game, whether he has two weapon fighting as a feat or not, has these two hands every round as an option. They exist every round.

B) He can, without penalty use both to make an attack with a two-handed weapon, but in doing so, he has used both

Two handed weapons use both the Primary Hand and Off Hand. Right there, straight from a dev. There is no guesswork about it, this is how it works. You cannot TWF with a 2HW, so if a 2HW uses both, then the Off Hand must exist outside of TWF. Goodbye to that argument.

C) An attack does not have to actually be a "hand", but it does have to be assigned to your "primary" or "off"

Again, there should no longer be any confusion. You have to assign attacks to hands whether they are using an actual hand or not.

D) Unfortunately the two-handed weapon description does not spell that out properly. However, taken in context of the two paragraphs before it, that a light weapon and a one handed weapon both speak to the "primary" or "off" language, it can be understood that the two-handed weapon is taking up both.

It's not blatant, but if you read the entire section together, it's understandable. I feel like I said that myself, before he had to.

E) The rules for two-handed weapons state that they use up two hands (CRB 141). While this does not say it is your primary and off hand, those are the one two hands you have during an attack (and the descriptions of a light and one handed weapons in the preceding paragraphs do speak to that language).

Confirmation that the two hands needed for a two handed weapon are undeniably the Primary Hand and Off Hand.

F) So, when you attack with a THW, you are using both your primary and off hand to make the attack. You cannot then swap into two weapon fighting and use the off hand (or your primary for that matter, since the THW rules do not state which hand you are using at all, because you are using both) to make additional attacks.

The most detailed explanation you should ever need to understand the ruling. You are already using your off hand on the two handed weapon so you cannot use it to make an off hand attack at that time. The same applies to trying to use the primary hand to make the other attack. The two handed weapon uses both hands.

Quote:

Since 'primary' and 'off' hand only exist in the context of TWF, their inclusion here is referring to TWF. Nothing it says is untrue: if a weapon is used in the 'primary' hand (which only exists in TWF), it does get the full Str bonus, and if a weapon is used in the 'off' hand (which only exists in TWF), it does only get half the Str bonus! It tells the truth.

You are wrong. Blatantly wrong. In direct opposition to what the rules and devs say. In addition, this whole concept of yours has a gaping logical hole in it.

Facts:
Can you TWF with a THW? No. We have been told this.
Why? You can't use the off hand since it is already being used.

Your theory:
When does the off hand exist? Only when TWF.

Flaw in your theory:
The THW cannot use the off hand if the off hand does not exist when the THW is being used. Since the THW cannot be used to TWF, the off hand can never exist in the context of using a THW. The THW therefore can never use the off hand.

However, the fact is that the THW does use the off hand, therefore the off hand must exist outside of TWF.

Quote:

Your flawed thinking leads you to believe that if you kick as your off hand attack in TWF then you lose the buckler's bonus to AC, and also that if you only make a single attack with a weapon used by the arm to which the buckler is strapped then you keep its AC bonus. The rest of us realise that if you use the arm to which it's strapped then you lose its AC bonus, and if you don't then you keep its AC bonus. The only reason you insist otherwise is to support the rest of your flawed construct.

It's actually my basic reading skills that lead me to know the details about the buckler. You can argue what the rules intend to say all day long, but you're still wrong when you try to say that they actually say what your propose.

Quote:

So you criticise others for not reading the rules in context, while refusing to acknowledge that these rules have an evolutionary history in which we can trace evidence which reveals the truth. So now it's 'Schrödinger's Context'?

Call it what you want. It is reasonable to have to read the entire quarter page section to understand the context of the rules. It is not reasonable to have to read a completely separate book for a completely different game published nine years previous to this one to gain "context."

This is blatant, and you know it.

[Crash_00]

The Crusader wrote:

It can't be both ways. It can't transition from real to theoretical and back again to be convenient for you and your argument. A hand is either a hand, or a "hand". Pick one and stick with it.

If it is a hand, then prepare for an onslaught of revisions, since you now will always need a free hand to wield armor spikes or a boot blade or an unarmed strike or what-have-you.

If it is a "hand", then prepare for a whole new level of rules exploitation that never would have existed prior to the FAQ. Who wouldn't love to wield a weapon at 1.5x STR bonus and still have hands free to cast spells or use a wand or drink a potion or what-have-you.

Pick one. Stick with it.

You're missing the option that's used. It isn't one of your proposals, so I can't fault you.

The Primary Hand and Off Hands are represented by physical hands but don't have to be if the weapon does not require physical hands.

I know, I know, that's not good enough, because I don't like it. Rule it the other way at your games. Rule 0 still exists.

The simple fact of the matter is that most people have already been using this part of the concept the entire time they've played even if they don't want to accept it now. Just think to yourself, how much damage do armor spikes do?

[Darth Grall]

My question is, how do monsters and corner case pc's get additional offhands?

Several monsters can tri-wield or quad-wield weapons, simply by virtue of having more hands and utilizing the monster feats such as multi-weapon fighting.

Does a pc with 3 arms have a mainhand and 2 offhand? Could that character issue an attack with a greatsword and then with armor spikes? What distinguishes the number of attack "hands" a character has but in fact hands?

Personally I think this ruling is overkill, I would have just add a splat line to armor spikes/other trouble weapons. Or, a line to 2H rules.

[blackbloodtroll]

Well, Jason did say:

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

We are continuing to contemplate this issue, but as of the current moment, this is the official ruling (for what that's worth, which in your home game, is totally up to GM call).

This implies that a change is still possible.

[Crash_00]

Yes, they will probably look into changing, or at the very least significantly rewording these rules. They need work.

Darth, it's a complicated issue, but it always has been. We know that a character has an off hand for each extra natural arm (essentially you have a primary hand and number_of_arms - 1 Off Hands). It is still complicated as to whether or not a character that gains an extra arm gains an extra off hand.

The important thing to note is that you never gain an extra Primary Hand. This is important because a two-handed weapon always requires a primary hand (unless it is being used with an ability that allows it to be wielded as a one handed weapon).

This means that a four armed monster can wield a greatsword and two longswords, but it wouldn't be able to wield two great swords.

Personally, I think that it would be an easy change to allow a two-handed weapon to be used in two off hands for these creatures (the rules can be interpreted that way).

[HangarFlying]

Just wanted to throw a wrench into the conversation.

Lets pretend we have an NPC with two claws, but it is also equipped with a Lucerne Hammer and has a BAB of +6/+1.

Can said character make one claw attack and still make an attack with the Lucerne Hammer?

[Crash_00]

Natural Attacks have their own rules Hangar.

Relevant is:

Quote:

Creatures with natural attacks and attacks made with weapons can use both as part of a full attack action (although often a creature must forgo one natural attack for each weapon clutched in that limb, be it a claw, tentacle, or slam).

If you are wielding the Lucerne Hammer using the same arms that have the claws, then you're going to have to forgo the claws to attack with the Lucerne Hammer (it is being clutched in both limbs since it's two handed).

[Chris Lambertz]

Removed a few posts and locking as we seem to already have a similar thread open at the moment.