Using Armor Spikes (or other non-hand-associated weapons) works because they don't require a hand to wield. Using a spiked gauntlet or other weapon that, while being hand-associated, still leaves the hand available for grasping purposes, doesn't work for threatening because (and only because) the hand is "occupied" with wielding a weapon. So if you have both hands on your Greatsword, you threaten with the Greatsword, but not with the Spiked Gauntlet because your hand is occupied holding the Greatsword. For that matter, if you simply "hold" the Greatsword in one hand, and that happens to be the hand with the spiked gauntlet, you don't threaten with either weapon. If you hold the Greatsword in one hand and have a Spiked Gauntlet in the other, you threaten with the gauntlet but not the sword. However, if you wield a Greatsword in both hands, you can threaten equally with both sword and armor spikes (or any other non-hand-associated weapon).I see arguments about greatswords and bows and monks and such - but really this boils down to using armor spikes or a spiked gauntlet to threaten close while using a reach weapon.
That is the corner case that the ruling is meant to lock down - although the knight with a greatsword and a boot knife and a spiked helm and a spiked gauntlet and elbow spikes and such I'm sure was another concern.
Honestly there are some things I think are silly but they are what they are - take 'wielding' for example - I hate that in order to get the benefit from a defending weapon you have to make an attack with it. But it does prevent certain cheese from making it's rounds which makes defending weapons less useful for certain builds.
FAQ says:
Armor Spikes: Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?
No.
Likewise, you couldn't use an armored gauntlet to do so, as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks.
So no - you are incorrect.
I still believe my proposal of simply limiting x1 Strength to the Main Hand attack, and x0.5 to the Off-hand attack(barring feats and abilities) was actually quite elegant.expLAIn!
The idea is that no matter what combination of weapons you have, based on actual hands, you can only gain normal strength damage with your main attack and .5 strength with your off hand attack(s). So is you, for instance, have a greatsword, you'd deal normal x1 damage instead of x1.5 if used in two weapon fighting.
That would have also solved what the DEV's seemed to be balking at (someone getting more than 1.5 strength damage from attacks [1.5 two handed + .5 offhand for x2 damage total])
It was floated as a MUCH easier way to 'solve' the issues that where 'solved' with the armor spikes FAQ.
Not so much. They were in a crunch to get the CRB out so they didn't take a lot of time to refine it and make all the mechanical terminology consistent. They thought that players were smart enough to figure that TWF and 2-h weapons don't work together. And now, they don't want to drastically change the CRB and create conflicts with old issues. So, they present a FAQ that explains how the rules ought to be parsed by a competent and intelligent player.
They also thought people were "smart" enough to figure out Monk's flurry, but remember how that turned out? 2 FAQS, 2 erratas, and much discussion.
You were asking about threatening AoOs so I answered about AoOs. Do you want to talk about threat and AoO or do you want to talk about TWF?FAQ says:
Armor Spikes: Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?
No.
Likewise, you couldn't use an armored gauntlet to do so, as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks.So no - you are incorrect.
Armor spikes are treated as light weapons for the purpose of threatening adjacent squares. Light weapons require the use of limbs, so you would only be able to make attacks with them if you have a free hand. Thus, wielding a two-handed reach weapon would negate your ability to "wield" (and thus threaten with) armor spikes. This isn't necessarily clear in the rules, but I just discussed it with Jason, and we're both on the same page about the intent.
FAQ or not it's how the devs intend the rules to work. You may read the rules differently (and that's OK) but it doesn't make it how it was intended.
Much like everyone else here when talking about using a spiked gauntlet with a 2h weapon. Honestly the fact that armor spikes work and the gauntlet doesn't is why the FAQ is silly. I honestly would be happy with a 'hands of effort' and such but I want the rules to be consistent - and the entire 'hands of effort' to me relies on the exact argument presented above by a dev - that is you either wield a two 1h weapons - or a 2h weapon - but not both for threatened spaces.
Otherwise what is the point of the FAQ other than making a bunch of people upset?
|
Homebrew Idea:
So, I'd like to take the Greatsword-Wielding Bad-Ass (GWBA) who wants to execute a baseball swing and then follow up with a punch to the face in 6 seconds.
Let's say he has the option to take 1.5x or 1.0x on his damage roll, depending on how he sets up his swing (how much he commits or conserves, decided on his turn). This could play out in two ways that I can see:
1) takes a big committed swing and follows through adding x1.5 ST to damage. no TWF. Uses only Greatsword for AoO threats this round.
2) take a big conservative swing adding x1.0 to damage. Then, either takes his move action, or, continues to attack using TWF knuckle sandwich. Uses both Greatsword and Unarmed Strikes for AoO threats this round(!).
so, the act of committing to a two-handed swing (adding x1.5 instead of x1.0), removes the TWF option, removes the option to use another weapon to threaten AoOs. Otherwise the options remain intact. Insert reach weapon or spiked gauntlet as you like. Is this a desirable outcome or have I underestimated the permutations?
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You didn't address my example; If you could swing a Greatsword and throw a kick, why can't you swing a pair of daggers and throw a kick? It takes the same number of limbs and the daggers, combined, weigh a quarter what the Greatsword weighs
The rules of the game, ever since they appeared in 3.0 and including the PF CRB, are clear about how you work out how many (weapon-type) attacks you get in a full attack. It's based on BAB, with possible extra attacks from TWF and that line of feats, possible extras from haste or a Speed weapon or other magic, and any special abilities that say they grant extra attacks.
This worked fine, and continues to work fine.
What was never part of the written rules for 3.0, 3.5 or PF was the idea that the number of attacks you get is based on how light your weapons are or how many hands it takes to execute an attack with them.
It has never been part of these rules that executing an attack with a 2H weapon, or a weapon held in two hands, actually uses up two of your attacks! 'Off hand' attacks or otherwise.
Even the FAQ in question never suggests any such thing:-
Armor Spikes: Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?
No.
Likewise, you couldn't use an armored gauntlet to do so, as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks.
Does the FAQ give a reason why 2HW/armour spikes won't work? No.
Does it give a reason why 2HW/spiked gauntlet won't work? Yes, but that reason cannot be the same reason as for the armour spikes, because your off hand isn't holding armour spikes. And the reason given for gauntlets not working is worthless, because after attacking with the 2HW we use a free action to let go with the gauntleted hand, freeing it to attack.
The idea is that no matter what combination of weapons you have, based on actual hands, you can only gain normal strength damage with your main attack and .5 strength with your off hand attack(s). So is you, for instance, have a greatsword, you'd deal normal x1 damage instead of x1.5 if used in two weapon fighting.
That would have also solved what the DEV's seemed to be balking at (someone getting more than 1.5 strength damage from attacks [1.5 two handed + .5 offhand for x2 damage total])
It was floated as a MUCH easier way to 'solve' the issues that where 'solved' with the armor spikes FAQ.
But with this proposed you can have THW at 1.0, bladed boot .5, boulder helm .5, armor spikes .5, and kick .5. That's 3x str. Take double slice and then you'd have 5x str. All with just two-weapon fighting. all at only a -2 since the off hands are all light.
But with this proposed you can have THW at 1.0, bladed boot .5, boulder helm .5, armor spikes .5, and kick .5. That's 3x str. Take double slice and then you'd have 5x str. All with just two-weapon fighting. all at only a -2 since the off hands are all light.The idea is that no matter what combination of weapons you have, based on actual hands, you can only gain normal strength damage with your main attack and .5 strength with your off hand attack(s). So is you, for instance, have a greatsword, you'd deal normal x1 damage instead of x1.5 if used in two weapon fighting.
That would have also solved what the DEV's seemed to be balking at (someone getting more than 1.5 strength damage from attacks [1.5 two handed + .5 offhand for x2 damage total])
It was floated as a MUCH easier way to 'solve' the issues that where 'solved' with the armor spikes FAQ.
No, not at all. Two weapon fighting only allows for a single off hand extra attack. That's true with or without this idea. Unless you think two weapon fighting in some way implies five weapon fighting...
But with this proposed you can have THW at 1.0, bladed boot .5, boulder helm .5, armor spikes .5, and kick .5. That's 3x str. Take double slice and then you'd have 5x str. All with just two-weapon fighting. all at only a -2 since the off hands are all light.The idea is that no matter what combination of weapons you have, based on actual hands, you can only gain normal strength damage with your main attack and .5 strength with your off hand attack(s). So is you, for instance, have a greatsword, you'd deal normal x1 damage instead of x1.5 if used in two weapon fighting.
That would have also solved what the DEV's seemed to be balking at (someone getting more than 1.5 strength damage from attacks [1.5 two handed + .5 offhand for x2 damage total])
It was floated as a MUCH easier way to 'solve' the issues that where 'solved' with the armor spikes FAQ.
Compared with a 2HW Power Attack at full BAB?
In any case... It's a silly ruling IMO. Seems to be more based on 'realism' with this mention of limbs. So, what? Magic get new ways to make reality their #$(%@ with every new supplement, but martials get a tactic that is entirely Rule of Cool and nowhere near as good barred from them? Yeah, real fair.
Seriously though. I've played and played with folks kitted out in 2-handed weapons with armor spikes, boot blades, and boulder helmets, while the spiked gauntlets were there for 'cool' factor and incase of disarmed (lol). The DPR compared to the Zen Archer, or Barbarian, or any other DPR build was (comparatively) atrocious. Consistent, yes, but nowhere near as high.
I suspect the reason why people are so opposed to wearing your weapons as a means of wielding them is due to the little-spoken perception that one can't get disarmed of them. Though I have rarely seen a DM in all my years of playing 3.5 disarm a character (probably due to entitlement reasons, I've had players throw dice they got so mad when I've had enemies disarm them and run off with/throw aside their weapons)...
Personally, I just run it how I've always run it myself. TWF is nothing more than getting you extra attacks as long as you have at the very least a second weapon. Functions exactly like BAB. Honestly, in the extreme, one can extrapolate thanks to that ruling, that there is now precedent for someone to shout that you can only make your iterative attacks with a single weapon unless you've got TWF, in which case it's only the 2.
But with this proposed you can have THW at 1.0, bladed boot .5, boulder helm .5, armor spikes .5, and kick .5. That's 3x str. Take double slice and then you'd have 5x str. All with just two-weapon fighting. all at only a -2 since the off hands are all light.The idea is that no matter what combination of weapons you have, based on actual hands, you can only gain normal strength damage with your main attack and .5 strength with your off hand attack(s). So is you, for instance, have a greatsword, you'd deal normal x1 damage instead of x1.5 if used in two weapon fighting.
That would have also solved what the DEV's seemed to be balking at (someone getting more than 1.5 strength damage from attacks [1.5 two handed + .5 offhand for x2 damage total])
It was floated as a MUCH easier way to 'solve' the issues that where 'solved' with the armor spikes FAQ.
No I'm pretty sure it's more like this:
You can have any # of weapons wielded at any given time. However you can only ever make 2 attacks per 'BAB iterative' - one at 1.5 Str -or 2 with one being 1.0 str and the other at .5 str.
That would allow you to dual wield a 2h sword and gauntlet or armor spikes by using the lower damage multiplier for the sword and thus the lower power attack scale as well.
I'm unsure where you'd add more attacks in under that rule vs. the 'hands' ruling we have now.
It's just if you're not limited by hands, why could you only have 1 off-hand attack since you wouldn't even be using 1 hand for the attacks?
It's just if you're not limited by hands, why could you only have 1 off-hand attack since you wouldn't even be using 1 hand for the attacks?
Because the game rules explicitly only allow one extra attack. No one is or has ever been talking about granting attacks beyond the one the game gives you by default.
What people are talking about is why you would have that attack taken away.
It's just if you're not limited by hands, why could you only have 1 off-hand attack since you wouldn't even be using 1 hand for the attacks?
You're limited JUST like you where before the FAQ. If someone had asked you back then what would you have told them? THAT is the exact same reason it would work with this idea.
Before the FAQ I would have told them that they can't two-hand a weapon and TWF since they were already using both hands. I didn't play any D&D or any other tabletop RPG before Pathfinder so I had no previous games effecting my decision.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Before the FAQ I would have told them that they can't two-hand a weapon and TWF since they were already using both hands. I didn't play any D&D or any other tabletop RPG before Pathfinder so I had no previous games effecting my decision.
really?
Barbazu Beard: "A barbazu beard can be used as an off-hand weapon that requires no hands to use; thus, a warrior could combine use of a barbazu beard with a two-handed weapon."
Thorn bracer: "A thorn bracer can be used to make an offhand attack if you aren’t wielding a weapon or shield in that hand. You can attack with these bracers even while holding objects in your hands."
Sea-knife: "This allows the wielder to use a two-handed weapon, or wield a weapon with one hand and carry a shield, and still make off-hand attacks with the sea-knife."
Bladeboot: "You can use a blade boot as an off-hand weapon."
Seems to me that every indication in the game was that it was two attacks and NOT what could be physically held in your hands before the FAQ. This is ALL pathfinder, no "previous games" needed. No non-hand weapon gave ANY indication that it needed a hand to use it.
Hey I told you what I would have done before I read the FAQ. This was also before reading any of those items. And it was because if you're using two hands to do something you have no off-hand, regardless of what limb you'd be using for the off-hand attack. So yes, really. You viewed it differently. But for me coming into it that is what I thought about it.
Hey I told you what I would have done before I read the FAQ. This was also before reading any of those items. And it was because if you're using two hands to do something you have no off-hand, regardless of what limb you'd be using for the off-hand attack. So yes, really. You viewed it differently. But for me coming into it that is what I thought about it.
You're kind of jumping into debate without any research then. These are the types of items that one would use in that kind of combat. Plus you list several non-hand items in your other post (bladed boot, boulder helm, armor spikes, and kick). JUST looking at that kick, "A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full." Even a normal "unarmed strike is an attack such as a punch or a kick" so a kick should be usable "with his hands full". So at least one of those also falls in place with those other items you say you've never seen.
Graystone, I feel you are confusing my view now and what I said my view was before I had read the FAQ. Now I am aware of those items you and I have listed and that there could be more that I wasn't aware of. In your list you didn't include US/kick, so the list you gave were all items I didn't know existed/didn't exist when I read the FAQ. And since this was a view from before I read the FAQ, yes, it had no research on it because it was my view from reading the TWF feat before looking into it more. The fact that my interpretation of it was in line with the FAQ made it really easy for me not to have any problem with the FAQ and to feel the FAQ makes sense. This is why I support the FAQ, I feel that the FAQ saying that using a THW mean you have no off-hand attacks left to use is fine and simple.
I feel the underlying rule is "can I do this with a different/more normal approach?" Can a normal PC TWF with a dagger and greatsword? no. Then does it make sense that using a different weapon changes that just because it doesn't use a hand? at least to me, no. If there's not text like in the Barbazu Beard, or Sea-knife saying you can then it can't. The fact that those items have that exception further emphasizes that the normal would be you couldn't make an off-hand attack with a THW.
I feel the underlying rule is "can I do this with a different/more normal approach?" Can a normal PC TWF with a dagger and greatsword? no.
I agree.
Then does it make sense that using a different weapon changes that just because it doesn't use a hand? at least to me, no.
This is where we differ. The reason the first question is a no is that you can't manipulate both items at the same time. Non-hand items overcome that limitation by design IMO.
If there's not text like in the Barbazu Beard, or Sea-knife saying you can then it can't. The fact that those items have that exception further emphasizes that the normal would be you couldn't make an off-hand attack with a THW.
Again, I see this differently. It seems clear (IMO) from the reading of the beard that it wasn't so much as making an exception for itself but more explaining how non-handed weapons worked. The fact that the majority of offhand weapons have some kind of wording allowing their use with other things in the hands would also seem to make those that don't allow it the exception.
Graystone, I feel you are confusing my view now and what I said my view was before I had read the FAQ.
Sorry if it seems that way. Those items come up all the time in debates on this subject so I normally expect those in them to have an understanding of them. It DOES make your first post make more sense and I appreciate you explaining further.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you see it as simply an extra attack, with penalties to both, and then have the primary attack deal x1.0 strength to damage, and off-hand deal x0.5, there should be no problem for anyone.
Looking at it this way, and running it as x1.0/x0.5, then any combination should not trouble anyone.
Also, it is just arrogant, and rude, to insult the intelligence of those didn't see the hidden unwritten rules, and believed it functioned as the identically worded 3.5 rules.
Don't be a dick.
|
|
If you see it as simply an extra attack, with penalties to both, and then have the primary attack deal x1.0 strength to damage, and off-hand deal x0.5, there should be no problem for anyone.
Looking at it this way, and running it as x1.0/x0.5, then any combination should not trouble anyone.
Also, it is just arrogant, and rude, to insult the intelligence of those didn't see the hidden unwritten rules, and believed it functioned as the identically worded 3.5 rules.
Don't be a dick.
Although I agree with the sentiments, and although it may be simpler for some, the Str bonus to damage for the primary hand is not limited by TWF any more than it's limited outside of TWF. If the primary attack is with a 2HW or a 1HW in two hands, then the Str bonus to damage is x 1.5.
The only way TWF affects the Str bonus to damage is with the off-hand attack (which only exists in TWF), and limits the Str bonus to damage for the off-hand attack to x 0.5. The primary attack's Str bonus to damage is not limited in any way by TWF.
If you see it as simply an extra attack, with penalties to both, and then have the primary attack deal x1.0 strength to damage, and off-hand deal x0.5, there should be no problem for anyone.
Looking at it this way, and running it as x1.0/x0.5, then any combination should not trouble anyone.
Also, it is just arrogant, and rude, to insult the intelligence of those didn't see the hidden unwritten rules, and believed it functioned as the identically worded 3.5 rules.
Don't be a dick.
Although I agree with the sentiments, and although it may be simpler for some, the Str bonus to damage for the primary hand is not limited by TWF any more than it's limited outside of TWF. If the primary attack is with a 2HW or a 1HW in two hands, then the Str bonus to damage is x 1.5.
The only way TWF affects the Str bonus to damage is with the off-hand attack (which only exists in TWF), and limits the Str bonus to damage for the off-hand attack to x 0.5. The primary attack's Str bonus to damage is not limited in any way by TWF.
Ermmm - no there is no ambiguity about this Malachi...
Damage is made adding strength (1x) to the weapon or sling. Currently the special rules call out 1.5 str for two handed and .5 str for offhands.
That makes TWF .5 and 1 (as the current rules disallow using a two handed attack with two weapon fighting).
The entire reason for the FAQ really is to keep people from doing what you are doing there - that is getting more than 1.5 STR from a single attack iterative.
The idea from blackblood troll I think is a more elegant solution to the entire thing - just have a maximum of 1.5 STR per iterative - use it how you want.
If you see it as simply an extra attack, with penalties to both, and then have the primary attack deal x1.0 strength to damage, and off-hand deal x0.5, there should be no problem for anyone.
Looking at it this way, and running it as x1.0/x0.5, then any combination should not trouble anyone.
Also, it is just arrogant, and rude, to insult the intelligence of those didn't see the hidden unwritten rules, and believed it functioned as the identically worded 3.5 rules.
Don't be a dick.
Although I agree with the sentiments, and although it may be simpler for some, the Str bonus to damage for the primary hand is not limited by TWF any more than it's limited outside of TWF. If the primary attack is with a 2HW or a 1HW in two hands, then the Str bonus to damage is x 1.5.
The only way TWF affects the Str bonus to damage is with the off-hand attack (which only exists in TWF), and limits the Str bonus to damage for the off-hand attack to x 0.5. The primary attack's Str bonus to damage is not limited in any way by TWF.
Ermmm - no there is no ambiguity about this Malachi...
Damage is made adding strength (1x) to the weapon or sling. Currently the special rules call out 1.5 str for two handed and .5 str for offhands.
That makes TWF .5 and 1 (as the current rules disallow using a two handed attack with two weapon fighting).
The entire reason for the FAQ really is to keep people from doing what you are doing there - that is getting more than 1.5 STR from a single attack iterative.
The idea from blackblood troll I think is a more elegant solution to the entire thing - just have a maximum of 1.5 STR per iterative - use it how you want.
In all fairness, getting more than 1.5x STR from an attack iterative is no where near overpowered. Just think about it, when was the last time someone told you that double slice or the monk were overpowered? Now imagine that the weapons aren't matched.
There is absolutely no balance issue, there is only one fighting style WORSE than THW/TWF and that is TWF with mixed weapons where one of them isn't two-handed.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ermmm - no there is no ambiguity about this Malachi...
I totally agree; the Str bonus to damage in the CRB is not ambiguous in any way. : )
Damage is made adding strength (1x) to the weapon or sling. Currently the special rules call out 1.5 str for two handed and .5 str for offhands.
The 0.5 x Str and 1.5 x Str are not 'special' rules. The actual, unambiguous rules are that you get 1.0 x Str to light weapons and 1HW in one hand, 1.5 x Str to 2HW and 1HW used in two hands, and 0.5 x Str to weapons used to make an off-hand attack. This is how the Str bonus applies to weapon damage; they are not 'special', they are basic.
Note that 'off-hand attacks' are the extra attacks granted by TWF and that line of feats, and do not exist outside TWF. Also, the 'primary' attack during TWF gets precisely the same Str bonus to damage as it would outside of TWF.
How do we know? Because it's written down in the CRB. It takes care to tell us how the Str bonus applies to various weapons used in various ways, takes care to tell us how the 'off-hand' attack only gets 0.5 x Str, but there is no mention of TWF modifying the Str bonus to damage with the primary weapon. 'Primary' weapons do exist outside TWF, and we know this must be true, because if they only existed in TWF then there would be no Str bonus to damage outside TWF for light or 1H weapons.
That makes TWF .5 and 1 (as the current rules disallow using a two handed attack with two weapon fighting).
Actually, the rules do not 'disallow using a two handed attack with TWF'! If you think otherwise, provide that quote from the CRB.
The entire reason for the FAQ really is to keep people from doing what you are doing there - that is getting more than 1.5 STR from a single attack iterative.
I agree with this statement. This is why that FAQ disallows it. However, the rules themselves do not disallow it! It's just an ill-thought-out, knee-jerk reaction to the perception that doing so gets something for nothing!
In fact, in the discussions at the time it was admitted by a dev that the 'reason' why it was disallowed was because of unwritten rules. There would be no need to cite unwritten rules if it were disallowed in the written rules!
|
|
I am fully aware my suggestion is not RAW.
I do intend to run it this way, in home games, to fully test it though.
It may be some time, but I do plan to give a review of the ruling in use.
That's fair enough, BBT. : )
Playtesting stuff is a good idea. When making choices like this, as a player, different choices will have different advantages and disadvantages. Using a 2HW in TWF has advantages (1.5 x Str with the primary attacks) and disadvantages (choice of off-hand weapon is limited and they are poor choices, different weapons, even different weapon groups in this case, mean that feats and special abilities will only affect half your attacks).
So I compare that package of advantages/disadvantages with those of other packages, like twin light picks/kukri.
If my DM wanted to playtest a rule where 2HWs only do x 1.0 Str in TWF, that means that this package still has all the disadvantages, but the only advantage has been taken away!
My DM can playtest all the rules he likes, but what would make me want to play the package that has all its advantages taken away in return for, well, nothing?
|
|
Well, I would still have two-handed weapons, or one-handed weapon wielded in two hands, use the -1/+3 for Power Attack.
Kind of like monks still getting -1/+3 from PA when Flurrying with a 2HW, even though they only get x 1.0 Str.
Of course, monks still get 1.0 x Str for their extra attacks, which PF made resemble TWF even more than 3.5 D&D did.
So this 'ruling', that having a total of x 2.0 Str between both attacks is so overpowered that it must be nerfed even though it's within the RAW, but monks do it all the time, is basically admitting what we've all known for some time, that monks are horrendously overpowered.
|
|
what exactly is your suggestion?I am fully aware my suggestion is not RAW.
I do intend to run it this way, in home games, to fully test it though.
It may be some time, but I do plan to give a review of the ruling in use.
My suggestion, is that one can use two-weapon fighting with any pair of weapons, regardless of handedness, but will only get x1.0 Strength to damage with the primary attack, and x0.5 Strength to damage with the Off-hand attack.
I hate made-up, spurious, un-thought-out rules changes as well; I called them out on their half-breed FAQ, among others.
For me this is true for most of the PF FAQs. One notable exception being those FAQs that took back and changed former un-thought-out rulings.
First half-breed FAQ, TWF with two-handed weapons, crane wing, secondary sources and the first flurry with one weapon FAQs are all equally made-up unnecessary stuff that hurt the game more than they helped.Paizo is good at making rules, but bad at FAQs and rules changes.
PF is a better game when ignoring ALL the FAQs than it is when using them all.
There is absolutely no balance issue, there is only one fighting style WORSE than THW/TWF and that is TWF with mixed weapons where one of them isn't two-handed.Back in the off-hand" FAQ thread, numbers were rolled and the conclusion was that the Falchion/armor spikes was better or at least on par with Kukri/Kukri. Not saying that it was a conclusive proof, but still.
I would like to see this math, do you have a link?
My napkin math has agreed with BigDTBone so far just for clarity's sake, but I am willing to be convinced.
|
|
My suggestion, is that one can use two-weapon fighting with any pair of weapons, regardless of handedness, but will only get x1.0 Strength to damage with the primary attack, and x0.5 Strength to damage with the Off-hand attack.
including greatsword + kick?
does it follow for Power Attack ratios?
what about AoOs?
|
|
My suggestion, is that one can use two-weapon fighting with any pair of weapons, regardless of handedness, but will only get x1.0 Strength to damage with the primary attack, and x0.5 Strength to damage with the Off-hand attack.including greatsword + kick?
does it follow for Power Attack ratios?
what about AoOs?
1) Yes.
2) Normal Power Attack ratios.
3) AoOs are never effected by two-weapon fighting. This has always been so.
|
|
Why? Why would you complicate a very simple rule; what benefit does that bring to the game? If you're going to house-rule anything, just ignore the FAQ and play with the rules as they were written. Easy.what exactly is your suggestion?I am fully aware my suggestion is not RAW.
I do intend to run it this way, in home games, to fully test it though.
It may be some time, but I do plan to give a review of the ruling in use.
My suggestion, is that one can use two-weapon fighting with any pair of weapons, regardless of handedness, but will only get x1.0 Strength to damage with the primary attack, and x0.5 Strength to damage with the Off-hand attack.
I agree.
It's a compromise, that would hopefully appease those who agree with the FAQ.
It would be a playtest of the compromise houserule.
Basically, you may wish to avoid eating the sh*t sandwich altogether, but if you can't, negotiating a compromise to eat just half of it, is better than choking it down whole.
|
|
My suggestion, is that one can use two-weapon fighting with any pair of weapons, regardless of handedness, but will only get x1.0 Strength to damage with the primary attack, and x0.5 Strength to damage with the Off-hand attack.including greatsword + kick?
does it follow for Power Attack ratios?
what about AoOs?
1) Yes.
2) Normal Power Attack ratios.
3) AoOs are never effected by two-weapon fighting. This has always been so.
So, greatsword plus kick is 1xST and 0.5xST respectively? What is Power Attack ratio?
Do I still get 1.5xST damage when attacking two-handed with (only) a longspear?
If I do, and take a schwack with it, and my enemy gets inside my reach, and I have Improved Unarmed Strike, what would my ST bonus on AoOs be?
So, greatsword plus kick is 1xST and 0.5xST respectively? What is Power Attack ratio?Do I still get 1.5xST damage when attacking two-handed with (only) a longspear?
If I do, and take a schwack with it, and my enemy gets inside my reach, and I have Improved Unarmed Strike, what would my ST bonus on AoOs be?
Power attack would still be 3 for greatsword and 1 for kick.
Yes, if you're not TWF then you don't change the str.
For an AoO it would be 1.5 for spear, or 1 for an IUS, since you don't TWF durring AoOs.