| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It "might" be helpful to explain the difference between a hand and a "hand".
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A hand is a physical hand.
A "hand" refers to the amount of effort a character can use to make attacks; characters have a primary "hand" attack and an off-"hand" attack, and a two-handed weapon takes both "hands" as indicated in this FAQ.
Okay, try to think of it this way.
1) Your BAB determines the number of attacks you can make per round.
2) Two-weapon fighting grants you a bonus attack using another weapon you're wielding. Normally, this comes from your off-hand, but can come from other weapons like armor spikes.
3) Wielding a weapon two-handed forgoes the extra attack from two-weapon fighting in exchange for a damage increase. This is because you're spending extra effort and time to wield the weapon.
|
Being grappled does not mean you have one hand unavailable. Each hand is available, and the grappled creature has a completely free choice to use his left hand or his right hand, and can choose differently each turn even if the grapple is completely unchanged.
In addition, grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform.
What you can't do is use both hands in a single 'action', although it's unclear whether this refers to the actions of the action economy (full-round, standard, move, free, swift, immediate...but not including things that aren't any of these, like attacks of opportunity); or if it refers to 'actions' as in 'things you do', like each individual attack.
Incidentally, this FAQ inventing the concept of 'hands' is the most ridiculous idea the game has ever taken seriously, and I go by the 3.5 FAQ on the same subject which actually has the benefit of making sense.
The reason that the OP requires help in finding the difference between hands and 'hands' is because the game engine has no such thing as 'hands' in the entire ruleset, including the CRB, since it began in 3rd ed. It was invented in this infamous FAQ to prevent so-called 'abuse' in TWF.
It refers to "action" in the general english sense of "something you do." Not the game action economy and not the specific instance of each weapon making an attack. But the general "does the thing you are doing require 2 hands to do?"
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
2) Two-weapon fighting grants you a bonus attack using another weapon you're wielding. Normally, this comes from your off-hand, but can come from other weapons like armor spikes.
Armour spikes are still an off "hand" - when using TWF the rules associated with off-hand attacks still apply to armour spikes. They're just not a physical hand.
I think magus' spell combat does also take both a hand and a "hand" since it's called out as working like TWF.
EDIT: I also think this is very weird and probably not worth the confusion.
|
|
It refers to "action" in the general english sense of "something you do." Not the game action economy and not the specific instance of each weapon making an attack. But the general "does the thing you are doing require 2 hands to do?"
I completely agree.
The consequence of this is that six attacks are six actions. None of those individual actions can require both hands. Therefore, TWF with two one handed weapons is allowed.
It refers to "action" in the general english sense of "something you do." Not the game action economy and not the specific instance of each weapon making an attack. But the general "does the thing you are doing require 2 hands to do?"I completely agree.
The consequence of this is that six attacks are six actions. None of those individual actions can require both hands. Therefore, TWF with two one handed weapons is allowed.
No, it isn't. You are saying actions are discrete events. I am saying actions cover "anything you do". Does two weapon fighting use two hands? Yes. Does each specific attack? No. But the overall act of two weapon fighting does.
|
|
No, it isn't. You are saying actions are discrete events. I am saying actions cover "anything you do". Does two weapon fighting use two hands? Yes. Does each specific attack? No. But the overall act of two weapon fighting does.It refers to "action" in the general english sense of "something you do." Not the game action economy and not the specific instance of each weapon making an attack. But the general "does the thing you are doing require 2 hands to do?"I completely agree.
The consequence of this is that six attacks are six actions. None of those individual actions can require both hands. Therefore, TWF with two one handed weapons is allowed.
What on Earth makes you classify six separate attacks as one 'action'? Is 'fighting' one action? For how long? Is 'adventuring' one action, just because 'adventuring' is one word?
Okay, try to think of it this way.
1) Your BAB determines the number of attacks you can make per round.
2) Two-weapon fighting grants you a bonus attack using another weapon you're wielding. Normally, this comes from your off-hand, but can come from other weapons like armor spikes.
3) Wielding a weapon two-handed forgoes the extra attack from two-weapon fighting in exchange for a damage increase. This is because you're spending extra effort and time to wield the weapon.
Does a longbow use two "hands?" I think we can all agree that it uses two hands.
What on Earth makes you classify six separate attacks as one 'action'? Is 'fighting' one action? For how long? Is 'adventuring' one action, just because 'adventuring' is one word?
The fact that you have to decide if you are performing the 6 attacks before you can roll the dice for them.
The TWF penalties apply even to the first attack. All of the attacks are penalized due to your intent to make additional attacks with both hands. This shows that you are using both hands during all of the attacks.
Can we just change one to "grip" or something, for the sake of this conversation?
It's making my brain hurt.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can we just change one to "grip" or something, for the sake of this conversation?
It's making my brain hurt.
"Hands of effort" concept is intended to make your head hurt. It is a completely outrageous concept that the dev team dropped on us to explain rules inconsistencies in the TWF/THW FAQ, when they should have just owned up to a mistake. So now we have bad rules and confusing concepts (that STILL have consistency issues) so the dev team could save face.
The better fix is to remove "hands of effort" as a concept from the game and your brain. And you can do that by just ignoring one FAQ entry. Unless, of course, you play in PFS.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What on Earth makes you classify six separate attacks as one 'action'? Is 'fighting' one action? For how long? Is 'adventuring' one action, just because 'adventuring' is one word?The fact that you have to decide if you are performing the 6 attacks before you can roll the dice for them.
The TWF penalties apply even to the first attack. All of the attacks are penalized due to your intent to make additional attacks with both hands. This shows that you are using both hands during all of the attacks.
Actually, I can "pull out" of a full attack action after the first attack. So as long as I take the -2 on the first attack, I have the freedom to continue attacking or change my mind and do something else (Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack).
So technically, I could take the penalty on my first attack, and then just choose not take my additional attacks. Now, if I do this, does this require two hands or just one hand? The action that I actually took--attacking with a one-handed weapon--only requires one hand. But if I take the penalty, it now requires both hands?
This isn't just a conceptual abstraction that would never come up, by the way. There are feats and class features that activate "when full attacking with two weapons hand". As a GM, I usually say that in order for those feats to be active, the player must start a full attack action--that is, start the turn with an attack at -2*. Under this ruling, the player would not be able to use any of those feats, even if he only attacks with one weapon.
Part of the problem here is that there is no way to tell whether the isolated word "action" refers to "a defined unit in this action-economy conceptual framework" or "a thing that you do". It's ambiguous without any qualifiers (so "full attack action" = "action economy unit", but "action"="my best guess based on context").
Without a new, comprehensive FAQ, this argument is never going to be over.
If I do, what happens if the ret-con (in this case, less damage) means the bad guy didn't drop after the first attack? In that case, the player chooses to continue the attack action after the first attack. So he's now doing a full attack action, which adds the extra damage, which means the bad guy drops after the first attack...
And now we're stuck in an infinite ret-con loop. My approach to this (plan the full attack and take the penalty=get the benefits) avoids any ret-conning possibilities completely.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
2) Two-weapon fighting grants you a bonus attack using another weapon you're wielding. Normally, this comes from your off-hand, but can come from other weapons like armor spikes.Armour spikes are still an off "hand" - when using TWF the rules associated with off-hand attacks still apply to armour spikes. They're just not a physical hand.
I think magus' spell combat does also take both a hand and a "hand" since it's called out as working like TWF.
EDIT: I also think this is very weird and probably not worth the confusion.
The point I'm making is that you should stop thinking about it in terms of "I gain an extra attack for each other weapon I'm wielding." Instead, think of it in terms of action economy. The rules do make this confusing as it suggests that simply having an extra weapon grants you a bonus attack. Two/multi-weapon fighting should read like this:
When making a full-attack action while wielding multiple weapons, you may perform a two-weapon fighting special attack, gaining a bonus attack for each off-hand your body possesses. You do not need to make the attack using a weapon wielded in this off-hand. However, you cannot make this bonus attack using a weapon wielded by your primary hand (or a weapon already used this round for a bonus attack gained this way). An off-hand used to wield a weapon two-handed does not grant a bonus attack. You make these bonus attacks at a -10 penalty, which imparts a -6 penalty on all other attacks made on your turn. The Two-Weapon Fighting (or Multiweapon Fighting) feat and wielding light weapons reduce these penalties, as shown in Table: Two-Weapon Fighting Penalties.
What on Earth makes you classify six separate attacks as one 'action'? Is 'fighting' one action? For how long? Is 'adventuring' one action, just because 'adventuring' is one word?The fact that you have to decide if you are performing the 6 attacks before you can roll the dice for them.
The TWF penalties apply even to the first attack. All of the attacks are penalized due to your intent to make additional attacks with both hands. This shows that you are using both hands during all of the attacks.
Actually, I can "pull out" of a full attack action after the first attack. So as long as I take the -2 on the first attack, I have the freedom to continue attacking or change my mind and do something else (Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack).
So technically, I could take the penalty on my first attack, and then just choose not take my additional attacks. Now, if I do this, does this require two hands or just one hand? The action that I actually took--attacking with a one-handed weapon--only requires one hand. But if I take the penalty, it now requires both hands?
This isn't just a conceptual abstraction that would never come up, by the way. There are feats and class features that activate "when full attacking with two weapons hand". As a GM, I usually say that in order for those feats to be active, the player must start a full attack action--that is, start the turn with an attack at -2*. Under this ruling, the player would not be able to use any of those feats, even if he only attacks with one weapon.
Part of the problem here is that there is no way to tell whether the isolated word "action" refers to "a defined unit in this action-economy conceptual framework" or "a thing that you do". It's ambiguous without any qualifiers (so "full attack action" = "action economy unit", but "action"="my best guess based on context").
Without a new,...
Yes, you can stop a full-attack after the first. My point was if you don't take the -2 on the first attack, then you cannot take your TWF attacks, only your BAB iterative attacks. By taking the -2 on the first attack, you are showing the intent to get the TWF attacks, and therefore are using both hands. I would say that yes, even the first attack used both hands, because you were preparing the second hand to make its attacks.
If there is a feature which only activates on "full attack" then you must take the full-attack. I would say that you can't abort and take a move action, as using the ability requires a full-attack. By starting out with a full-attack and utilizing the bonus it provides, you are locked into the full-attack. I would say you can stop taking attacks (nothing forces you to keep swinging) but you would be limited to only a 5' step, swift or free actions in addition to the full-attack. This also prevents your infinite loop issues.
Actually, I can "pull out" of a full attack action after the first attack. So as long as I take the -2 on the first attack, I have the freedom to continue attacking or change my mind and do something else (Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack).So technically, I could take the penalty on my first attack, and then just choose not take my additional attacks. Now, if I do this, does this require two hands or just one hand? The action that I actually took--attacking with a one-handed weapon--only requires one hand. But if I take the penalty, it now requires both hands?
This isn't just a conceptual abstraction that would never come up, by the way. There are feats and class features that activate "when full attacking with two weapons hand". As a GM, I usually say that in order for those feats to be active, the player must start a full attack action--that is, start the turn with an attack at -2*. Under this ruling, the player would not be able to use any of those feats, even if he only attacks with one weapon.
So you declare you're full attacking using TWF. You make your first hit and drop the guy. You can do the rest of your attacks against a valid target, or stop and count it as a standard action and give them the move action. I'm not sure why you're feeling it matters if it used 1 hand or 2 hands if you stop.
If this doesn't answer what your example meant, can you give an example with actual abilities and stuff. Because with the generic example you gave I feel the above answers it.|
|
If there is a feature which only activates on "full attack" then you must take the full-attack. I would say that you can't abort and take a move action, as using the ability requires a full-attack. By starting out with a full-attack and utilizing the bonus it provides, you are locked into the full-attack. I would say you can stop taking attacks (nothing forces you to keep swinging) but you would be limited to only a 5' step, swift or free actions in addition to the full-attack. This also prevents your infinite loop issues.
This goes directly against the rules for full attack:-
Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack: After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round. If you've already taken a 5-foot step, you can't use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.
The only exception is PF's version of the feat Manyshot, to prevent people shooting two arrows as a standard action.
Even though that was what the feat was for when it was created in 3E. It was a poor change.
|
|
What on Earth makes you classify six separate attacks as one 'action'? Is 'fighting' one action? For how long? Is 'adventuring' one action, just because 'adventuring' is one word?The fact that you have to decide if you are performing the 6 attacks before you can roll the dice for them.
The TWF penalties apply even to the first attack. All of the attacks are penalized due to your intent to make additional attacks with both hands. This shows that you are using both hands during all of the attacks.
An 'action' can't be 'adventuring' or 'fighting'. It can't be 'breathing' or 'seeing'.
An 'action' is something that is an individual act in the rules.
For example, 'cast a spell' is one action. If you cast a spell every round for one minute, you may be described as 'spellcasting for one minute', but this isn't one single action of 'spellcasting', it is ten actions of casting ten spells.
Making an attack with a weapon is one action. If you attack once per round for one minute, this isn't one action of 'fighting', it's ten actions of 'attacking with a weapon.
And this remains true even if several attacks take place within a span of six seconds rather than one minute. Six attacks in six seconds isn't one action of 'attacking', 'fighting', or even 'two-weapon fighting'. It is six actions of 'attacking with a weapon'.
BTW, the idea that a single attack with a one handed weapon is actually an action which uses two hands is absurd. The fact that you were going to use both, but didn't, doesn't change what you actually did.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ugh... The metaphorical hands FAQ is still the worst ruling in Pathfinder history. It even beats the CW debacle. It makes the game needlessly complicated just to nerf/ban underpowered character concepts. :/
Like it's the case with word "wielding", I believe Paizo prefers to keep the term "hand" purposely vague.
If there is a feature which only activates on "full attack" then you must take the full-attack. I would say that you can't abort and take a move action, as using the ability requires a full-attack. By starting out with a full-attack and utilizing the bonus it provides, you are locked into the full-attack. I would say you can stop taking attacks (nothing forces you to keep swinging) but you would be limited to only a 5' step, swift or free actions in addition to the full-attack. This also prevents your infinite loop issues.This goes directly against the rules for full attack:-
Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack: After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round. If you've already taken a 5-foot step, you can't use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.The only exception is PF's version of the feat Manyshot, to prevent people shooting two arrows as a standard action.
Even though that was what the feat was for when it was created in 3E. It was a poor change.
I said IF a feature requires a full-attack to work. You found an example for me, manyshot. Thanks. That shows that if you use manyshot, you are locked into a full-attack action. Even if you stop after 1 shot, you still can't take a move action instead. Because of manyshot requiring the full-attack action for its benefit.
His example was a class feature or feat which only worked "when full attacking". He did not provide a specific feature, so I didn't provide a specific example.
Still, you take the TWF penalties on every attack you make, even if you stop after 1, which shows that you are using TWF during every attack, and that means you are using both hands during every attack. Therefore, you cannot TWF in a grapple.
|
|
Still, you take the TWF penalties on every attack you make, even if you stop after 1, which shows that you are using TWF during every attack, and that means you are using both hands during every attack. Therefore, you cannot TWF in a grapple.
This is the most spurious reasoning since the 'hands' FAQ!
If you intend to use the TWF rules to get one extra attack during a full attack, but after the first attack the foe falls and you switch to a move action instead of taking the rest of your attacks, then no matter what your intentions were, the action you actually took was one single attack at a -2 penty with a one handed weapon.
What defines TWF is that you get an extra attack. Therefore, if you cannot actually take that extra attack because you changed your full attack into a standard and a move (as described under 'full attack' and quoted above), then you never actually attacked with two weapons, never used two hands, never TWFed. The -2 you voluntarily took on that first and only attack doesn't turn an attack with one hand into an attack with two.
Still, you take the TWF penalties on every attack you make, even if you stop after 1, which shows that you are using TWF during every attack, and that means you are using both hands during every attack. Therefore, you cannot TWF in a grapple.This is the most spurious reasoning since the 'hands' FAQ!
If you intend to use the TWF rules to get one extra attack during a full attack, but after the first attack the foe falls and you switch to a move action instead of taking the rest of your attacks, then no matter what your intentions were, the action you actually took was one single attack at a -2 penty with a one handed weapon.
What defines TWF is that you get an extra attack. Therefore, if you cannot actually take that extra attack because you changed your full attack into a standard and a move (as described under 'full attack' and quoted above), then you never actually attacked with two weapons, never used two hands, never TWFed. The -2 you voluntarily took on that first and only attack doesn't turn an attack with one hand into an attack with two.
If you are not using the hand, then what is causing the penalty?
Why does the penalty change, depending on whether the weapon in your offhand is light or one-handed? Because being able to make the second attack involves using the offhand during the main hand's attack.
|
|
Still, you take the TWF penalties on every attack you make, even if you stop after 1, which shows that you are using TWF during every attack, and that means you are using both hands during every attack. Therefore, you cannot TWF in a grapple.This is the most spurious reasoning since the 'hands' FAQ!
If you intend to use the TWF rules to get one extra attack during a full attack, but after the first attack the foe falls and you switch to a move action instead of taking the rest of your attacks, then no matter what your intentions were, the action you actually took was one single attack at a -2 penty with a one handed weapon.
What defines TWF is that you get an extra attack. Therefore, if you cannot actually take that extra attack because you changed your full attack into a standard and a move (as described under 'full attack' and quoted above), then you never actually attacked with two weapons, never used two hands, never TWFed. The -2 you voluntarily took on that first and only attack doesn't turn an attack with one hand into an attack with two.
If you are not using the hand, then what is causing the penalty?
Why does the penalty change, depending on whether the weapon in your offhand is light or one-handed? Because being able to make the second attack involves using the offhand during the main hand's attack.
The rules are silent as to why, but attacking in such a way as to allow an extra attack may make your other attacks more hasty. However you fluff it, if you don't actually attack with your off hand then you didn't use your off hand.
The rules are silent as to why, but attacking in such a way as to allow an extra attack may make your other attacks more hasty. However you fluff it, if you don't actually attack with your off hand then you didn't use your off hand.
Or maybe it is because the weight of the weapon in that hand has an effect on how well you can attack with your main hand when you are attacking in such a way as to allow future attacks with your off hand. You can't just say "fluff it however but don't fluff that its because you actually use the offhand". Its because you are USING the offhand as part of the full attack. If you don't use the hand, you don't take a penalty.
Can someone explain why it matters if you used both hands if you start a full attack and stop after 1 attack?
If it's trying to get multishot or something like that as a standard action, it's not allowed. And if it's not, I don't think it matters if it used two hands or not. So will someone clear this up what's being debated please?
Can someone explain why it matters if you used both hands if you start a full attack and stop after 1 attack?
If it's trying to get multishot or something like that as a standard action, it's not allowed. And if it's not, I don't think it matters if it used two hands or not. So will someone clear this up what's being debated please?
While grappled, you cannot take actions that use both hands.
You can make attacks with a one-handed or light weapon while grappled.Malachi asserts that because each attack is handled individually, they are all single attacks using a single hand, and therefore you can full-attack with TWF in a grapple.
I assert that because all of the attacks are penalized for TWF it shows that both hands are in use during each attack, and so you cannot TWF attack while grappled.
Thank you
I say no, you can't full attack TWF in a grapple. TWF uses two hands, main and offhand. To me, using TWF is a certain choice about a full attack, that decides you'll be using two hands in a certain way, thus the penalty is needed to be decided before the first attack. I think it's that you can't choose to TWF while in a grapple because that's an action that would use both hands.
now is Malachi Silverclaw trying to say that he starts a TWF in a grapple, kills the guy with main attacks, and then be able to switch over to someone else?
now is Malachi Silverclaw trying to say that he starts a TWF in a grapple, kills the guy with main attacks, and then be able to switch over to someone else?
I believe he is saying that because you can make the first attack, and then stop the future attacks and instead take a move action, that it shows that the first attack (and therefore each attack individually) is not using two hands at the same time.
hahaha, really? That's funny. Just because X -> Y doesn't mean you can do Z.
Dude, here's probably how they'd word it if it was a FAQ.
Can I do a TWF full attack while grappled?
No. Since in a TWF full attack you'll be attacking with both your hands it uses two hands. Therefore it can't be done while in a grapple.
OMG too many "Precise Strike" abilities.
There is the teamwork feat.
The duelist class ability.
And the swashbuckler class ability.
I'm going to assume you are talking about swashbuckler.
Unarmed strike is not piercing, so no. Snake style would make it piercing though.
It says "cannot attack with a weapon in your other hand". Not sure if it is talking actual physical hand, or TWF. My hunch is RAW you could, but RAI is "no TWF with precise strike".
I didn't realize kicking required hands.
Which hand do I wield my foot with?
As I said, RAW it works. RAI I think the intention is to prevent TWF while using precise strike.
|
|
Just to clarify my position (Tarantula did a fair job), the grappled condition does not prevent you using your left hand, nor does it prevent you using your right hand.
It does not prevent you using one hand, then using the other hand in the following round.
It doesn't even prevent you using both of your hands in the same round!
In addition, grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform.
The weirdest thing, is say you have a BAB of +11 and a longsword and shortsword wielded. You could make a full-attack (not TWF) and attack with longsword at +11, shortsword at +6, and longsword again at +1 just fine.
|
|
The weirdest thing, is say you have a BAB of +11 and a longsword and shortsword wielded. You could make a full-attack (not TWF) and attack with longsword at +11, shortsword at +6, and longsword again at +1 just fine.
You know I agree with the mixing and matching hands with the iterative attacks, but how are you okay with that but think that getting an extra attack (from TWF) is somehow prevented by the grappled condition?
The weirdest thing, is say you have a BAB of +11 and a longsword and shortsword wielded. You could make a full-attack (not TWF) and attack with longsword at +11, shortsword at +6, and longsword again at +1 just fine.You know I agree with the mixing and matching hands with the iterative attacks, but how are you okay with that but think that getting an extra attack (from TWF) is somehow prevented by the grappled condition?
Because the iterative attacks are distinctly separate from each other and one has no effect on the others.
TWF you take a penalty because of using the other weapon, which shows that you are using the other hand at the same time.
|
|
The weirdest thing, is say you have a BAB of +11 and a longsword and shortsword wielded. You could make a full-attack (not TWF) and attack with longsword at +11, shortsword at +6, and longsword again at +1 just fine.You know I agree with the mixing and matching hands with the iterative attacks, but how are you okay with that but think that getting an extra attack (from TWF) is somehow prevented by the grappled condition?Because the iterative attacks are distinctly separate from each other and one has no effect on the others.
TWF you take a penalty because of using the other weapon, which shows that you are using the other hand at the same time.
That is unsupported by RAW.
You take a penalty to ALL of your attacks, and you get an extra attack. You are not required to use two hands in TWF, because you can attack with a boulder helmet and a kick (for example). You don't actually need ANY hands in order to be allowed to use TWF!
The weirdest thing, is say you have a BAB of +11 and a longsword and shortsword wielded. You could make a full-attack (not TWF) and attack with longsword at +11, shortsword at +6, and longsword again at +1 just fine.You know I agree with the mixing and matching hands with the iterative attacks, but how are you okay with that but think that getting an extra attack (from TWF) is somehow prevented by the grappled condition?Because the iterative attacks are distinctly separate from each other and one has no effect on the others.
TWF you take a penalty because of using the other weapon, which shows that you are using the other hand at the same time.
That is unsupported by RAW.
You take a penalty to ALL of your attacks, and you get an extra attack. You are not required to use two hands in TWF, because you can attack with a boulder helmet and a kick (for example). You don't actually need ANY hands in order to be allowed to use TWF!
If the other attack is a weapon in your other hand, then you are using both hands. If your off-hand weapon was not held in your hand, then yes, you can TWF while grappled. If the off-hand weapon is held in the other hand, then you can't.
I am interested as well. I wouldn't allow it because ANY form of TWF uses two "hands", regardless of how many actual hands are used. But using two different hands for itteratives is fine since you're only using one "hand" even though it's using two actual hands. I feel that when Paizo says [hand] they always mean "hand" and sometimes they also mean an actual hand. This is how I perceive the rules.
Then how are you allowing both hands being used in your example of iterative attacks?
I know I would, because none of the attacks are using two hands, but why would you allow it, when each hand is being used to attack? It seems inconsistent with your position.
Because that is how iterative work. You can make any attack with any weapon you have ready without penalty. The first attack has no impact on the second.
With TWF what weapon is in your off-hand directly impacts your primary hands attacks, and vice-versa. Therefore, when TWF you are using both weapons at the same time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am interested as well. I wouldn't allow it because ANY form of TWF uses two "hands", regardless of how many actual hands are used. But using two different hands for itteratives is fine since you're only using one "hand" even though it's using two actual hands. I feel that when Paizo says [hand] they always mean "hand" and sometimes they also mean an actual hand. This is how I perceive the rules.
So a regular character with Improved Unarmed Strike can't use TWF because "normal" improved unarmed strike still uses hands.
Now, a monk or a brawler specifically can make unarmed strikes with their hands full, so they should be able to use TWF while grappled, right?
If not, what about flurry of blows, which is not using the two-weapon fighting rules since he doesn't need a second weapon?
What about characters with bite or claw attacks (half orcs, tengu, bloodline powers, etc.)? Are these considered natural attacks and therefore separate from the TWF rules (as per the monster rules? Can a dragon-blooded or abyssal-blooded bloodrager use both of his claw attacks as natural attacks? Or are these still considered "hands"?
Generally, if my interpretation of a rule raises more questions than it answers, I will reexamine that interpretation. If my ruling causes a cascade of corner cases, exceptions, and "yes, but..." situations, I will reconsider that ruling. When I'm GMing, I don't have the time or the brain power to devote to tracking complicated metagame conditions for extremely situational rules, especially when a different ruling can eliminate those same situations.
|
|
I am interested as well. I wouldn't allow it because ANY form of TWF uses two "hands", regardless of how many actual hands are used. But using two different hands for itteratives is fine since you're only using one "hand" even though it's using two actual hands. I feel that when Paizo says [hand] they always mean "hand" and sometimes they also mean an actual hand. This is how I perceive the rules.
This is part of the damage that the infamous 'hands' FAQ wrought.
|
|
Because that is how iterative work. You can make any attack with any weapon you have ready without penalty. The first attack has no impact on the second.Then how are you allowing both hands being used in your example of iterative attacks?
I know I would, because none of the attacks are using two hands, but why would you allow it, when each hand is being used to attack? It seems inconsistent with your position.
So, we agree that you can attack with your right hand twice and your left hand twice in the same full attack, when grappled? On the grounds that each attack is a one handed attack, and being grappled only prevents an action if it uses both hands?