Does Effortless Lace Reduce the Penalty of Two-Weapon Fighting?


Rules Questions

Dark Archive

12 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

There is some controversy over this item in other forums, and I wanted to pick the brains (mmmmm...brains) of the denizens here and see what you think.

Here is a link to Effortless Lace: Link!

The problem is found within this text block:

Effortless Lace wrote:
If the weapon is wielded by a creature whose size matches that of the weapon's intended wielder, the weapon is treated as a light melee weapon when determining whether it can be used with Weapon Finesse, as well as with any feat, spell, or special weapon ability that can be used in conjunction with light weapons.

My opinion is that this item, when used on a one-handed weapon which is then wielded in the offhand, reduces the two-weapon fighting penalty. I believe that this text block is saying that Effortless Lace works with feats, spells, and special weapon abilities in addition to reducing the two-weapon fighting penalty when used on an offhand weapon to make it light.

However, some are reading the text block above in a restrictive sense, and suggesting that it can *only* be used with a "feat, spell, or special ability...". Since two-weapon fighting is not a "feat", not a "spell" and is not a "special ability", Effortless Lace has no effect on two-weapon fighting, at all!

How would you all rule it? Interested in your opinions.


RAW, effortless lace does not reduce the attack penalty.

RAI, I originally assumed the attack penalty was reduced, but all I really had were second hand descriptions of the item. Now, I am not so sure, it almost seems intentional, as TWF is practically the only thing excluded by the wording. Otherwise, it would be simpler and better word count to just say it is treated as a light weapon. So I guess right now I am leaning towards the RAI matching the RAW.

Dark Archive

Calth wrote:
Now, I am not so sure, it almost seems intentional, as TWF is practically the only thing excluded by the wording.

The item's usefulness in lowering the two-weapon fighting penalty is blatantly obvious. The fact that the block does not explicitly rule for or against it suggests to me that the RAI was to allow it.

The designer who made this item wouldn't happen to post here, would they? Would be useful to hear their thoughts.

I believe that this text block could use a FAQ for clarification.

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

They do. It was intended to help with TWF (there's a post by the designer towards the end of the product discussion thread).


Yes it reduces by the penalty but it does so indirectly. The lace in and of itself does not directly affect TWF, but it can allow you to treat a one handed weapon as a light weapon and since light weapons have a lesser penalty to TWF you will have a smaller penalty than if you did not have the lace.


wraithstrike wrote:
Yes it reduces by the penalty but it does so indirectly. The lace in and of itself does not directly affect TWF, but it can allow you to treat a one handed weapon as a light weapon and since light weapons have a lesser penalty to TWF you will have a smaller penalty than if you did not have the lace.

The issue is that it is only treated as light for items on a list, and the TWF combat rule is not on that list.

I have no issue with house-ruling it applies to TWF, and would do so if GMing, but I just think the omission may have been intentional. It wouldnt be the first time Paizo has changed something away from the original designers intent.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

RAW, there's an argument to be made that the item does not affect TWF since the penalties for TWF with two one-handed weapons are in the combat chapter and do not qualify as a feat, spell or special weapon ability, and so the effortless lace does not affect them.

That said, I asked the creator for clarification earlier and he stated that it was intended to work with Two-Weapon Fighting.

RAI the item counters the TWF penalty for using two one-handed weapons.


Kudaku wrote:

RAW, there's an argument to be made that the item does not affect TWF since the penalties for TWF with two one-handed weapons are in the combat chapter and do not qualify as a feat, spell or special weapon ability, and so the effortless lace does not affect them.

That said, I asked the creator for clarification earlier and he stated that it was intended to work with Two-Weapon Fighting.

RAI the item counters the TWF penalty for using two one-handed weapons.

The problem here is the author not understanding how the rules work then. The TWF feat is a static reduction, it does not care about light/one-handed. And while author intent can guide house rules, it doesnt always match up with the RAI on Paizos side, with Titan Mauler being the premier example.


So if you only go by RAW, it wouldn't help when two-weapon fighting, but it would help with improved and greater improved two-weapon fighting, correct? I mean, the latter two are feats.


Komoda wrote:
So if you only go by RAW, it wouldn't help when two-weapon fighting, but it would help with improved and greater improved two-weapon fighting, correct? I mean, the latter two are feats.

Again, those feats dont care at all about whether a weapon is light or one-handed.


I agree that the text of the item doesn't reflect the intended function, but I wouldn't be so quick to blame the author. The rules text could have been changed in development or editing after he signed off on it.


Kudaku wrote:
I agree that the text of the item doesn't reflect the intended function, but I wouldn't be so quick to blame the author. The rules text could have been changed in development or editing after he signed off on it.

His response indicates that they used his wording, as he calls out that he only wanted it to work with the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, not while just wielding two weapons (i.e. the TWF combat rule). But it is the TWF combat rule that gives the attack penalty reduction for the off-hand weapon being light, not the TWF feat. So the wording seems to be as the author intended, he just messed up.

Contributor

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Hollister wrote:
Calth wrote:
The designer who made this item wouldn't happen to post here, would they? Would be useful to hear their thoughts.

He posts here all the time, as a matter of fact.

I answered this question with my intent here and here. Remember, this is all just my intent, so this shouldn't be taken as an FAQ / Flame War Fodder or anything. Although the fact that the effortless lace isn't PFS legal certainly takes a lot of the heat from the discussion. ;-)

Basically, I wanted the effortless lace to be able to allow you to treat the weapon as a light weapon while two-weapon fighting, but only if you actually had the Two-Weapon Fighting feat. So effortless lace + two-weapon fighting doesn't work, but effortless lace + Two-Weapon Fighting does. My justification for my wording appears in one of the posts that I commented; the Sword and Pistol feat, from Ultimate Combat, likewise notes a difference between two-weapon fighting and Two-Weapon Fighting.

So in case anyone wanted to know my intent, that's my intent. It isn't a Paizo-official response, though, so don't feel entitled to my ruling at your GM's table. Talk it over with her and work together to run the item in a way that works for you.

Quote:
I believe that this text block could use a FAQ for clarification.

Although I would be honored if my item was the first item in a Player Companion in recent memory to get an FAQ, I don't foresee that happening in the near future. Since you can't use the effortless lace in Pathfinder Society anyway, you'll have to settle for discussing what you're looking for in your build with your GM like an adult. :-)

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The anti logic is incorrect.

The two weapon fighting 'penalties' are explained in the combat chapter.

The Two weapon fighting feat reduces those penalties by specific amounts, leaving a remainder.

Therefore, when fighting with the Two Weapon fighting feat, the penalties are reduced further as the lace states.

If you do not have the feat, then all the standard penalties apply, since you don't have an applicable feat to work with.

So, if you have TWF feats, the lace works when fighting with two weapons. If you don't have the feats, it does not.

==Aelryinth

Dark Archive

Alexander Augunas wrote:


He posts here all the time, as a matter of fact.

I answered this question with my intent here and here. Remember, this is all just my intent, so this shouldn't be taken as an FAQ / Flame War Fodder or anything. Although the fact that the effortless lace isn't PFS legal certainly takes a lot of the heat from the discussion. ;-)

Basically, I wanted the effortless lace to be able to allow you to treat the weapon as a light weapon while two-weapon fighting, but only if you actually had the Two-Weapon Fighting feat. So effortless lace + two-weapon fighting doesn't work, but effortless lace + Two-Weapon Fighting does. My justification for my wording appears in one of the posts that I commented; the Sword and Pistol feat, from Ultimate Combat, likewise notes a difference between two-weapon fighting and Two-Weapon Fighting.

So in case anyone wanted to know my intent, that's my intent. It isn't a Paizo-official response, though, so don't feel entitled to my ruling at your GM's table. Talk it over with her and work together to run the item in a way that works for you.

Thank you for your response Alexander! I do appreciate it. You effectively solved my disagreement with another poster by putting the answer in the middle (the truth often seems to show up about there).


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Eh, I'm not seeing the problem.

1) Two-weapon fighting reduces the penalties for fighting with two weapons.

2) "the weapon is treated as a light melee weapon when determining whether it can be used with Weapon Finesse, as well as with any feat, spell, or special weapon ability that can be used in conjunction with light weapons."

3) Definition of conjuction "the action or an instance of two or more events or things occurring at the same point in time or space."

4) When you are two weapon fighting, you take significant penalties. If you have Two-Weapon Fighting (feat), your penalties are being reduced. This feat works in conjunction with fighting with two weapons.

5) Two-weapon Fighting (feat)works in conjuction with light weapons, as a light weapon in the offhand further reduces the penalties involved.

Conclusion: Using an effortless lace while fighting with two weapons, and possessing the Two Weapon Fighting feat, meets the requirements of using a feat in conjuction with light weapons.

So, the answer to your question is: Yes.
More specifically, it allows one to use a one handed weapon with an effortless lace on the offhand weapon to count as light and only have the -2/-2 penalty.


I'm more worried about the Titan Fighter wielding a Huge Weapon with only a -2 to attack, reduced even further as he advances in levels xD
Ontopic, Aelrynth+1 I agree with him, the main problem that we see is that it's not greatly explained.
Edit: Or 2 light weapons for a +0/+0 Kukriiiiiis


DeathlessOne wrote:

Eh, I'm not seeing the problem.

1) Two-weapon fighting reduces the penalties for fighting with two weapons.

2) "the weapon is treated as a light melee weapon when determining whether it can be used with Weapon Finesse, as well as with any feat, spell, or special weapon ability that can be used in conjunction with light weapons."

3) Definition of conjuction "the action or an instance of two or more events or things occurring at the same point in time or space."

4) When you are two weapon fighting, you take significant penalties. If you have Two-Weapon Fighting (feat), your penalties are being reduces. This feat works in conjunction with fighting with two weapons.

5) Two-weapon Fighting (feat)works in conjuction with light weapons, as it further reduces the penalties involved.

Conclusion: Using an effortless lace while fighting with two weapons, and possessing the Two Weapon Fighting feat, meets the requirements of using a feat in conjuction with light weapons.

So, the answer to your question is: Yes.
More specifically, it allows one to use a one handed weapon with an effortless lace on the offhand weapon to count as light and only have the -2/-2 penalty.

Except your point 5 is wrong. The Two-Weapon fighting feat cares absolutely nothing about whether a weapon is light or one-handed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Calth wrote:
Except your point 5 is wrong. The Two-Weapon fighting feat cares absolutely nothing about whether a weapon is light or one-handed.

Incorrect. Two-Weapon Fighting references the two weapon fighting rules in its Benefits description, which does care about the weapon being light. It effects the penalties.

Regardless, can Two-Weapon Fighting be used in conjunction with light weapons? Does using the feat, at any time or place, happen at exactly the same time and place as using a light weapon? Even if the answer is only "sometimes", you can use the effortless lace to treat the one handed weapon as a light weapon.

Dark Archive

DeathlessOne wrote:
Calth wrote:
Except your point 5 is wrong. The Two-Weapon fighting feat cares absolutely nothing about whether a weapon is light or one-handed.

Incorrect. Two-Weapon Fighting references the two weapon fighting rules in its Benefits description, which does care about the weapon being light. It effects the penalties.

It also mentions it in its "Normal" section: Two Weapon Fighting

I think using the item as Alexander has described is best. It is a tool for 'specialists'. If you have the two-weapon fighting feat and this item is legal in your game, then go to town with this thing.


So, how broken is this Effortless Lace thing for 2.5k, really?

By RAW, it seems you can only apply it to one-handed weapons, or weapons that can be used as one-handed, like a bastard sword or maybe a 2h weapon in the hands of a Titan Mauler.

What it doesn't seem to do is allow anybody to use 2h weapons in one hand as if they were one-handed, like the Titan Mauler can.

The other thing it does is to basically turn any one-handed weapon for your size into a light weapon.

Aparantly it can also be used on a large bastard sword to be used with 2h, since the bastard sword is also a one-handed weapon, though it's not clear if those using it in 2h will also get it's benefit. I see no problem with that since I always thought anybody should be able to use a fullblade if they have the EWP for it just like anybody can use a bastard sword.

If the weapon breaks, the lace is destroyied, so you may wanna make it a impervious adamantine weapons for 6k.

I would be against it if I didn't like it so much, as in something I've always wanted. The problem I see is that it will become essencial to almost everybody once you have the gold.

It's not as good as in Impact weapon, but stacks. Basically we could already do this, the only difference is that now it's worth doing it without the -2 penalty.

I'm not sure exactly what to think of it, but I think I can best describe it as, it's so good it makes me think it's broken, but it actually feels good enough to not be broken.

Do you guys see a problem with it? Casters don't get to complain.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

If you think going up a die step or so is broken, then you need to go reread the spell section of core.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It is definitely a good option that I wish was around a long time ago. I've always allowed mithril one-handed weapons to count as light weapons (not two hand to one hand, just one hand to light) for a while. This effortless lace is a good middle ground.


It's similar to Power Attack, Precise Shot and Weapon Finesse. It's a must-have for a specific style of combat, but not inherently overpowered.


It's so good I'm sad it didn't exist ages ago. Its presence opens up new styles of play that weren't available before, but while I haven't gone number crunching yet... none look overpowering. Dex to Damage TWF is a very, very cool thing that couldn't be done before, and with Sneak Attack on paper it has the potential to get nasty. But Dex-to-damage natural attack builds have been around for ages, and have access to full-scale Sneak Attack, and haven't broken anything just yet. So I'm not all that concerned.


Calth wrote:
Otherwise, it would be simpler and better word count to just say it is treated as a light weapon.

If it were just treated as a light weapon it would not be able to be used with anything that specifically needs a one-handed weapon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
NikolaiJuno wrote:
Calth wrote:
Otherwise, it would be simpler and better word count to just say it is treated as a light weapon.
If it were just treated as a light weapon it would not be able to be used with anything that specifically needs a one-handed weapon.

But that's the point. Right now, literally the only things I can think of that doesn't treat it as a light weapon are TWF, being unable to gain a benefit from 2-handing, and a couple of Magus or Magus-like features. It doesn't count as a one-handed weapon for anything else, or everything else has the same. I appreciate what the other was trying to write, but the sheer fact of the matter is that he messed up. The TWF feat does not have any special effect for light weapons, reprinting the normal rules in the feat doesn't change that, they are two separate rules elements. By trying to require the feat, he made it so that the item doesn't get the main benefit he wanted. RAW it is clear, and I have no idea what Paizo's RAI is on the matter, if they liked the exclusion of the attack penalty reduction or they missed the error.

As I stated previously, I have no issue with people going along with the authors intent. But I do have an issue trying to pretend that's actually what the RAW states.


The wording as is it is treated as a light weapon for things that want a light weapon, but for anything else it considered a one-handed weapon.
For instance it can be used with Slashing Grace because SG does not look for it being light.
If it made it light for all purposes it would no longer work with SG or be able to be wielded with two hands for a 1.5 strength damage.
As written it makes a much more flexible weapon, if it made it light it would remove options.


It's not really that big a deal to have Effortless Lace affecting TWF, considering that Agile has been around for ages. Either way, TWF with two one-handed weapons is still only -2ab compared to 'normal' TWF; annoying, sure, but people gladly eat a similar penalty all the time when swinging two-handers around, and don't think twice about it.


im sorry, but english is not my main lenguage. do i read this part wrong:
"the weapon is treated as a light melee weapon when determining whether it can be used with Weapon Finesse, as well as with any feat, spell, or special weapon ability that can be used in conjunction with light weapons."

when i read this i read that the weapon is treated as light weapon,when determining if it can be used with 1 spesific feat, as well as any other feat,spell or spacial weapon ability that can be used with light weaopns.

now the 2 weaopn fihgting say that attacking with a light weapon on the off hand reduce the panlity by 2. doesn't that qulify as a light weapon ability? no other weapon get that ability to negeate 2 off the panailty of 2 weapon fighting.(unarmed attack first say that are considered light weapons -> which goes to remove 2 of the panlity). that make it seem that light weapon has some speacial abilities (such as can be usedto attack while grappeld), and among them is reduce the panlity of 2 weapon fighting by 2 if used at off hand. and since it's a speacial weapon ability it treat the item that has the lace on as light.


RAW it might not be able to work with TWF, but I still think it is RAI, and it definitely won't break the game


It's written: "If the weapon is wielded by a creature whose size matches that of the weapon's intended wielder, the weapon is treated as a light melee weapon when determining whether it can be used with Weapon Finesse, as well as with any feat, spell, or special weapon ability that can be used in conjunction with light weapons."

It says the weapon is treated as a light weapon, doesn't say it can be treated, and by that I think you should no longer be able to choose to wield it as a regular one-handed weapon if it better suits you, like getting x1.5 STR bonus on damage when using it in 2h.

The way it's written it's quite confusing indeed. It would have been better if they just said it turned one-handed weapons into light weapons.


Kchaka wrote:

It's written: "If the weapon is wielded by a creature whose size matches that of the weapon's intended wielder, the weapon is treated as a light melee weapon when determining whether it can be used with Weapon Finesse, as well as with any feat, spell, or special weapon ability that can be used in conjunction with light weapons."

It says the weapon is treated as a light weapon, doesn't say it can be treated, and by that I think you should no longer be able to choose to wield it as a regular one-handed weapon if it better suits you, like getting x1.5 STR bonus on damage when using it in 2h.

The way it's written it's quite confusing indeed. It would have been better if they just said it turned one-handed weapons into light weapons.

It's written: "If the weapon is wielded by a creature whose size matches that of the weapon's intended wielder, the weapon is treated as a light melee weapon when determining whether it can be used with Weapon Finesse, as well as with any feat, spell, or special weapon ability that can be used in conjunction with light weapons."

It is only treated as a light weapon for specific purposes, for anything else it is still a one-handed weapon.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Why doesn't the effortless lace work in conjunction with class abilities like Precise Strike? Seems like they are trying REAL hard to create unnecessary limitations.

Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Why doesn't the effortless lace work in conjunction with class abilities like Swashbuckler's Finesse? Seems like they are trying REAL hard to create unnecessary limitations.

It does. If you attune the effortless lace to, say, a heavy pick, you could enchant that heavy pick with the agile weapon property. The effortless lace just won't let you use a non-piercing weapon with swashbuckler's finesse because the lace alters how heavy the weapon is / how much effort is required to wield the weapon, not what kind of damage it deals.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Except that is a class ability, which is specifically excluded from the list of things effortless lace effects.

...when determining whether it can be used with Weapon Finesse, as well as with any feat, spell, or special weapon ability that can be used in conjunction with light weapons.

Yeah, no class abilities.

(Edited my above post. I meant to say "Precise Strike," not "Swashbuckler's Finesse," which does look like it might work.)

EDIT: Never mind. Just realized that Precise Strike works with one-handed weapons anyways, making the whole question moot. Just tired I guess.

The Exchange

so if you're using two weapon fighting with two one-handed weapons and the lace, you're at -4/-4? because its not a light weapon for two weapon combat?


Chernobyl wrote:

so if you're using two weapon fighting with two one-handed weapons and the lace, you're at -4/-4? because its not a light weapon for two weapon combat?

The way it's written is pretty sketchy, but it's been clarified that it's intended to make one-handed weapons work like light ones for Two-Weapon Fighting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chernobyl wrote:

so if you're using two weapon fighting with two one-handed weapons and the lace, you're at -4/-4? because its not a light weapon for two weapon combat?

The person who created the item said it is intended to work with TWF. He posted in this topic.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Off topic:

I love it when the person who wrote a rule explains their though process and their intentions behind the rule, then someone else says that the author is wrong on the RAI....


Saldiven wrote:

Off topic:

I love it when the person who wrote a rule explains their though process and their intentions behind the rule, then someone else says that the author is wrong on the RAI....

Pretty sure that was directed at me, so Ill go ahead and respond. Unless the author is part of the Paizo design team, no their intent doesn't matter for official rules purposes. What matters is what the words actually mean, and what Paizo intended them to mean. This was confirmed with the old Titan Mauler, where the authors intent was explicitly confirmed not to be how Paizo wanted it run. Rules get edited after submission all the time, and cases like this where the rule is poorly written, its quite easy for author intent and Paizo design intent to not match.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Best practice is to believe that the author's intent is Paizo's intent unless presented with pretty significant evidence to the contrary. That does not exist here, despite what could have been worded more clearly.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Does Effortless Lace Reduce the Penalty of Two-Weapon Fighting? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.