| 28 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
So since the other thread has pretty much devolved into namecalling and suppositions, I decided to start a thread to get the armor spikes FAQ changed. There are several problems with it.
1. It seems to reference a rule that doesn't exist.
It says that since you are using an off hand to wield a weapon, you can't make off hand attacks. Where does it say this in the rules? In fact, the rules only say you can make off hand attacks with your hands full for IUS. So it's specific to weapons? If the entry is going to introduce a new rule, introduce a new rule. It shouldn't pretend like it's already there, it only leads to confusion as to guessing what the content of this new rule is.
2. It leads to weird, silly situations.
So a weapon wielded in your hands precludes off hand attacks. Great, you now cannot kick while wielding a sword in each hand. If you want to two weapon fight, it must be with the swords, as the rule specifies only wielding, not attacking.
3. It leads to weird vagueness about wielding versus holding.
Generally when the rules reference wielding, they just mean holding a weapon at the ready in hand. But this makes the distinction important, in a dumb way. If I hold a weapon I'm not proficient in, am I wielding it? Am I wielding a weapon if I don't attack with it? Can I choose whether or not I'm wielding a weapon? How often and at what point? If I hold an object, am I wielding an improvised weapon at all times?
The FAQ is just way, way too poorly written. It leads to mega arguments like the shield/armor spikes thread where people are basing their arguments on guessed interpretations. Get rid of it, replace it with something that makes sense and is consistent, and be done with it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
In regards to #1 it is a design guideline behind the game that they hasn't explicitly written before that was clarified in a 1000+ post thread where the devs directly posted.
In regards to #2, you're wrong. You can't make an attack with both weapon in both hands (TWF) and then also make an attack with your foot (unarmed strike). You have two hands worth of effort. TWF uses up both. Using a weapon two handed uses up both. But you can definitely use 1 sword, hold the other, and kick (unarmed strike) as TWF.
In regards to #3, this weirdness had long been an issue before this discussion ever came up. They are mutually exclusive.
There is no need to revise the FAQ, but there are a lot of people who misinterpret it or deliberately spread misinformation.
In regards to #1 it is a design guideline behind the game that they hasn't explicitly written before that was clarified in a 1000+ post thread where the devs directly posted.
Actually, I think it can be pieced together pretty easily, assuming a clean slate understanding. The only problem is that it requires almost 5th Edition Shadowrun level of piecing together disparate rules to get the full picture.
The main difficult part is understanding that "hand" doesn't always mean a literal hand, which is implied in the rules in some places, namely the fact that armor spikes still count as taking up a hand, given their place in the weapon tables.
In regards to #1 it is a design guideline behind the game that they hasn't explicitly written before that was clarified in a 1000+ post thread where the devs directly posted.
In regards to #2, you're wrong. You can't make an attack with both weapon in both hands (TWF) and then also make an attack with your foot (unarmed strike). You have two hands worth of effort. TWF uses up both. Using a weapon two handed uses up both. But you can definitely use 1 sword, hold the other, and kick (unarmed strike) as TWF.
In regards to #3, this weirdness had long been an issue before this discussion ever came up. They are mutually exclusive.
There is no need to revise the FAQ, but there are a lot of people who misinterpret it or deliberately spread misinformation.
1. You're right, it hasn't been explicitly written. That's dumb, change it. Or do you really think a vague dev post buried in an old 1000 post long thread is sufficient?
2. Really? That's not what the FAQ says. The FAQ says wield, not attack. You're interpreting it based on what it should say. That's why it's a problem. Please explain, given the language of the FAQ, how you are correct. You mention two hands worth of effort. In what part of the FAQ is that spelled out again?
3. It may be an issue outside, but sure is exacerbated by the FAQ language.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
1. it hasn't been explicitly written. That's dumb, change it.
2. Really? That's not what the FAQ says.
3. It may be an issue outside, but sure is exacerbated by the FAQ language.
1) It is never going to be written out because it would be pages of boring design philosophy regurgitated into rules.
2) You are reading the FAQ wrong.
3) Wield is used in many ways including "hold", "attacking with", and "wearing". Each has different implications in the rules. We never know which one is used. We have to ask our GM each time.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think you owe Jason B. a whole case of scotch just for starting this thread.
... and given that you used the word "dumb" in both posts you've done on this thread after referencing another thread being locked for namecalling, I think it needs to be a case of good scotch.
-TimD
|
Among other things, it lead to odd questions.
Like can I have 2 boot blades, and make attacks with them, while I hold in my hands (and benefit from) a +2 defending longsword and a +2 allying dagger?
There was a FAQ about Defending specifically saying that you have to take a swing with it due to "before using the weapon" in the Defending rules. Allying is a bit more up in the air - expect table variation.
Though even if a swing is needed - both can be viable at higher levels by merely using up an already inaccurate iterative attack. (I especially like Allying for a monk to boost their own unarmed strike - leaving the AoMF free for abilities such as Agile/Flaming etc. It's table variation whether I need to give up an iterative to make it work.)
1. it hasn't been explicitly written. That's dumb, change it.
2. Really? That's not what the FAQ says.
3. It may be an issue outside, but sure is exacerbated by the FAQ language.
1) It is never going to be written out because it would be pages of boring design philosophy regurgitated into rules.
2) You are reading the FAQ wrong.
3) Wield is used in many ways including "hold", "attacking with", and "wearing". Each has different implications in the rules. We never know which one is used. We have to ask our GM each time.
1. I'm asking for the rules to be written down, not the philosophy. How about "Attacking with a weapon two handed counts as using your off hand for that round. As such you cannot use off hand attacks that round." That didn't really need pages of explanation.
2. Still waiting on an explanation as to why my interpretation is unjustified given the FAQ wording. I don't find your argument convincing. The FAQ spawned a 500 post thread because of its ambiguity. I'm not really sure why you're saying it's crystal clear.
3. Yes, that is why the the wording should be changed. A term that nebulous has no place in a rules clarification.
I think you owe Jason B. a whole case of scotch just for starting this thread.
... and given that you used the word "dumb" in both posts you've done on this thread after referencing another thread being locked for namecalling, I think it needs to be a case of good scotch.
-TimD
I don't recall anyone being called dumb. The way the FAQ is written was called dumb. I don't know who wrote the FAQ, nor do I really care. But I'm sure given his chosen profession he'd be relatively more accepting of criticism.
Large block of rules expansion.
I thank you for the explanation. To be honest I have indeed heard it before. My issue is that there is no official rules source this is spelled out in. I am by no means saying you're incorrect, I'm saying that if a FAQ is referencing a rule as explanation, that rule should exist somewhere. If it doesn't, the FAQ entry would be a great place to put it.
Actually your post is a great instance of how it should have been done.
FAQ is referencing a rule as explanation, that rule should exist somewhere. If it doesn't, the FAQ entry would be a great place to put it. .If the FAQ is saying "this is how this works" then that is the rule you seek.
Great, so if you even wield but don't attack with a weapon two handed you cannot make off hand attacks. No holding a greatsword and kicking.
The rule the FAQ is referencing was spelled out by Byakko. The FAQ doesn't just say "this is how this works", it says "this is how this works because", and then fails to properly reference or explain the because, leaving it to be guessed at. You say the because means you can't attack with more than two hands. The reference says you can't wield with more than one hand and attack with an off hand. Was that intended? Who knows, we can't see the actual rule to determine that.
well you can hold a greatsword in 1 hand as a free action. :P
...can I have 2 boot blades, and make attacks with them, while I hold in my hands (and benefit from) a +2 defending longsword and a +2 allying dagger?
Almost all weapon enhancements are USE ACTIVATED. That is, they do nothing unless the weapon is being actively used (in this case, wielded = actively used rather than simply passively ready). THAT is why you need to actually make an attack with your DEFENDING weapon and/or your ALLYING weapon for that magic to function.
Most exceptions simply require the weapon to be in your possession (like the Luck Blade) or specify that they are command activated (like the Mace of Terror's 30 foot cone).
EDIT: spelling
The problem is a failure to comprehend that language involves both explicit and implicit meaning. Both work hand-in-hand and you cannot distill off the explicit meaning and rely on it and it alone. People often talk about RAW, but what they really mean is the explicit meaning of the rules. But implicit meaning also relies on written rules; thus implicit rules are also RAW. Implicit does not equate to RAI, as most people tend to incorrectly believe. If done correctly, RAI should always be the same as RAW. In some rare cases, this fails to work; such as Prone Shooter. It made reference to a penalty that simply didn't exist within the Pathfinder system. The Intent of the rules was to get around a (perceived) limitation. The RAW, fundamentally, could not match up with the intent because there was never any penalty to remove. But in most other cases, RAI is in line with RAW; but if you only look at the explicit meaning and ignore the implicit meaning, you probably will fail to see it.
To the subject at hand, two-handed weapons state they require two hands to wield. The explicit meaning is that you have to grasp the weapon with both your hands. The implicit meaning is that your two hands provide two attacks worth of attack economy. You can substitute another appendage or even an appendage-agnostic weapon for the use of a hand, but they all work off the same attack economy. Could this be better illustrated? Yes. Is this distinction entirely absent from the rules now? No. You just need to be able to read between the lines and recognize that it doesn't need to be explicit to be RAW. If they tried to distill all the rules down to explicit meaning only, the CRB alone would be about 10 volumes and weigh two tons.
this classically is the difference between de facto and de jure.
As usual people is hating on fun
|
...can I have 2 boot blades, and make attacks with them, while I hold in my hands (and benefit from) a +2 defending longsword and a +2 allying dagger?Almost all weapon enhancements are USE ACTIVATED. That is, they do nothing unless the weapon is being actively used (in this case, wielded = actively used rather than simply passively ready). THAT is why you need to actually make an attack with your DEFENDING weapon and/or your ALLYING weapon for that magic to function.
Most exceptions simply require the weapon to be in your possession (like the Luck Blade) or specify that they are command activated (like the Mace of Terror's 30 foot cone).
EDIT: spelling
Defending has a FAQ saying that it is use activated (which admittedly I had missed.) Allying says that it is distributed as a free action at the beginning of your turn. (so as pointed out above, expect table variation.)
The distinction between Wielding and Holding comes up on these boards over and over and over again. And almost always winds up in a morass of unwritten rules.
Considering how some of these go, I'm pretty sure if we could see the actual rule there would still be debate.
I'm not gonna say that's impossible, just less likely :P.
The problem is a failure to comprehend that language involves both explicit and implicit meaning. Both work hand-in-hand and you cannot distill off the explicit meaning and rely on it and it alone. People often talk about RAW, but what they really mean is the explicit meaning of the rules. But implicit meaning also relies on written rules; thus implicit rules are also RAW. Implicit does not equate to RAI, as most people tend to incorrectly believe. If done correctly, RAI should always be the same as RAW. In some rare cases, this fails to work; such as Prone Shooter. It made reference to a penalty that simply didn't exist within the Pathfinder system. The Intent of the rules was to get around a (perceived) limitation. The RAW, fundamentally, could not match up with the intent because there was never any penalty to remove. But in most other cases, RAI is in line with RAW; but if you only look at the explicit meaning and ignore the implicit meaning, you probably will fail to see it.
To the subject at hand, two-handed weapons state they require two hands to wield. The explicit meaning is that you have to grasp the weapon with both your hands. The implicit meaning is that your two hands provide two attacks worth of attack economy. You can substitute another appendage or even an appendage-agnostic weapon for the use of a hand, but they all work off the same attack economy. Could this be better illustrated? Yes. Is this distinction entirely absent from the rules now? No. You just need to be able to read between the lines and recognize that it doesn't need to be explicit to be RAW. If they tried to distill all the rules down to explicit meaning only, the CRB alone would be about 10 volumes and weigh two tons.
I'm not gonna sit here and argue the finer points of RAW versus RAI with you, nor the extreme drawbacks of overreliance on implicit meaning in a source meant to clarify rules. Suffice it to say that explicitly spelling out how the so-called "hands of effort" rules work would not take an extreme amount of effort or space, and would help clarify a lot of rules, making them easier and quicker to adjudicate.
Also, if you are reading between the lines, that is not rules "as written", as you are referring to things that, by definition, are not written down.
Once again, the FAQ caused a 500 post thread of raging debate. Would you still like to maintain the FAQ's clarity?
I just don't understand why the FAQ ruled the way it did at all. I get the "balance" issue claim. I don't agree with it though. There are other weapons and class abilities that override that x1.5 str bonus limit to damage anyway. It is almost as if the x1.5 str bonus limit doesn't exist for anything besides armor spikes anyway.
It just seems like a lot of extra rules explanation and maneuvering is required in an effort to limit something that can be done so many different ways anyway.
I don't say this much, but it gives the, "Martials can't have nice things" crowd some real credence.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just don't understand why the FAQ ruled the way it did at all. I get the "balance" issue claim. I don't agree with it though. There are other weapons and class abilities that override that x1.5 str bonus limit to damage anyway. It is almost as if the x1.5 str bonus limit doesn't exist for anything besides armor spikes anyway.
It just seems like a lot of extra rules explanation and maneuvering is required in an effort to limit something that can be done so many different ways anyway.
I don't say this much, but it gives the, "Martials can't have nice things" crowd some real credence.
yes but those are class abilities, this would have given it out for "free" and then stacked with mentioned abilities. double slice would have given 2.5 str for instance. I'd allow it for a feat expenditure if a player really wanted it though.
|
|
I'm actually fine with it working this way.
(although I agree it needs to be spelled out much more clearly)If 2-H + armor spikes were legit, you'd be forced to use them (if you wanted to stay competitive). Making everyone use boot blades, armor spikes, etc to keep up in damage just feels a bit gimmicky and non-iconic to me. It's as much about flavor preservation as power creep, imho.
Yes - unless the combo was nerfed somehow, the only other viable TWF would include a shield (probably dual shields) to take advantage of Shield Master.
Also, if you are reading between the lines, that is not rules "as written", as you are referring to things that, by definition, are not written down.This is precisely what I was talking about; people fail to realize that implied meaning is just as much a part of what is written as explicit meaning. Reading between the lines still relies on the lines. You've gotta use both for a full and complete understanding. If you don't, then you fail to understand. And people failing to understand a concept can definitely spawn pages and pages of debate. Often, people on both sides fail to understand. The whole "written" vs "unwritten" is a false dilemma where, on one side of the debate, you have people who are actually claiming that the rules should be entirely, 100%, explicit (they call it "written" but that is an incorrect label for what they are actually talking about). Meanwhile, the other side talks about rules being "unwritten" but are clarified via FAQ and developer comments (they call it "unwritten" but that is an incorrect label for what they are actually talking about; which is "written, but implicitly").
At the end of the day, the FAQs and developer comments merely illustrate the implicit meaning that was in the rules the whole time. Most didn't see it; hence why it needed to be pointed out. But even after it is pointed out, even after it is stated what "wielded two-handed" implies, people still fail to comprehend. I don't know if it is willful ignorance or a fundamental lack of mental faculties that causes this, but it's a moot point because if a person can't readily fit this concept into their scope of understanding, they are most certainly playing the wrong kind of game.
once again de jure/de facto, you're emphasizing the de facto, how the rules are other how they are by law(de jure) or as written.
Also, if you are reading between the lines, that is not rules "as written", as you are referring to things that, by definition, are not written down.This is precisely what I was talking about; people fail to realize that implied meaning is just as much a part of what is written as explicit meaning. Reading between the lines still relies on the lines. You've gotta use both for a full and complete understanding. If you don't, then you fail to understand. And people failing to understand a concept can definitely spawn pages and pages of debate. Often, people on both sides fail to understand. The whole "written" vs "unwritten" is a false dilemma where, on one side of the debate, you have people who are actually claiming that the rules should be entirely, 100%, explicit (they call it "written" but that is an incorrect label for what they are actually talking about). Meanwhile, the other side talks about rules being "unwritten" but are clarified via FAQ and developer comments (they call it "unwritten" but that is an incorrect label for what they are actually talking about; which is "written, but implicitly").
At the end of the day, the FAQs and developer comments merely illustrate the implicit meaning that was in the rules the whole time. Most didn't see it; hence why it needed to be pointed out. But even after it is pointed out, even after it is stated what "wielded two-handed" implies, people still fail to comprehend. I don't know if it is willful ignorance or a fundamental lack of mental faculties that causes this, but it's a moot point because if a person can't readily fit this concept into their scope of understanding, they are most certainly playing the wrong kind of game.
I think you're venturing into fanboy territory, with this whole "the system has been perfect the whole time, the FAQ just explains its perfection" business. I also think you're being more than a little insulting with this "if you don't agree with me you must lack the mental faculties" business.
You don't seem to understand that while one side can say rules imply one thing, the other can say they imply something else, and proving either side correct is often close to impossible. That's why strict literal RAW is necessary for a FAQ. FAQs are meant to settle debates, not cause them. I could further explain why you're wrong, but then we're getting into language and semantics and things that are outside the purview of this thread. Also to be quite frank I'm too lazy to :P.
Regardless, it would seem you have an axe to grind against people who want strict RAW. Why is beyond me, but let's just agree to disagree. I would kindly request, however, you keep from implying anyone in this thread who disagrees with you lacks "mental faculties" and does not simply have a difference of opinion. It's simply rude and uncalled for.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's why strict literal RAW is necessary for a FAQ.
That is a pipe dream and can not ever happen on complex issues like this without more rules than they have time or desire to write.
Either you get the gist of what they are saying and you extrapolate to solve all the issues, then have your GM handle the issues not explicitly covered or you deal with the fact you will have continual debates on how something works.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
James, the problem occurs when something like this can affect the build of your character. If there are two build options, but which option you pick depends on which way the GM is going to rule, and you play PFS, where you have a different GM (ruling a different way) each night, then "Have the GM deal with it" is not really a viable option.
|
James, the problem occurs when something like this can affect the build of your character. If there are two build options, but which option you pick depends on which way the GM is going to rule, and you play PFS, where you have a different GM (ruling a different way) each night, then "Have the GM deal with it" is not really a viable option.
That would make this a PFS issue, not a FAQ issue. Not for nothing, but this is really a hallmark kind of of conversation for this weird obsession that's arisen with people having to have every rule spelled out for them, because they don't trust GMs to make correct or consistent rulings; this pretty much exemplifies that obnoxious rules-lawyering that every player who isn't "that guy/gal" really hates. And it's ultimately bad for the game; The Pathfinder CRB is the largest core rulebook since the earliest edition of Dungeons and Dragons, and as it was they had to try to trim every paragraph down to the most succinct possible phrasing to fit everything in there. Shoving more rules in means more stuff gets cut out; it can't be art, because art is the main reason that their hardcovers sell, since all the rules are available online for free. It can't be other rules, because then you're defeating the whole purpose. All that's left is to cut out other mechanics, which is where stupid stuff comes from like the Ecclesitheurge having an entire class ability cut in the first printing of the ACG because the developers thought (rightly after threads like this) that there needed to be an extra paragraph added to make sure there was no confusion about how another class ability worked (despite that class ability mimicking another that already existed).
I'm actually fine with it working this way.
(although I agree it needs to be spelled out much more clearly)If 2-H + armor spikes were legit, you'd be forced to use them (if you wanted to stay competitive). Making everyone use boot blades, armor spikes, etc to keep up in damage just feels a bit gimmicky and non-iconic to me. It's as much about flavor preservation as power creep, imho.
This is also bull. Who the heck are you competing against? This is a cooperative game, and the only reason you should be worried about "keeping up with the competition" is if the GM is throwing THF who TWF with armor spikes at you, in which case he's clearly exercised his authority as GM to make a different ruling than the Paizo guys came up with and it's not an issue. Any optimized character is already coming in with more than the game requires; it's balanced to the point where a rare, epic level challenge is an equal number of enemy NPCs with 1/2 the party's resources. It's balanced for 15 point buy schmucks and Fighters who spend half their feats on save boosters and Skill Focus feats to consistently win 3 out of every four fights in a row.
It wouldn't have hurt for the designers to take the time when they posted the FAQ to elaborate on a few of the implied rules they alluded to. I've been frustrated many times at ham-fisted FAQs that opened more issues than the one they attempted to solve, or that have no basis in rules written down anywhere but instead seem to be "this is how we play it and so should you", even when balance is not an issue. I've even told Mark Seifter, the new FAQ guy, as much, and he's done a very good job of concisely explaining most (all as far as I know) of the FAQs that have been done since he took the reins of that area. But demanding a FAQ fix when the majority of people know what it means comes off as rude and entitled, especially since anyone with the computer skills to check the FAQs can just as easily search past threads or even communicate with JJ or Mark Seifter directly for clarification. No company has the time run the game for you; that's what GMs are for. If your concern is PFS, then the question should be asked there. As a general rule, you don't need to raise the villagers and besiege the castle every time you get confused; if you knock on the door politely, you'll probably get the doctor instead of the monster (i.e. instead of attacking the FAQ and stirring up conflict, pop into Mark's AMA thread and mention the confusion that you've experienced due to the fact, the number of people you believe share your confusion, and ask if it's possible to add a sentence to the FAQ making the implicit rule explicit).
Contributor
|
To be perfectly honest, the only reasons I'm ever interested in an FAQ are because:
a) I want to know how the designers intended a thing to work, so that I can factor that into my own ruling. For most such questions, I could just ask them. (Except they won't answer, because of the forums' response.)
b) I want to do something in PFS. That applies here; I had a punching dagger/armor spikes/shield character in a home game, and I'd like to bring her to PFS. But since table variation would eat me alive... I can't. Not until I'm sure.
-I flat-out ignore the FAQ on the wildblooded bloodlines in my campaigns - other than Sylvan, which I require you to have a valid arcana for, Eldritch Heritage away.
-I'd probably ignore the Crane Wing FAQ too, but it hasn't come up yet.
-And I'm actively against the rage FAQ, since it destroys the synergy between barbarians/Vikings and skalds. When a bard is a better companion than the class that's supposed to be your thematic brother-in-arms, something is wrong.
So... that's where I am on FAQs being "necessary". ^_^
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The numbers have been shown, time, and time again, that the combo is easily outdone by other two-weapon fighting builds.
Do fling balance around, like greater good you think you are fighting for.
Nobody wants to be arrested for breaking unwritten laws, and nobody wants to be told they broke unwritten rules.
That's why strict literal RAW is necessary for a FAQ.That is a pipe dream and can not ever happen on complex issues like this without more rules than they have time or desire to write.
Either you get the gist of what they are saying and you extrapolate to solve all the issues, then have your GM handle the issues not explicitly covered or you deal with the fact you will have continual debates on how something works.
If what you were saying was true, the rules would be a complete mess of ambiguity that requires DM interpretation at nearly every turn.
They aren't.
Some rules are crystal clear. Unambiguous language is not a pipe dream reserved only for a fantasy. That is a defeatist attitude that promotes laziness.
People get so overly focused on the rules that promote debate that they forget the hundreds to thousands of rules that don't ever spark any controversy. It's a result of the availability heuristic. You see the rules forums that are full of debates about ambiguity and assume that that's what the rules are. But they aren't. Arguing otherwise is just making excuses for poor writing.
|
You guys with your whining about 'unwritten rules'. Let it go already.
When the developers were explaining the reasoning behind the FAQ, they stated some of the guidelines that they used when making the decision. These guidelines are not rules, they are guidelines for what they felt would keep the rules in balance.
It's a game. There will be times when rule balance and simplicity is actually more important than what 'feels' logical.
Ssalarn also said it pretty well: the devs can't spell every little nuance out. They have neither the time nor the resources (and the books would be massive). Sometimes you need to use your common sense; and when that is not enough, just accept that it is what it is and just play the darn game.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
James, the problem occurs when something like this can affect the build of your character.
Don't use that option.
I'm intimately aware, as Overrun is an example of a rules set that nearly every GM operates differently. I no longer play my Overrun specialist as a result.
This problem isn't fixable until they do 30 FAQ question answers a week. Then maybe in a year we will clean up all the things people read differently.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
rules would be a complete mess of ambiguity ... They aren't.
making excuses for poor writing.
I've seen a lot of people believe a rule is completely unambiguous at the same time another group believes there is another completely unambiguous alternative interpretation.
You can't fix this by rewriting the rule. You fix it by spelling everything out and expanding upon the content.
I've seen enough rules debates that the only way to do this is to make every book 20%, 30% larger or more. That isn't an option, so that is a pipe dream.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
rules would be a complete mess of ambiguity ... They aren't.
making excuses for poor writing.
I've seen a lot of people believe a rule is completely unambiguous at the same time another group believes there is another completely unambiguous alternative interpretation.
You can't fix this by rewriting the rule. You fix it by spelling everything out and expanding upon the content.
I've seen enough rules debates that the only way to do this is to make every book 20%, 30% larger or more. That isn't an option, so that is a pipe dream.
Ah, so now we're down to only 20-30% bigger. We're making progress :).
And the problem here isn't in rewriting a rule (which, by the way, absolutely can and has fixed ambiguous language). The problem is that no rule has been spelled out to even be rewritten. It's only hinted at existing. Actually putting the rule down somewhere would help tremendously.
Of course you can't write rules in a way that will prevent people from making mistakes at all, but that's the perfect solution fallacy in action. That doesn't mean the rule isn't properly written. You may argue this FAQ is properly written, and we can debate that, but to argue proper writing is impossible is quite frankly ridiculous.
It seems like you are arguing against the very existence of the FAQ system. The devs seem to disagree with you on its necessity.
It is funny that people discuss the CRB being bigger then its predecessors but leave out that it takes up the job of two books. Maybe that is part of the problem.
I don't care how many rules there are. I just want them to make sense. I am all for reworking any part that needs it to make sense rather than just acknowledging that it is broken and ignoring it, much like how stealth doesn't allow for sneak attack but everyone knows it should.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
It seems like you are arguing against the very existence of the FAQ system. The devs seem to disagree with you on its necessity.
No I'm arguing against defining in rules form the whole design guidelines of the system. This single thing you think will be simple to devise, would be a lot of words to get the message across correctly. I don't think this would entirely be possible without lots of problems.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Don't, however, abandon the character just because it is unclear how you will get to play some of the time.
You have probably never played a character with Greater Overrun, Charge Through, Rhino Hide armor, and Elephant Stomp.
By the time I was 9th level, I was pretty certain not a single table rules the same way. I used to bring a printout of relevant FAQ, Rules, etc. It didn't help one bit. Because the meaning of the rules were unclear enough that GM's all ruled differently.
|
|
OK... so we are back to the circle of have or have nots on this issue.
Simply put, You use the Two Handed weapon or you use the other. The thing that is being forgotten is that the Knife boots/Spiked Gauntlet/etc are "weapons" that are hard to disarm from the wielder. They are used when you are weaponless otherwise. This is their purpose and what they have been used for historically.
The FAQ is set on a particular set of circumstances, but is a parallel to the other issues brought forth in the other thread involving shields. Why does it need clarified? Because it sites a design philosophy? Look at Two Weapon Fighting feat and see... you need Main hand and Off hand. Both are already in use with a Two Handed Weapon, hence why you need One-Handed or Light weapon to TWF with.
Why was this an issue?
|
|
You're kind of missing the point.
By that logic, you might as well just let characters give themselves 30's in every stat... because they're just going to demolish the mod anyway, right?
The aim should be a semblance of balance between characters. While different types of characters are going to be unavoidably better and stronger (especially in different situations), someone playing a level 1 2-H fighter should be about as strong as any other level 1 2-H fighter.
Not only would allowing it encroach upon traditional and iconic 2-H builds, it's almost certainly also numerically superior to traditional 2 weapon fighting builds. Balance and encouraging diverse builds is a good thing in my books.
(Btw, it's the BUILDS that are competing, not the players.)
I'm not missing the point, you're overstating the impact. Allowing a character to TWF with a two-handed weapon and armor spikes, if you decide to go that route, is not some game-breaking power boost, it's an option that's better than some and poorer than others. It requires you to have sufficient Strength to carry all the gear and sufficient Dexterity to take all the necessary TWF feats, not to mention the fact that your feats for improving basic melee capabilities (Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, etc.) and class abilities like Weapon Training can't be shared between your main and off-hand weapons. It also requires you to enchant your spikes separately from your armor, so the cost is prohibitive in both character resources and wealth. Because you'really spending all these resources to keep the fighting style viable, you're not picking up the more potent and useful feats that are the true advantage of two-handed warriors, namely the Improved Critical lines.
You end up, at best, with a small edge in damage at the first level or two of the game when damage is already incredibly swingy between builds (though even this isn't guaranteed since you're having to split your stats and taking a penalty to your attacks), and ultimately fall behind at the levels where you're finally able to actually support the build fully. TWF with a two-handed weapon and armor spikes is not a balance issue.
Now, the idea that the average humanoid character has only two "hands" worth of effort, that is a design assumption, and breaking it could potentially create other issues elsewhere. So the FAQ, as it stands, is probably conveying the best interpretation of the rules, though not for the reasons you assume. It would have been nice if they'don't included the "hands worth of effort" bit in the FAQ itself though, instead of alluding to a implied but not explicitly explained design rule.
|
|
I'm not missing the point, you're overstating the impact. Allowing a character to TWF with a two-handed weapon and armor spikes, if you decide to go that route, is not some game-breaking power boost, it's an option that's better than some and poorer than others. It requires you to have sufficient Strength to carry all the gear and sufficient Dexterity to take all the necessary TWF feats, not to mention the fact that your feats for improving basic melee capabilities (Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, etc.) and class abilities like Weapon Training can't be shared between your main and off-hand weapons. It also requires you to enchant your spikes separately from your armor, so the cost is prohibitive in both character resources and wealth. Because you'really spending all these resources to keep the fighting style viable, you're not picking up the more potent and useful feats that are the true advantage of two-handed warriors, namely the Improved Critical lines.
You end up, at best, with a small edge in damage at the first level or two of the game when damage is already incredibly swingy between builds (though even this isn't guaranteed since you're having to split your stats and taking a penalty to your attacks), and ultimately...
For fighters alone is it not a far superior option due to the extent which they invest in a single weapon due to Weapon Training/Specialization etc. For everyone else it's simply a significantly superior Strength TWF, and TWF already has the highest DPR in the game past the first few levels. In fact - it would be eliminating virutally all of the disadvantages it has vs THF except for the feat/weapon costs.
|
|
For fighters alone is it not a far superior option due to the extent which they invest in a single weapon due to Weapon Training/Specialization etc. For everyone else it's simply a significantly superior Strength TWF, and TWF already has the highest DPR in the game past the first few levels. In fact - it would be eliminating virutally all of the disadvantages it has vs THF except for the feat/weapon costs.
It's even worse for non-Fighters, because they struggle more to meet all the prereqs to make it a viable option. A Paladin will never be able to effectively pay all the stat and feat costs to maintain all his abilities, and even trying his best it still won't compete with his facility for mounted combat. A Ranger, conceivably, could use his combat feats to make TH + armor spikes viable, but they're about the only ones who can really pull it off competitively.
Even assuming it were viable, it looks flashy, but it is not this "strictly better than TWF or THF" option that people are making it out to be. It (with maybe one notable exception) couldn't be supported through pumping a single stat like standard TWF or THF can, and it's costly on par with TWF shield builds but without as much support and benefit.