| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
While researching rules for a post last night I found an apparent contradiction in the FAQ and core rules that I would like to see addressed.
The July 2013 FAQ post regarding the use of a two-handed weapon and armor spikes is contradicted by the march 2013 and October 2014 FAQ posts.
A) Armor Spikes are considered light weapons; which require they be "used in one hand".
B1) The March 2013 FAQ Post:
http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qda
B2) The October 2014 FAQ Post:
http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9sk0
C) The Core Rulebook states that "you can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally"
D) The Core Rulebook, under Two-Weapon Fighting states that you must "wield a second weapon in your off-hand..." in order to "...get one extra attack per round with that weapon".
Therefore, the July 2013 FAQ is now incorrect: You may declare that you are shifting your grip to hold your greatsword to hold it one-handed as a free action during a Full-Round Attack action, make the extra attack granted by the Two-Weapon Fighting feat with your Spiked Armor by using your now free off-hand, and then shift your grip back to holding your greatsword two-handed in order to continue making your normal iterative attacks with it.
The March 2013 FAQ Post and Core Rulebook allows individual GMs to limit the number of free actions which may be taken, however given the stipulations given in the March 2013 post regarding shifting grip, this will usually only prevent a character from making the additional extra attacks granted by Improved and Greater Two-Weapon Fighting (since it implies you cannot shift your grip more than twice).
I believe it falls under the metaphorical hands of effort clarification. Since I don't know where that is, though, I can't really say for sure.
Armor Spikes: Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?
No.
Likewise, you couldn't use an armored gauntlet to do so, as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks.
This is pretty strait forward. Yes you can take free actions, and yes you can use those free action to take your hand off and then place your hand on your weapon, but that doesn't let you use a gauntlet or armor spikes to TWF. No issues. Those two FAQ's are two different things.
No contradiction.
You have two-hands worth of "effort" that you can do things with.
If you use a two-handed weapon, then both hands are consumed with that weapon. You would need a 3rd hand of effort to also attack with armor spikes.
I will give you that the rules aren't as clear on this as they could be, but there is no contradiction.
The feats grant you extra attacks that you cannot normally make. James' assertion is perfectly correct without accounting for additional abilities, which considering the number of exceptions in the game is a the only reasonable way to present information.
You can quite freely remove your hand from your two handed weapon.
You cannot use that hand to make an off-hand attack with. You can use it for non-attack purposes such as retrieving an item or spell-casting.
Both FAQs met, no contradictions.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really see a contradiction here. But if two rules do contradict, the newer rule always takes precedence.
Edit: Actually, the more specific case takes precedence, but if both cases are equally specific, then the newer takes precedence.
It isn't a matter of what I "want". As GM, if I want something to work I house-rule that it does. The issue is that it is bad game design to contradict yourself, and I would like a clarification.
If the game designer's wish to ban Two-Handed Weapons from being able to be used with Two-Weapon Fighting, then they need to errata the feat to specifically prohibit the character from using a two-handed weapon with it, or post a FAQ specifically prohibiting a character from shifting grip while using Two-Weapon Fighting.
I am not giving an opinion, I am stating facts, and providing evidence from quoted directly from the PRD.
To Melkiador: See B2. This FAQ, published in October of 2014, supports the earlier FAQ published in March 2013, and was published after the FAQ post I am stating is contradictory (which was published in July 2013).
Would someone kindly quote where in the Rules or a FAQ specifically states that there are conditions under which a character may not use their off-hand to make an attack with if it is free?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Would someone kindly quote where in the Rules or a FAQ specifically states that there are conditions under which a character may not use their off-hand to make an attack with if it is free?
Right here. As you're the one who brought it up initially, I'm not sure how you missed it.
Armor Spikes: Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?
No.
Likewise, you couldn't use an armored gauntlet to do so, as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks.
It's not the same instant. It's for the whole round.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It isn't a matter of what I "want". As GM, if I want something to work I house-rule that it does. The issue is that it is bad game design to contradict yourself, and I would like a clarification.
If the game designer's wish to ban Two-Handed Weapons from being able to be used with Two-Weapon Fighting, then they need to errata the feat to specifically prohibit the character from using a two-handed weapon with it, or post a FAQ specifically prohibiting a character from shifting grip while using Two-Weapon Fighting.I am not giving an opinion, I am stating facts, and providing evidence from quoted directly from the PRD.
To Melkiador: See B2. This FAQ, published in October of 2014, supports the earlier FAQ published in March 2013, and was published after the FAQ post I am stating is contradictory (which was published in July 2013).
The FAQ is clear and totally unambiguous. It was made specifically because other posters thought they should be able to do exactly what you're describing due to RAW being ambiguous. The FAQ was a clarification on the intended rules, i.e. it is not possible to two-weapon fight while also using a single weapon with both hands.
Similarly, you cannot two-hand a longsword, and then TWF with your armored gauntlet.
You can mix and match multiple attacks if you want. So if you have +15/+10/+5, you can take your first attack with your longspear, second attack with your armor spikes, and third attack with your longspear. You just do not benefit from TWF (and thus get extra attacks) while doing so.
As many posters have said, there is no contradiction.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Armor Spikes: Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?
No.
Um! how much more unambiguous do you want?
There are no provisos or quid pro quos, it is a flat blanket NO. No "well, if you have a hand free" or "if you can talk down the entire interwebs"
About as factual as you can get.
No!
Stating otherwise is opinion and/or wishful thinking.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alright, let's take these in order.
Two-Handed Weapons: What kind of action is it to remove your hand from a two-handed weapon or re-grab it with both hands?
Both are free actions. For example, a wizard wielding a quarterstaff can let go of the weapon with one hand as a free action, cast a spell as a standard action, and grasp the weapon again with that hand as a free action; this means the wizard is still able to make attacks of opportunity with the weapon (which requires using two hands).As with any free action, the GM may decide a reasonable limit to how many times per round you can release and re-grasp the weapon (one release and re-grasp per round is fair).
Okay, so from this FAQ we know that it's possible to remove and replace a hand on a two-handed weapon in the same round.
Armor Spikes: Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?
No.
Likewise, you couldn't use an armored gauntlet to do so, as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks.
And this FAQ says that if you are using a weapon two-handed you can't two-weapon fight that round because both of your "hands" are occupied by the two-handed weapon.
This does not contradict the first FAQ: just because you can remove a hand from a weapon doesn't mean you can use that hand to make an attack, and this FAQ specifically disallows you doing so.
Can I use my longspear to attack at both 10 feet and 5 feet? I know that the rules for reach weapons don't allow them to attack adjacent foes, but can I use the improvised weapon rules to say that the blunt end of my longspear resembles a club and use it to attack adjacent foes? I know that the improvised weapon rules say they are for objects not designed to be weapons, but the blunt end of my longspear was not designed to be a weapon, right?
You could choose to wield your longspear as an improvised blunt weapon. In this case, it threatens only your adjacent squares, and not the further squares. If you are wielding it as a longspear, though, to threaten the further squares, then your grip precludes the use as an improvised blunt weapon. The rules are silent on how long it would take to shift between the two, but switching between a one-handed and a two-handed grip with a one-handed weapon like a longsword is a free action (and can thus be only taken on your turn), so it should take at least as long as that, thus preventing you from simultaneously threatening all of the squares at once. Incidentally, using the longspear as an improvised weapon in this way would not allow you to benefit from any magical enhancements it may possess, nor would you add benefits that apply when attacking with a longspear (such as Weapon Focus (longspear), but you would apply any benefits from using an improvised weapon (such as Catch Off-Guard).
This FAQ tells us that you can use a reach weapon and switch your grip to use it as a non-reach improvised weapon. This has nothing to do with two-handed weapons, and in fact only refers to shifting grip from one-handed to two-handed to describe what action shifting grip takes. The fact that it explicitly refers to the longspear, which is a two-handed reach weapon, is actually incidental to the focus of the FAQ which is that reach weapons can be used as improvised non-reach weapons with a shift of grip.
So, three FAQ's, the first two of which aren't in contradiction, and the third of which actually has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The issue is that using TWF is a full-round action. For the entire duration of your turn you must abide by the restrictions in the feat in exchange for an additional attack. Those restrictions are that all attacks take a -2 to hit, and you must have a hand of effort available to apply to the attack. If you are using a two-handed weapon, you have no hands of effort to apply, unless you're using a weapon that breaks the rules like a barbazu beard or a sea knife. Armor spikes and unarmed strikes do not break the rules,
You can also freely use a two handed weapon and armor spikes in the same round if you are not using two weapon fighting, and just use iterative attacks. But if you use TWF for an extra attack, you can't use a two handed weapon.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Cantriped, you keep asking for a rules answer and ignoring the FAQ.
What do you hope to accomplish? There is no rules answer that is valid and disagrees with the FAQs.
There isn't.
I get you'd like there to be one.
What you don't seem to get is humans (elves, dwarves etc) have 2 hands.
You can only use two hands of effort in a round.
Attacking with a two handed weapon uses both.
Attack with a one handed or light weapon (claw, armor spikes, longsword, dagger) uses one.
The reason Armor Spikes aren't used as the example there are because Armor Spikes (as well as Barbazu Beards, Unarmed Strikes, etc.) don't actually require hands to attack with...This is incorrect, Armor Spikes are classified as Light Weapons, and all light weapons, barring exceptions made in a specific weapon's description, "A light weapon is used in one hand."
For example: The class features of Monks and Brawlers grant them the ability to make unarmed strikes with any portion of their anatomy, otherwise they also always require a hand, even if you possess the Unarmed Strike Feat.
This is (likely) the crux of the contested FAQ's assertion that you cannot use a Greatsword and Armor Spikes together.
The designers don't like Armored Spikes basically.
If you were a Monk, you could go Greatsword/Unarmed strikes because they can make unarmed strikes even when HANDS are full. Monk get around the Metaphorical hand issues.
For example: The class features of Monks and Brawlers grant them the ability to make unarmed strikes with any portion of their anatomy, otherwise they also always require a hand, even if you possess the Unarmed Strike Feat.
Okay, to start off with this is false. Allow me to refer to the Combat Page's general definition of Unarmed Strike.
Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:
Emphasis mine. As you can see, this general definition specifically calls out that you can use non-fist unarmed strikes. Monk and Brawler just reinforce this because, well, they're the ones likely to be using it. That said, here's a source for the answer to the primary question of this thread:
This is as official as can be found at the moment, but I (and most players from what I can tell) take the word of the Lead Designer, supposedly speaking for the rest of the team, to be pretty official.
|
|
If you were a Monk, you could go Greatsword/Unarmed strikes because they can make unarmed strikes even when HANDS are full. Monk get around the Metaphorical hand issues.
Only because Flurry isn't TWF. If you're an archetype which gives up Flurry, then you can't then TWF with Greatsword/unarmed strikes.
If you were a Monk, you could go Greatsword/Unarmed strikes because they can make unarmed strikes even when HANDS are full. Monk get around the Metaphorical hand issues.
Monks get around a literal hands issue, as does anyone unarmed striking. They are still stuck with the metaphorical hands, which is why they cannot kick kick elbow elbow fist fist knee knee headbut bellybump hipcheck and then sit on their opponent.
To James:
Did you read all of the quoted material in the OP?
I am not ignoring any of the FAQs. I had read every FAQ quoted above, the entire combat chapter, and every relevant feat and item long before posting this thread. I am not asking for the rules to be changed to suit by desires, or to prohibit or allow any particular tactic. I GM for my group, so if I want allow something particular amongst my group, it is allowed, end of story.
What I hope to accomplish is a clarification, from a credible source*, of what I believe to be a FAQ which contradicts both previous and subsequent FAQs and also the Core Rules.
*The only sources of evidence I accept as being credible are the PRD and the FAQ. Ergo why I am posting this thread, so that either the PRD or FAQ may be clarified, and there will be no more ambiguity regarding what you can do.
If it is the designer's intention that it be impossible for characters with only two hands to use a Two-Handed Weapon alongside other weapons under any circumstances; then that is fine. I won't be offended or upset. However the rules of a game should always clearly state what a character can and cannot do, and currently I do not feel that the statement is clear enough.
To Shinigami02:
Once again, thank you for citing evidence. You are partially correct, but not entirely.
From Equipment:
An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon. Therefore, you can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with an unarmed strike. Unarmed strikes do not count as natural weapons (see Combat).
It is also listed in the light weapons table. further reinforcing that unarmed strike follow the rules for light weapons.
From the Core Rulebook, CombatUnarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:...
No exception is made in this section regarding the requirement that you have a free hand to use an unarmed strike. As such unless, another rule describes otherwise, even if your character is described as using their feet or head (or spikes attached to their knees or shoulders) to perform the strike they still need a free hand. Unless...
From the Monk:
Unarmed Strike: At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply his full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all his unarmed strikes.From the Brawler:
Unarmed Strike: At 1st level, a brawler gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A brawler may attack with fists, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a brawler may make unarmed strikes with her hands full. A brawler applies her full Strength modifier (not half) on damage rolls for all her unarmed strikes.
These class features allow the Monk and Brawler to make Unarmed Strikes even when they lack the required free hand. This is the only exception the rule for Light Weapons requiring a free hand which I've found so far.
i'm fairly certain those are simply to clarify that the monk and brawler get their full STR bonus on unarmed attacks even when flurrying it two-weapom fighting. technically, though, you are correct that anyone else must have a "free hand" according to RAW since they are light weapons and there is no explicit exception in the improved unarmed strike feat.
There is no contradiction. You're reading the rules the wrong way.
-This is how i think it works, and this is how it works unless you have absolute proof- is a horrible way to go about rules discussion. You don't have any absolute proof from a credible source that you can two weapon fight and then off hand attack, so why would you demand that
Instead consider the evidence for your position, and consider (the rather copious in this case) evidence against it. The rules do not say that you can't use the same hand twice but they don't say that you can either. There have been multiple developer comments stating that virtual hands are a thing, you cannot simply keep naming body parts to hit people with, nor can you two weapon fight with one weapon by passing it back and forth between your hands, or any large number of things that there ain't no explicit rule against
Monks get around a literal hands issue, as does anyone unarmed striking. They are still stuck with the metaphorical hands, which is why they cannot kick kick elbow elbow fist fist knee knee headbut bellybump hipcheck and then sit on their opponent.
If you were a Monk, you could go Greatsword/Unarmed strikes because they can make unarmed strikes even when HANDS are full. Monk get around the Metaphorical hand issues.
Nope, it says: At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full.
So even if their Metaphysical or metaphorical hands are full, they can make an Unarmed Strike.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Monks get around a literal hands issue, as does anyone unarmed striking. They are still stuck with the metaphorical hands, which is why they cannot kick kick elbow elbow fist fist knee knee headbut bellybump hipcheck and then sit on their opponent.
If you were a Monk, you could go Greatsword/Unarmed strikes because they can make unarmed strikes even when HANDS are full. Monk get around the Metaphorical hand issues.
Nope, it says: At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full.
So even if their Metaphysical or metaphorical hands are full, they can make an Unarmed Strike.
metaphorical (or metaphysical) hands don't get "full" they are for effort. he was expressing how the number of attacks you get is entirely separate from the number of body parts you can list capable of making attacks.
So even if their Metaphysical or metaphorical hands are full, they can make an Unarmed Strike.
metaphorical hands refers to using them. A first level monk cannot left hand nunchuk right hand nunchuk and then kick kick.
Instead consider the evidence for your position, and consider (the rather copious in this case) evidence against it. The rules do not say that you can't use the same hand twice but they don't say that you can either. There have been multiple developer comments stating that virtual hands are a thing, you cannot simply keep naming body parts to hit people with, nor can you two weapon fight with one weapon by passing it back and forth between your hands, or any large number of things that there ain't no explicit rule against
It is my opinion that Literally is never the wrong way to read the rules, it is the only correct way to read game rules. To do otherwise is to create house rules. Which I am perfectly capable of doing without the lead designer's permission.
When performing any kind of research, the credibility of your sources is of vital importance. Developer comments posted in a forum are not credible evidence in this case, they are professional opinions on game design it is true, but they are opinions nonetheless). The PRD and FAQ are the only credible sources I know of in a debate regarding the rules of Pathfinder as a game system.
The evidence for my position is as follows:
A) March 2013 FAQ
Two-Handed Weapons: What kind of action is it to remove your hand from a two-handed weapon or re-grab it with both hands?
Both are free actions. For example, a wizard wielding a quarterstaff can let go of the weapon with one hand as a free action, cast a spell as a standard action, and grasp the weapon again with that hand as a free action; this means the wizard is still able to make attacks of opportunity with the weapon (which requires using two hands).
As with any free action, the GM may decide a reasonable limit to how many times per round you can release and re-grasp the weapon (one release and re-grasp per round is fair).
B) October 2014 FAQ
Can I use my longspear to attack at both 10 feet and 5 feet? I know that the rules for reach weapons don't allow them to attack adjacent foes, but can I use the improvised weapon rules to say that the blunt end of my longspear resembles a club and use it to attack adjacent foes? I know that the improvised weapon rules say they are for objects not designed to be weapons, but the blunt end of my longspear was not designed to be a weapon, right?
You could choose to wield your longspear as an improvised blunt weapon. In this case, it threatens only your adjacent squares, and not the further squares. If you are wielding it as a longspear, though, to threaten the further squares, then your grip precludes the use as an improvised blunt weapon. The rules are silent on how long it would take to shift between the two, but switching between a one-handed and a two-handed grip with a one-handed weapon like a longsword is a free action (and can thus be only taken on your turn), so it should take at least as long as that, thus preventing you from simultaneously threatening all of the squares at once. Incidentally, using the longspear as an improvised weapon in this way would not allow you to benefit from any magical enhancements it may possess, nor would you add benefits that apply when attacking with a longspear (such as Weapon Focus (longspear), but you would apply any benefits from using an improvised weapon (such as Catch Off-Guard).
B) Ultimate Equipment
Light, One-Handed, and Two-Handed Melee Weapons: This designation is a measure of how much effort it takes to wield a weapon in combat. It indicates whether a melee weapon, when wielded by a character of the weapon's size category, is considered a light weapon, a one-handed weapon, or a two-handed weapon.
Light: A light weapon is used in one hand. It is easier to use in one's off hand than a one-handed weapon is, and can be used while grappling. Add the wielder's Strength modifier to damage rolls for melee attacks with a light weapon if it's used in the primary hand, or half the wielder's Strength modifier if it's used in the off hand. Using two hands to wield a light weapon gives no advantage on damage; the Strength modifier applies as though the weapon were held in the wielder's primary hand only.
An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon.
One-Handed: A one-handed weapon can be used in either the primary hand or the off hand. Add the wielder's Strength modifier to damage rolls for melee attacks with a one-handed weapon if it's used in the primary hand, or half his Strength modifier if it's used in the off hand. If a one-handed weapon is wielded with two hands during melee combat, add 1-1/2 times the character's Strength modifier to damage rolls made with that weapon.
Two-Handed: Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively. Apply 1-1/2 times the character's Strength modifier to damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon.
C) Core Rulebook, Combat, Action Types
Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM.D) Core Rulebook, Combat, Special Attacks, Two-Weapon Fighting
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in two ways. First, if your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light. Second, the Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6.
Table: Two-weapon Fighting Penalties summarizes the interaction of all these factors.
Double Weapons: You can use a double weapon to make an extra attack with the off-hand end of the weapon as if you were fighting with two weapons. The penalties apply as if the off-hand end of the weapon was a light weapon.
Thrown Weapons: The same rules apply when you throw a weapon from each hand. Treat a dart or shuriken as a light weapon when used in this manner, and treat a bolas, javelin, net, or sling as a one-handed weapon.
The evidence for the opposing position is as follows:
Z) July 2013 FAQ
Armor Spikes: Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?
No.
Likewise, you couldn't use an armored gauntlet to do so, as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks.
All points A through Z are from similarly credible sources, and thus they should all be given equal value, although I've read many times that chronology is important in regard to the FAQ.
Points A and C directly support my position. Point B indirectly supports Point A by reference to it still being a free action to shift your grip on either a one or two-handed weapon. Point B is also newer than Point Z. I'm told chronology is important in regard to the FAQ, which is why I've been referring to the FAQ posted by the date they were published. Nowhere in Point B or D is it stated that you must spend the entire round wielding the weapon, which makes sense as such a statement would contradict Point A. Point B stipulates the number of virtual hands you must have free to wield given weapons (as opposed carrying them).
Point D defines the penalty for taking the Two-Weapon Fighting action, and stipulates what conditions under which you gain the extra attack.
By the way, BigNorseWolf, the term "second weapon" in point D is what prevents you from using Point A to Two-Weapon Fight with the same weapon by shifting it from hand to hand.
Point Z is accurate in that you cannot use spiked armor and a greatsword simultaneously. So you can't use Two-Weapon Rend or similar feats, because even if you hit with your primary and off-hand attacks humanoids usually lack the requisite three virtual hands required to strike with a two-handed and light weapon simultaneously.
However Point Z also directly contradicts the Point A and C in regard to the actual question being asked. Points A and C allow a character to reclaim their virtual off-hand at any time. Even if they do so during a full-attack, after making an attack with their two-handed Greatsword. Therefore if the player makes the proper declaration, their off-hand is actually available to make attacks with, contrary to explanation given in Point Z. Therefore allowing them to wield their Spiked Armor in said virtual off-hand when they are attempting to take an extra attack; so long as the player declared their intention to do so when they began the Full Round, Full Attack, Two-Weapon Fighting action, and they accepted the attack penalties for Two-Weapon Fighting to their Greatsword's Attack roll).
Now that all of my points have been explained in painful detail, I would like everyone to hit that FAQ button; even if you disagree with me, think I'm a "silly min-maxer", or an [insert expletive of choice here], so that so that we may all have clarification to point to when "that player" (admittedly, he's usually me) starts the kind of heated debate I've started here at your tables.
Okay but the post I linked wasn't the lead designer's "Opinion" on the subject, it was him responding to a thread asking clarification on this very subject with "This is our ruling, and unless we specifically say otherwise, this is how it is intended to be done."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is my opinion that Literally is never the wrong way to read the rules
100% raw literal reading turns a fun game into inane rules lawyering gotcha where the dead guy is still fighting because they never clarified the dead position and the fighter is throwing 750 throwing shields half a mile with no penalty every six seconds because of some bad wording on the throwing shield. If you want to play like that, that's fine, but the game is not build like that the designers will be the first to tell you it's not built for that, and very few people want to play that way. You will have a lot of trouble finding a group, and no two 100% raw is law crowd people ever agree on anything.
The evidence for my position is as follows
This is not remotely evidence for your position at all.
I can legally drink.
I can legally drive
Therefore I can legally drink and drive.
Therefore I can legally drink and drive. (This repetition is not an error. Think about it)
You have no evidence that you can both free action switch the hands AND then attack with your offhand at the same time.
Some of the evidence against your position
The faq EXPLICITLY says you're not allowed to do what you're talking about.
Game balance, which is a thing you need to consider in a rules discussion.
There's no mention of attacking with a two handed weapon and then attacking with an off hand weapon as an option, so you can't do it
You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way
Hand.D. Singular. you want to use handS plural. That's not an option.
• Because if one character uses 2H weapon and is NOT allowed to make an additional attack with armor spikes or a metal gauntlet because his hands are occupied by his 2H weapon, and a different character uses a 2H weapon and IS allowed to make an additional attack with a metal boot because he's not using his hand, that second character is gaining a game mechanics advantage simply by changing the flavorful description of his extra attack's origin from, and that is not good game design. along with a host of other comments in that thread from designers saying that you aren't allowed to do what you're talking about.
The faq EXPLICITLY says you're not allowed to do what you're talking about.
The faq EXPLICITLY says you're not allowed to do what you're talking about.
Okay but the post I linked wasn't the lead designer's "Opinion" on the subject, it was him responding to a thread asking clarification on this very subject with "This is our ruling, and unless we specifically say otherwise, this is how it is intended to be done."
That's all well and good, but until it is in the PRD or the FAQ, its not a credible source of information in my opinion. I'm not going to refer players to a 3 year old post on a 29 page thread. Nor would I ever base content that I write as a developer on such a spurious source. To do so would be unprofessional.
If such is an "official ruling" then I see no good reason why it shouldn't be posted to the FAQ in a clear and concise manner. Players should be able to find such information without wading through page after page of troll droppings, or having to interpret the intent of people they've never met.
However, to play devil's advocate to myself: Strictly speaking it does answer my question, and I apologize for disparaging your source after you took the time to give me almost exactly what I asked for, thank you for your time and effort.