Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game

Starfinder


Pathfinder Society


Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Brawler’s Flurry and Power Attack


Rules Questions

351 to 400 of 415 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

So lets make it even easier Mr. Bladelock.

According to the FAQ was is the first step in TWFing?


Perfect Tommy wrote:

So lets make it even easier Mr. Bladelock.

According to the FAQ was is the first step in TWFing?

Let me ask you an even simpler question. Does Brawler modify how Two Weapon Fighting works?


Bladelock wrote:
Perfect Tommy wrote:

So lets make it even easier Mr. Bladelock.

According to the FAQ was is the first step in TWFing?

Let me ask you an even simpler question. Does Brawler modify how Two Weapon Fighting works?

No response... as I suspected. Maybe you should understand the discussion before trying to give condescending quizzes to people.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Does he have a 10 minute limit to answer questions?


Bladelock wrote:

You asking asinine basic questions about iterative attacks from one hand, that have nothing to do with the handedness discussion that pertains to Brawler's Flurry, speaks more to your lack of understanding about the argument than my refusal to play this silly game with you.

So you can't answer the first question on how TWF fighting works.

Look man, TWF fighting in general is well understood (compared to Brawler's flurry)- if you're right - you'll be able to prove me wrong.

But otherwise, it sure looks like you can't demonstrate even the slightest ability to understand the rules,

And/or engage in the very foundation of a rules argument. Quote the rules, and say how they apply.


Bladelock wrote:
Bladelock wrote:
Perfect Tommy wrote:

So lets make it even easier Mr. Bladelock.

According to the FAQ was is the first step in TWFing?

Let me ask you an even simpler question. Does Brawler modify how Two Weapon Fighting works?
No response... as I suspected. Maybe you should understand the discussion before trying to give condescending quizzes to people.

No Mr. Bladelock - I've been asking you for more than 300 posts to explain the last paragraph of the FAQ on TWF.

I've even made it simpler. I've asked you to explain the first step in it.

As I said a few posts ago, I'm done answering *your* questions until you engage in a bit of back and forth - like answering the question I first asked you on or near page 4.


Komoda wrote:
Does he have a 10 minute limit to answer questions?

:) No Komoda.

This guy just keeps coming across so arrogantly that I was tossing it back at him. Everyone seems to understand where the issue lies except for Tommy. In his arrogance he assumes anyone disagreeing with him doesn't know the rules.

Initially I thought he was side stepping answers but now I think he might not actually understand the issues. Hard to say with this guy. At least I should amuse myself if he persists on being so condescending.


So heres the FAQ:

Spoiler:

Multiple Weapons, Extra Attacks, and Two-Weapon Fighting: If I have extra attacks from a high BAB, can I make attacks with different weapons and not incur a two-weapon fighting penalty?
Yes. Basically, you only incur TWF penalties if you are trying to get an extra attack per round.
Let's assume you're a 6th-level fighter (BAB +6/+1) holding a longsword in one hand and a light mace in the other. Your possible full attack combinations without using two-weapon fighting are:
(A) longsword at +6, longsword +1
(B) mace +6, mace +1
(C) longsword +6, mace +1
(D) mace +6, longsword +1
All of these combinations result in you making exactly two attacks, one at +6 and one at +1. You're not getting any extra attacks, therefore you're not using the two-weapon fighting rule, and therefore you're not taking any two-weapon fighting penalties.
If you have Quick Draw, you could even start the round wielding only one weapon, make your main attack with it, draw the second weapon as a free action after your first attack, and use that second weapon to make your iterative attack (an "iterative attack" is an informal term meaning "extra attacks you get from having a high BAB"). As long as you're properly using the BAB values for your iterative attacks, and as long as you're not exceeding the number of attacks per round granted by your BAB, you are not considered to be using two-weapon fighting, and therefore do not take any of the penalties for two-weapon fighting.
The two-weapon fighting option in the Core Rulebook specifically refers to getting an extra attack for using a second weapon in your offhand. In the above four examples, there is no extra attack, therefore you're not using two-weapon fighting.
Using the longsword/mace example, if you use two-weapon fighting you actually have fewer options than if you aren't. Your options are (ignoring the primary/off hand penalties):
(A') primary longsword at +6, primary longsword at +1, off hand mace at +6
(B') primary mace at +6, primary mace at +1, off hand longsword at +6
In other words, once you decide you're using two-weapon fighting to get that extra attack on your turn (which you have to decide before you take any attacks on your turn), that decision locks you in to the format of "my primary weapon gets my main attack and my iterative attack, and my off hand weapon only gets the extra attack, and I apply two-weapon fighting penalties."

And here's the question Mr. Bladelock could not answer.
The first thing you have to do is decide you're using two weapon fighting to get that extra attack on your turn (which you have to decide before you take any attacks on your turn).

And here's the second part: (And the reason he refuses to answer)
that decision locks you in to the format of "my primary weapon gets my main attack and my iterative attack, and my off hand weapon only gets the extra attack, and I apply two-weapon fighting penalties.

So the first thing you *must* do is decide which weapon gets the extra attack. That weapon is the off hand weapon.

You can't bloody well argue that there is no offhand weapon, when the first requirement for TWF is deciding what the offhand weapon is.

Which is why Mr. Bladelock won't explain it. His entire argument is that there is no offhand weapon, and therefor -2/-2 penalties apply.


Perfect Tommy wrote:
Bladelock wrote:

You asking asinine basic questions about iterative attacks from one hand, that have nothing to do with the handedness discussion that pertains to Brawler's Flurry, speaks more to your lack of understanding about the argument than my refusal to play this silly game with you.

So you can't answer the first question on how TWF fighting works.

Look man, TWF fighting in general is well understood (compared to Brawler's flurry)- if you're right - you'll be able to prove me wrong.

But otherwise, it sure looks like you can't demonstrate even the slightest ability to understand the rules,

And/or engage in the very foundation of a rules argument. Quote the rules, and say how they apply.

The next time you imply I don't understand the rules, I am going to display my knowledge by pointing out one of your many misunderstandings of rules that you have displayed in this thread.

You have given me many gaffes to quote, so if you persist on going this route it will not look good for you.

I would suggest instead that you discuss like an adult and drop all the condescension.


And as I've answered when you've said that:

If you showed the slightest willingness to quote rules, or demonstrate even the rules mastery you've claimed; or even to civilly engage in some back and forth on the question I wouldn't question your mastery.

Good night Mr. Bladelock 1:30 am for me.


Two weapon fighting is only defined for two weapons, and only weapons that are light or 1 handed.

Brawler adds exceptions to Two Weapon Fighting.

The question is not how two weapon fighting works. EVERYONE KNOWS HOW TWF'ing works.

THE QUESTION IS WHICH EXCEPTIONS MADE TO TWO WEAPON FIGHTING ARE THE CORRECT EXCEPTIONS.

Get a clue.


Perfect Tommy wrote:

And as I've answered when you've said that:

If you showed the slightest willingness to quote rules, or demonstrate even the rules mastery you've claimed; or even to civilly engage in some back and forth on the question I wouldn't question your mastery.

Good night Mr. Bladelock 1:30 am for me.

I have posted lots of rules here. You just say things that have no meaning. Here is a repost.

Scott a clear summary, with rules cited, of my opinion is here.

Lets start with the relevant Brawler Flurry rules:
"Starting at 2nd level, a brawler can make a brawler’s flurry as a full-attack action. When doing so, a brawler has the Two-Weapon Fighting feat when attacking with any combination of unarmed strikes, weapons from the close fighter weapon group, or weapons with the “monk” special feature. She does not need to use two different weapons to use this ability.

A brawler applies her full Strength modifier to her damage rolls for all attacks made with brawler’s flurry, whether the attacks are made with an off-hand weapon or a weapon wielded in both hands."

In Summary Brawlers Flurry allow the following.
A. It allows you the benefit of the TWF feat while Flurrying with only one weapon, negating the need for a second off hand weapon. TWF with or without the feat is undefined with one weapon and no 2nd off hand weapon.
B. It allows you to TWF while using monk weapons, close weapons, and unarmed strikes, in any combination.
C. As a subset of that, you can wield weapons 2handed as part of the flurry, an ability that is undefined in standard TWF'ing
D. It allows you to substitute combat maneuvers.
E. It allows you to Flurry with one weapon.
F. It specifies how to str modifiers are applied when wielding light, 1h and 2h weapons.
G. It specifies you may not flurry with natural weapons.

--------------------------------------------------------
How does this mesh with the current Two Weapon Fighting and Handedness rule? See below:
A. It[Brawler's Flurry] allows you the benefit of the twf feat while Flurrying.
An off hand attack in TWF is defined by the following line:
"If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon."

As mentioned above in (E.) Brawler is not required to use off hand weapon to gain an extra attack, as flurry specifically says a Brawler can flurry with one weapon rather than a second off hand weapon.

Brawler also allows for two weapon fighting with a weapon wielded in 2 hands which is undefined in two weapon fighting. It is undefined because it is not possible for a weapon wielded 2 handed to be wielded in an off hand. It can't be in the off hand because wielding a weapon 2 handed requires 2 hands of effort leaving no option for an additional hand of effort.

also see handed rules here:
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 (see Combat). 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 bonus if it’s used in the off hand. Using two hands to wield a light weapon gives no advantage on damage; the Strength bonus 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 bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with a one-handed weapon if it’s used in the primary hand, or 1/2 his Strength bonus 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 bonus to damage rolls.

Two-Handed: Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively. Apply 1-1/2 times the character’s Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon.

See FAQ clarifying hands of effort..

At the time of writing two weapon fighting the only options for TWF hand effort were light or 1 hand effort. Flurry introduces "no hand effort" to the off hand and "2 handed effort" to the primary hand. As the off hand is the only determination of two weapon fighting penalties, and with flurry there is never an off hand effort because it is wholly undefined using 1 weapon or while 2handing a weapon so the twf penalty should reflect the lightest off hand effort penalty available, which is -2.


Bladelock wrote:
This is the issue at hand. You feel that Brawler Flurry allows the Brawler an exception to how they use the off hand.

Sure.

Bladelock wrote:
- Allowing the primary weapon to act as both primary and off hand

Maybe. Maybe they're switching hands. Switching hands, putting one hand on or taking one hand off a weapon, especially a 2 handed weapon, is a Free Action unless 1 of your hands is occupied by a shield or something.

Bladelock wrote:
- Allowing a weapon wielded in 2 hands act as an off hand weapon

Yes.

Bladelock wrote:
Both of these are simply not defined in two weapon fighting.

True. They wouldn't be. They are Brawler Class Abilities. To my knowledge, that is the only place where these things are described.

Bladelock wrote:
This forces new rules to be assumed that are never discussed in Brawler, two weapon fighting or handedness rules.

As far as I am able, I do not make any assumptions of new or rewritten rules. I assume all the rules as written are in play as is, except for those noted exceptions, of course. I believe that is how I have arrived at my interpretation of Brawler's Flurry in this thread.

Bladelock wrote:
My opinion is that since Brawler calls out the ability to gain and use the two weapon fighting feat without the need for a second off hand weapon that the Brawler allows for an exception to use two weapon fighting without any off hand.

I believe and I think I can show that your interpretation of Brawler's Flurry does indeed require "new rules to be assumed" like you said it would where mine doesn't.

Both of us are making the assumption that Brawler's Flurry grants an exception to the Action Economy. Although I don't think this is an assmuption: I think this is clearly allowed.

Brawler's Flurry wrote:
any combination of unarmed strikes, weapons from the close fighter weapon group, or weapons with the “monk” special feature. She does not need to use two different weapons to use this ability.... attacks are made with an off-hand weapon or a weapon wielded in both hands.

Brawlers get the benefit of 2 weapon fighting, and they get the Two Weapon Fighting Feat, and they can use it to make an attack with a 2 handed weapon followed by an Unarmed Strike. They can do it to make a 2nd attack with a 2 handed weapon, and they can do it by making 2 attacks with a single 1 handed weapon.

Do we agree so far?

I think my interpretation of BF has finished making assumptions by this point. I think you are making a further assumption of the rules where you say that this allows Brawlers are Two Weapon Fighting without recourse to Off Hand Attacks, or you are saying that Brawler's Flurry is not Two Weapon Fighting at all but rather its own special thing akin to Monks' Flurry of Blows.

This is why I think Brawlers are using Two Weapon Fighting rules when they Flurry.

Brawler's Flurry wrote:
Starting at 2nd level, a brawler can make a brawler’s flurry as a full-attack action. When doing so, a brawler has the Two-Weapon Fighting feat.... At 8th level, the brawler gains use of the Improved Two-Weapon Fighting feat when using brawler’s flurry. At 15th level, she gains use of the Greater Two-Weapon Fighting feat when using brawler’s flurry.

That's the chief Benefit: they get the TWF Feat. What's the other stuff? Extras, caveats, fiats, to wits, and wherefores about how Brawlers can use Two Weapon Fighting: can use any combination of weapons and combat maneuvers that can be found on certain lists, retain Strength Bonuses, can't use Natural Attacks, etc. I don't see any text that says differently. Do you?

I assert that when you use Brawler's Flurry, you have the TWF Feat,

Two Weapon Fighting wrote:
Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6. See Two-Weapon Fighting.

and you are Two Weapon Fighting, so you are using the Two Weapon Fighting rules.

Two Weapon Fighting rules wrote:
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.

The Two Weapon Fighting rules say that your extra attack is an off-hand weapon attack. If that off-hand weapon attack is not an attack with a light weapon, then the penalty is still -4/-4.


Bladelock wrote:
Perfect Tommy wrote:

And as I've answered when you've said that:

If you showed the slightest willingness to quote rules, or demonstrate even the rules mastery you've claimed; or even to civilly engage in some back and forth on the question I wouldn't question your mastery.

Good night Mr. Bladelock 1:30 am for me.

I have posted lots of rules here. You just say things that have no meaning. Here is a repost...

An off hand attack in TWF is defined by the following line:
"If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon."

Perfect example Mr. Bladelock.

The first time you posted that - back on page 6 - my response was

Quote:

"This is not a rule, it is flavor text. It holds no weight on rules discussion.

Go to Paizo's definition of rules elements to confirm this, or search the rules forum for the discussion on leprechauns humanoid fey to see an example where the flavor text says leprechauns are humanoids and the rules text say they are fey.
The text is italicized; this is a general flavor discussion of the rules which follow."

And what was your response: Did you discuss it? Argue it?

Nope. You just ignored it.

Also on page 6, I asked you to explain how monk's flurry with a Tiger Fork worked. Still waiting....


Hey, I'm back! No it's okay, no one get up... Good a place to hop back in as any.

*makes long post, Deletes it, sighs*

'If you wield a weapon with your off hand effort, 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 effort and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand effort when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in two ways. First, if your off-hand effort's attack is with a weapon that is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon. Second, the Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand's attack penalty by 2, and the off-hand's attack penalty by 6.'

TWF, as modified by the FAQ about hands of effort, and by Brawler's Flurry. No mention is made of two handed weapons. That does not mean it is "undefined". Obviously. No mention is made of ONE HANDED weapons, for crying out loud. Remove the word 'second' from the first line, amend the word 'effort' to wherever they are talking about hands, correct the lazy grammar that saved them 6 words from the original CRB.

Even if you work from the position that brawlers are using two weapon fighting without an off hand weapon, I still fail to see how the rules would say -2. If the off hand weapon does not exist, it does not have any attributes, and thus cannot be light.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Bladelock wrote:
This is the issue at hand. You feel that Brawler Flurry allows the Brawler an exception to how they use the off hand.

Sure.

Bladelock wrote:
- Allowing the primary weapon to act as both primary and off hand

Maybe. Maybe they're switching hands. Switching hands, putting one hand on or taking one hand off a weapon, especially a 2 handed weapon, is a Free Action unless 1 of your hands is occupied by a shield or something.

Bladelock wrote:
- Allowing a weapon wielded in 2 hands act as an off hand weapon

Yes.

Bladelock wrote:
Both of these are simply not defined in two weapon fighting.

True. They wouldn't be. They are Brawler Class Abilities. To my knowledge, that is the only place where these things are described.

Bladelock wrote:
This forces new rules to be assumed that are never discussed in Brawler, two weapon fighting or handedness rules.

As far as I am able, I do not make any assumptions of new or rewritten rules. I assume all the rules as written are in play as is, except for those noted exceptions, of course. I believe that is how I have arrived at my interpretation of Brawler's Flurry in this thread.

Bladelock wrote:
My opinion is that since Brawler calls out the ability to gain and use the two weapon fighting feat without the need for a second off hand weapon that the Brawler allows for an exception to use two weapon fighting without any off hand.

I believe and I think I can show that your interpretation of Brawler's Flurry does indeed require "new rules to be assumed" like you said it would where mine doesn't.

Both of us are making the assumption that Brawler's Flurry grants an exception to the Action Economy. Although I don't think this is an assmuption: I think this is clearly allowed.

Brawler's Flurry wrote:
any combination of unarmed strikes, weapons from the close fighter weapon group, or weapons with the “monk” special feature. She does not need to use two
...

Scott, I agree all your reasoning is sound. I have said and continue to say that your interpretation could be correct if Paizo rules that there is indeed an off hand attack that is taking place. I simply feel the text and rules point towards no need for an off hand weapon or an off hand attack while 2 weapon fighting as a more likely conclusion.

I also agree that both interpretations require new rules (Brawler exceptions to standard twf) for the TWF flurry to work. The extra hands of effort needed to flurry with 2 hands on a weapon are as large an exception as TWF with no need for an off hand.

Both require exceptions and p=both have penalties that require some guessing, and even though I feel pretty sure my interpretation is correct, I can acquiesce to the position that neither interpretation is 100% clear until there is an official Paizo FAQ.


Perfect Tommy wrote:
Bladelock wrote:
Perfect Tommy wrote:

And as I've answered when you've said that:

If you showed the slightest willingness to quote rules, or demonstrate even the rules mastery you've claimed; or even to civilly engage in some back and forth on the question I wouldn't question your mastery.

Good night Mr. Bladelock 1:30 am for me.

I have posted lots of rules here. You just say things that have no meaning. Here is a repost...

An off hand attack in TWF is defined by the following line:
"If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon."

Perfect example Mr. Bladelock.

The first time you posted that - back on page 6 - my response was

Quote:

"This is not a rule, it is flavor text. It holds no weight on rules discussion.

Go to Paizo's definition of rules elements to confirm this, or search the rules forum for the discussion on leprechauns humanoid fey to see an example where the flavor text says leprechauns are humanoids and the rules text say they are fey.
The text is italicized; this is a general flavor discussion of the rules which follow."

And what was your response: Did you discuss it? Argue it?

Nope. You just ignored it.

Also on page 6, I asked you to explain how monk's flurry with a Tiger Fork worked. Still waiting....

I don't respond to much of what you say because you don't understand the argument. You also keep misapplying rules and saying crazy things. The full TWF rules are:

"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."

None of it is flavor text. This is how the rules for plane standard two weapon fighting works. Without that first line a character could literally say they are taking one dagger and tossing it from hand to hand to allow them to two weapon fight with one weapon. If you are going to behave as badly as you do on these forums you should at least have a better grasp of basic rules.


No. Mr bladelock, it is you that keeps blatantly misrepresenting what Ive said.
Its also a violation of TOS, and Ive requested a moderator to watch your responses over the next dozen posts..

You said

Quote:


An off hand attack in TWF is defined by the following line:
Quote:


"If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon."

That was the end of your quote. Period. Page 6.

I said

Quote:

This is not a rule, it is flavor text. It holds no weight on rules discussion....

The text is italicized; this is a general flavor discussion of the rules which follow."

Your last post is blatant fabrication to put words in my mouth I did not say.


Tommy I italicized the words in my post. It is not flavor text. It is not italicized in the rule book. The problem is you seem to have problems identifying quoted rules, as you keep saying I don't quote them when I have quoted many. In addition you have consistently argued points in this thread that have nothing to do with the argument that I am making.

Once again:
"If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon."

is the first line of the rule for two weapon fighting and has material impact on how to use two weapon fighting in pathfinder. It is not flavor text as YOU say. Without that line, anyone could TWF with one weapon.

--------------------
As for a moderator, I greatly welcome that. I stick to the rules and my argument while YOU keep making these passive aggressive condescending attacks and challenges.


Bladelock wrote:
Scott, I agree all your reasoning is sound.

Well, thank you.

Bladelock wrote:
I have said and continue to say that your interpretation could be correct if Paizo rules that there is indeed an off hand attack that is taking place. I simply feel the text and rules point towards no need for an off hand weapon or an off hand attack while 2 weapon fighting as a more likely conclusion.

I feel that the fact that the principle benefit of Brawler's Flurry is that it grants you the Two Weapon Fighting Feat unambiguously implies that you are using the Two Weapon Fighting Rules, and that unambiguously implies that one of your attacks is an off hand attack.

Unambiguous though it may be, however, it is all implicit and not explicit. Gameplay around Brawler's Flurry would benefit from explicit wording.

Bladelock wrote:
I also agree that both interpretations require new rules (Brawler exceptions to standard twf) for the TWF flurry to work. The extra hands of effort needed to flurry with 2 hands on a weapon are as large an exception as TWF with no need for an off hand.

A agree that in terms of gameplay, the fact that Brawlers get to use the same weapon more than once as part of a Full Attack using 2 weapon fighting and even so use 2 handed weapons, yet this is somehow not Monk magic fighting--the wording of the rules does leave me wanting more clarity.

Bladelock wrote:
I feel pretty sure my interpretation is correct, I can acquiesce to the position that neither interpretation is 100% clear until there is an official Paizo FAQ.

I still think my interpretation is better than yours, but I consider it not unlikely that your interpretation is is what the writers meant to say. And I believe that there may be many Brawlers running around PFS who have been Flurrying with Temple Swords and have only been taking -2s. But I also believe that these Brawlers may yet run into PFSGMs who rule that their Flurry will suffer -4s until they throw an Unarmed Strike into their combos. And these GMs would be right to do this. I suspect that there is a disparity between what the rules say and the way the game is often played in Pathfinder Society, and this is a good candidate for an errata, FAQ, Official Rules Post, or some other disambiguation.

Personally, I don't care what the rules are as long as I know what the rules are.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Bladelock wrote:
I have said and continue to say that your interpretation could be correct if Paizo rules that there is indeed an off hand attack that is taking place. I simply feel the text and rules point towards no need for an off hand weapon or an off hand attack while 2 weapon fighting as a more likely conclusion.

I feel that the fact that the principle benefit of Brawler's Flurry is that it grants you the Two Weapon Fighting Feat unambiguously implies that you are using the Two Weapon Fighting Rules, and that unambiguously implies that one of your attacks is an off hand attack.

Unambiguous though it may be, however, it is all implicit and not explicit. Gameplay around Brawler's Flurry would benefit from explicit wording.

Agree that explicit wording would be helpful. Disagree with which TWF rules are changed based on the Brawler Flurry modifications and what those implicit changes are.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Bladelock wrote:
I feel pretty sure my interpretation is correct, I can acquiesce to the position that neither interpretation is 100% clear until there is an official Paizo FAQ.
I still think my interpretation is better than yours, but I consider it not unlikely that your interpretation is is what the writers meant to say. And I believe that there may be many Brawlers running around PFS who have been Flurrying with Temple Swords and have only been taking -2s. But I also believe that these Brawlers may yet run into PFSGMs who rule that their Flurry will suffer -4s until they throw an Unarmed Strike...

There is no doubt that your points are strong (even if I think mine are stronger) and there could be table variation in the future until there is a ruling.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Personally, I don't care what the rules are as long as I know what the rules are.

On this we agree 100%


Which doesn't CHANGE the FACT that you deceptively edited my post to make it look as if you had quoted the entire rules section when in fact you hadn't.

Bladelock wrote:


Once again:
"If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon."

is the first line of the rule for two weapon fighting and has material impact on how to use two weapon fighting in pathfinder. It is not flavor text as YOU say. Without that line, anyone could TWF with one weapon.

Once again - NOT rules text.

You actually copied it from the the pfsrd - which has it italicized. Because its FLAVOR.

As I advised you the last time: Go look up the thread for leprechaun, where you can learn that indeed, per standard rules elementent- its flavor.

No impact. No bearing.

Quote:


Without that line, anyone could TWF with one weapon.

Uh, no: because the real rules, actually do prevent that. Check under Normal: for starters.


Perfect Tommy wrote:
Which doesn't CHANGE the FACT that you deceptively edited my post to make it look as if you had quoted the entire rules section when in fact you hadn't.
Bladelock wrote:

Once again:

"If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon."

is the first line of the rule for two weapon fighting and has material impact on how to use two weapon fighting in pathfinder. It is not flavor text as YOU say. Without that line, anyone could TWF with one weapon.

Once again - NOT rules text.

You actually copied it from the the pfsrd - which has it italicized. Because its FLAVOR.

As I advised you the last time: Go look up the thread for leprechaun, where you can learn that indeed, per standard rules elementent- its flavor.

No impact. No bearing.

Quote:


Without that line, anyone could TWF with one weapon.
Uh, no: because the real rules, actually do prevent that. Check under Normal: for starters.

I have no idea what you think was deceptively modified. This one of those times where you are saying crazy things.

Then to take things to the next level you are telling me where I copied rules from? I'm just blown away that you don't see how crazy that is.

Here is the page that I copied the Two Weapon Fighting Rules from:
See Paizo Page Discussing Combat.

Two weapon fighting is at the bottom of the page. Nothing is in italics. Nothing from the paragraph I quoted is flavor. The entire paragraph is the rule, including the first line. As I stated before, without the first line the rules would allow for any character to take a free action to switch a weapon from one hand to another in order to take advantage of two weapon fighting. The entire paragraph is material.

I'm not going to look up whatever leprechaun thing you are "advising" me to look up because I have no interest in following your advice. I neither need nor want your advice, as I see no value in any advice you can give.


Perfect Tommy wrote:

You can't bloody well argue that there is no offhand weapon, when the first requirement for TWF is deciding what the offhand weapon is.

Considering we're talking about Brawler's Flurry, which modifies TWF to allow you to forgo using an offhand weapon, it can easily be argued that there is no offhand weapon. For example, any time when someone is wielding a single weapon in their main hand... and nothing else, and proceed to perform a Brawler's Flurry.

If you want to argue the main hand weapons acts as an offhand weapon or incurs the offhand weapon penalties, that's fine, but you can't say that the main hand weapon IS the offhand weapon, because that would imply that the dominant hand suddenly becomes nondominant, causing the Brawler to temporarily become ambisinister during a flurry.


Darkblitz9 wrote:
Considering we're talking about Brawler's Flurry, which modifies TWF to allow you to forgo using an offhand weapon

Negative. Monk's don't have off-hand attacks. Brawler's don't need to use two different weapons.


Darkblitz9 wrote:
Perfect Tommy wrote:

You can't bloody well argue that there is no offhand weapon, when the first requirement for TWF is deciding what the offhand weapon is.

Considering we're talking about Brawler's Flurry, which modifies TWF to allow you to forgo using an offhand weapon, it can easily be argued that there is no offhand weapon.

Pathfinder(and dnd) got rid of dominant hands more than five years ago.

There is no handedness.

If you want to understand twf, reread the faq I've posted.

Then, consider the following circumstances.

One. The FAQ says the first thing to do is to determine what attack is going to get the extra attack. That attack gets the offhand penalties.

All other attacks get the primary penalties.

Why do you think you can disregard the FAQ?

But even if you did, consider the following:

A. It can not be tied to weapon. Throwers toss the weapon, yet still get twf attacks.

B. It cannot be the number of hands used to wield the weapon. Monks flurry with 2h weapons. Double weapons also take two hands.

Once you eliminate hands, and weapon the only thing that remains is what the faq says.

The off hand weapon is the extra attack. Which funny enough it also says in the under twf.


Darkblitz9 wrote:
Considering we're talking about Brawler's Flurry, which modifies TWF to allow you to forgo using an offhand weapon,

Citation required.

Two Weapon Fighting rules involve the use of off-hand weapon attacks. The Two Weapon Fighting Feat reduces penalties for primary and off hand weapon attacks. What Brawler's Flurry primarily does is gives Brawlers the Two Weapon Fighting Feat.

Demonstrate the existence of any official rules source that says Brawler's Flurry doesn't use off hand weapon attacks.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Darkblitz9 wrote:
Considering we're talking about Brawler's Flurry, which modifies TWF to allow you to forgo using an offhand weapon,

Citation required.

Two Weapon Fighting rules involve the use of off-hand weapon attacks. The Two Weapon Fighting Feat reduces penalties for primary and off hand weapon attacks. What Brawler's Flurry primarily does is gives Brawlers the Two Weapon Fighting Feat.

Demonstrate the existence of any official rules source that says Brawler's Flurry doesn't use off hand weapon attacks.

Two weapon fighting is only defined with 2 weapons, a primary and an off hand weapon. An off hand attack is defined solely as the attack made with an off hand weapon. In fact the term "off hand attack" doesn't appear in the rules at all, at least I have never seen it.

Brawler's Flurry allows the character to forego an off hand weapon and still use flurry. The citations are the 2 instances in Brawlers Flurry that specifically allow the Brawler to TWF without using an off hand weapon.

"Starting at 2nd level, a brawler can make a brawler’s flurry as a full-attack action. When doing so, a brawler has the Two-Weapon Fighting feat when attacking with any combination of unarmed strikes, weapons from the close fighter weapon group, or weapons with the “monk” special feature. She does not need to use two different weapons to use this ability.

A brawler applies her full Strength modifier to her damage rolls for all attacks made with brawler’s flurry, whether the attacks are made with an off-hand weapon or a weapon wielded in both hands."


When fighting in this way 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.

In other words, once you decide you're using two-weapon fighting to get that extra attack on your turn (which you have to decide before you take any attacks on your turn), that decision locks you in to the format of "my primary weapon gets my main attack and my iterative attack, and my off hand weapon only gets the extra attack, and I apply two-weapon fighting penalties."

If you say you have no offhand weapon - you have no extra attack.

When fighting in this way (using two weapons to get an extra attack), you regular attacks are at -6. The extra attack is at -10.


Perfect Tommy wrote:

When fighting in this way 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.

In other words, once you decide you're using two-weapon fighting to get that extra attack on your turn (which you have to decide before you take any attacks on your turn), that decision locks you in to the format of "my primary weapon gets my main attack and my iterative attack, and my off hand weapon only gets the extra attack, and I apply two-weapon fighting penalties."

If you say you have no offhand weapon - you have no extra attack.

When fighting in this way (using two weapons to get an extra attack), you regular attacks are at -6. The extra attack is at -10.

If you say you have no offhand weapon - you have no extra attack... when playing any class except Brawler, because Brawlers allow for specific exceptions to this general two weapon fighting rule. In Pathfinder, specific trumps general.

We all agree that Brawler has specific rules that change the way Two Weapon Fighting works. Brawler Flurry allows for an extra attack via Two Weapon Fighting without the need of a second off hand weapon. Since that extra attack is not being made by an off hand weapon (which could be a foot, a head, an elbow or a 2 hand weapon) it is not an off hand attack.


But Brawler's Flurry only says that you don't have to use 2 different weapons, not that there is no off-hand weapon attack. Can you find anything in Brawler's Flurry that specifically, directly says there is no off hand weapon attack?

Bladelock wrote:
Brawler's Flurry allows the character to forego an off hand weapon and still use flurry.... Brawlers allow for specific exceptions to this general two weapon fighting rule. In Pathfinder, specific trumps general.

There is no such specific allowance in the description of Brawler's Flurry. I would not be arguing against this if there were. What you have been arguing is an implicit exception. Of course, it doesn't sepcifically say that there is an off-hand attack either. I have been arguing that this is unambiguously implicit. Again, would that I could find my position specified. I'd have posted that and done and dusted.

Bladelock wrote:
She does not need to use two different weapons to use this ability.

The rules do say that, but that is not explicitly saying that there is no off-hand weapon attack, only that one weapon is needed. Our argument has been that I have been saying confidently--loudly, Tommy?--that you are using the same weapon for your primary and your off-hand attack where you have been saying that both attacks are primary hand attacks.

Please find this and just end the argument wrote:
She does not need to use two different weapons to use this ability. She is allowed to use only 1 weapon, and if she does, both attacks with that weapon will count as primary weapons since there will be no off-hand weapon involved. All attacks in this case will be made at your highest BAB with a -2 penalty as if you were 2 weapon fighting with a light, off-hand weapon.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:

But Brawler's Flurry only says that you don't have to use 2 different weapons, not that there is no off-hand weapon attack. Can you find anything in Brawler's Flurry that specifically, directly says there is no off hand weapon attack?

Bladelock wrote:
Brawler's Flurry allows the character to forego an off hand weapon and still use flurry.... Brawlers allow for specific exceptions to this general two weapon fighting rule. In Pathfinder, specific trumps general.

There is no such specific allowance in the description of Brawler's Flurry. I would not be arguing against this if there were. What you have been arguing is an implicit exception. Of course, it doesn't sepcifically say that there is an off-hand attack either. I have been arguing that this is unambiguously implicit. Again, would that I could find my position specified. I'd have posted that and done and dusted.

Bladelock wrote:
She does not need to use two different weapons to use this ability.

The rules do say that, but that is not explicitly saying that there is no off-hand weapon attack, only that one weapon is needed. Our argument has been that I have been saying confidently--loudly, Tommy?--that you are using the same weapon for your primary and your off-hand attack where you have been saying that both attacks are primary hand attacks.

Please find this and just end the argument wrote:
She does not need to use two different weapons to use this ability. She is allowed to use only 1 weapon, and if she does, both attacks with that weapon will count as primary weapons since there will be no off-hand weapon involved. All attacks in this case will be made at your highest BAB with a -2 penalty as if you were 2 weapon fighting with a light, off-hand weapon.

There is neither an explicit rule that says that the brawler can TWF without an off hand attack nor is there an explicit rule that says that a Brawler can use a weapon wielded in 2 hands as an off hand weapon.

I cannot agree that your version is unambiguously implicit because the the writing in Brawler's Flurry points to the more likely conclusion of there simply being no need for an off hand weapon in order to make the extra attack. Also, trying to make the primary weapon into an off hand weapon as well, creates an ever growing number of conflicts and questions with feats and items.

One example is power attack. Off hand weapons are -1/+1 and as we see with light and one handed weapons, primary and off hand trump hands of efforts. So is the off hand attack with power attack wielded 2 handed, weapons are -1/+3 or -1/+1, or is it -1/+2 reflecting the x1 str multiple?

While I see why you would think that your version of the rules is the correct one, everything else in the brawler description, as well as items and feats beyond the Brawler class point to the more likely interpretation that there simply is no need for an off hand weapon while flurrying.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:


Please find this and just end the argument wrote:
She does not need to use two different weapons to use this ability. She is allowed to use only 1 weapon, and if she does, both attacks with that weapon will count as primary weapons since there will be no off-hand weapon involved. All attacks in this case will be made at your highest BAB with a -2 penalty as if you were 2 weapon fighting with a light, off-hand weapon.

I could just as easily ask you to produce the line that says

"She does not need to use two different weapons to use this ability. When she uses 1 weapon, it acts as both primary and off hand weapons even when the weapon is used 2 handed. The penalties for using one weapon, whether 1 handed or 2 handed mirror the penalties used when the off hand weapon is a 1 hand weapon, except as noted in this section regarding the strength damage multiple."

Neither is explicitly stated. Both are reasonable. Only one has the weight of all intersecting rules supporting its ease of integration... No off hand weapon needed to twf with Brawler Flurry.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:

But Brawler's Flurry only says that you don't have to use 2 different weapons, not that there is no off-hand weapon attack. Can you find anything in Brawler's Flurry that specifically, directly says there is no off hand weapon attack?

Bladelock wrote:
Brawler's Flurry allows the character to forego an off hand weapon and still use flurry.... Brawlers allow for specific exceptions to this general two weapon fighting rule. In Pathfinder, specific trumps general.

Two Weapon Fighting explicitly defines an off hand weapon as a second weapon that is used in two weapon fighting.

Remove the need for second weapon and you remove the off hand weapon. If you allow TWF without that second weapon, as brawler does, then you are unambiguously giving implicit permission to TWF without the need of an off hand weapon. Brawler gives 2 examples of flurrying without a second weapon. The twf exception is VERY strongly stated twice, if not explicitly so.


Two things. First,

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

But Brawler's Flurry only says that you don't have to use 2 different weapons, not that there is no off-hand weapon attack. Can you find anything in Brawler's Flurry that specifically, directly says there is no off hand weapon attack?

This is not true. It isn't wrong but the only isn't true either. Brawler's flurry goes on to state that all attacks made are made at x1 str bonus to damage. This is a clear indication that all the attacks are not off-hand attacks. It is [b]not proof, just support,[/] that there are no off-hand attacks.

Second, neither side can be proved. Accept that and your Pathfinder rules conversations will be so much more pleasant.

Pathfinder has been around for a while. All the obvious questions are answered. All the "cut and paste" answers to the simple questions are easily proven.

However, there are a few that cannot be proven. All one can do is present their case, listen to the opinion of others, and make a decision for their table while they await the final word from the powers that be. Sometimes they rule one way, sometimes they rule the other. It gets harder to guess every year. Again, understand that and your Pathfinder rules conversations will be so much more pleasant.


Bladelock wrote:


Brawler's Flurry allows the character to forego an off hand weapon and still use flurry. The citations are the 2 instances in Brawlers Flurry that specifically allow the Brawler to TWF without using an off hand weapon.

Negative.


Komoda wrote:

Brawler's flurry goes on to state that all attacks made are made at x1 str bonus to damage. This is a clear indication that all the attacks are not off-hand attacks.

It specifically lists off-hand attacks there. I would call that clear indication that offhand attacks are happening...


toastedamphibian wrote:
Komoda wrote:

Brawler's flurry goes on to state that all attacks made are made at x1 str bonus to damage. This is a clear indication that all the attacks are not off-hand attacks.

It specifically lists off-hand attacks there. I would call that clear indication that offhand attacks are happening...

It lists using an off hand weapon as an option. Yes a brawler could chose to use a second weapon as an off hand weapon and your argument would be on more sound footing in that case. With one weapon, your argument is much weaker and likely incorrect.


toastedamphibian wrote:
Bladelock wrote:

Brawler's Flurry allows the character to forego an off hand weapon and still use flurry. The citations are the 2 instances in Brawlers Flurry that specifically allow the Brawler to TWF without using an off hand weapon.

Negative.

Negative?? The citations are clear.

You do not need a second off hand weapon to flurry. It explicitly says it in the Flurry description. Also there is no rule or explicit exceptions that allow for a weapon wielded 2 handed to be used in the off hand, nor can an off hand be used while wielding a weapon 2 handed.

So the citations can't be clearer.


Bladelock wrote:


You do not need a second off hand weapon to flurry. It explicitly says it in the Flurry description.

Brawler's Flurry description does not say no off hand. It does say no second. Remove the mention of "second" from the TWF text. Apply it. It works.

Citation would be clearer if it said no off-hand. It does not. You keep saying it says no off hand, that such a thing is clearly in the text. It is not. "Does not need to use a second weapon" being equivalent to "no off hand weapon" is an extrapolation.

An extrapolation that is necessary for your argument, yes, but still something you just keep adding in there and claiming as fact.


There are 2 cases where the Brawler can use TWF without the need for an off hand weapon or where off hand is wholly undefined, so it is not just about using one weapon.

1. No need for a second weapon, when a second weapon is a fundamental aspect defining an off hand weapon.
2. unable to use an off hand when gripping a weapon 2 handed.

The citation is clear. However the rules do leave some things to be extrapolated. That is true for both the -2 and -4 argument.

As I said before, Paizo could rule that there is indeed an off hand, and follow that up with a long list of how wielding a weapon in 2 hands, as an off hand weapon, interacts with any number of feats, class abilities and items that now have conflicts in how they function. The weight of the rules and the verbiage written in Brawlers Flurry lean strongly in favor of there simply being no off hand needed.


toastedamphibian wrote:
Bladelock wrote:


You do not need a second off hand weapon to flurry. It explicitly says it in the Flurry description.

Brawler's Flurry description does not say no off hand. It does say no second. Remove the mention of "second" from the TWF text. Apply it. It works.

Citation would be clearer if it said no off-hand. It does not. You keep saying it says no off hand, that such a thing is clearly in the text. It is not. "Does not need to use a second weapon" being equivalent to "no off hand weapon" is an extrapolation.

An extrapolation that is necessary for your argument, yes, but still something you just keep adding in there and claiming as fact.

Why is it not also an equal and opposite extrapolation to ADD the fact that using a single weapon in one hand applies the same penalty as using a second, twin weapon, in the off-hand?


Komoda wrote:


Why is it not also an equal and opposite extrapolation to ADD the fact that using a single weapon in one hand applies the same penalty as using a second, twin weapon, in the off-hand?

I'd love to answer your question, but I do not understand it.


Bladelock wrote:
There are 2 cases where the Brawler can use TWF...

As I said, I have no intention of arguing it further with you. Just, stop saying it says they do not need an off-hand weapon, okay? It is factually untrue, and weakens your argument. It directly says they do not need a second weapon. You DECIDED that means they do not have an offhand weapon, but it never says that. Your citation is clear, and does not contain what you claim to be citing.


I do admit to a bit of curiosity though: What feats do you expect to conflict here? If you care to list them, I'll compare them to the rule as I think it should be applied (Listed above, where I removed the word 'second' and added in 'of effort').

Power attack, for instance, has no conflict. It is +2 damage, +50% for two handed, -50% for being an offhand weapon, so +2. [If A then X, If B then Y. Both A and B? Both X and Y.]

Improved and Greater TWF do not work at all without off hand weapons

Same with two weapon rend, works fine my way, not at all your way.

Which feats do you think will cause a conflict?


toastedamphibian wrote:

I do admit to a bit of curiosity though: What feats do you expect to conflict here? If you care to list them, I'll compare them to the rule as I think it should be applied (Listed above, where I removed the word 'second' and added in 'of effort').

Power attack, for instance, has no conflict. It is +2 damage, +50% for two handed, -50% for being an offhand weapon, so +2. [If A then X, If B then Y. Both A and B? Both X and Y.]

Improved and Greater TWF do not work at all without off hand weapons

Same with two weapon rend, works fine my way, not at all your way.

Which feats do you think will cause a conflict?

The issue is that your belief (that there is an off hand in Brawler's Flurry) causes arguable rulings to be needed.

If the weapon is a primary and an off hand weapon then it is acting as 2 weapons or a double weapon (which acts as 2 weapons in most ways). The weapon can simultaneously be gripped with 2 hands of effort. Each time these things come into conflict there will need to be ruling that is arbitrary and will vary from table to table causing confusion.

No off hand removes these uncertainties and will not require a GM hear how you think rules should be applied for every current and future feat/item that touches on two weapon fighting, because no off hand allows for a clear understanding of how Brawler's Flurry interacts with the rules.

It was not me who "decided" that the text means there is no off hand. I have been clear that Paizo could rule that there is one. On the contrary, it has been you, and two others who seem to feel a less likely reading is the only reading of the rules. All I have said is that the weight of the rules makes it most likely that there is no off hand when using the flurry for two weapon fighting.


And the majority of people in the thread disagreed.


Perfect Tommy wrote:
And the majority of people in the thread disagreed.

...but the majority of the community beyond this thread disagree with you.

Scott Wilhelm also pointed out that adoption of rule use doesn't make the popular use correct.


Komoda wrote:
toastedamphibian wrote:
Bladelock wrote:


You do not need a second off hand weapon to flurry. It explicitly says it in the Flurry description.

Brawler's Flurry description does not say no off hand. It does say no second. Remove the mention of "second" from the TWF text. Apply it. It works.

Citation would be clearer if it said no off-hand. It does not. You keep saying it says no off hand, that such a thing is clearly in the text. It is not. "Does not need to use a second weapon" being equivalent to "no off hand weapon" is an extrapolation.

An extrapolation that is necessary for your argument, yes, but still something you just keep adding in there and claiming as fact.

Why is it not also an equal and opposite extrapolation to ADD the fact that using a single weapon in one hand applies the same penalty as using a second, twin weapon, in the off-hand?

You state: "Does not need to use a second weapon" being equivalent to "no off hand weapon" is an extrapolation.

I believe: "Using a one handed weapon in your off hand with the TWF feat gives a -4/-4 penalty" being equivalent to "Gaining an attack by using a one handed weapon in your main hand with the TWF feat gives a -4/-4 penalty" is also an extrapolation.

Why do you recognize that Bladlock's reasoning is an extrapolation, but not yours?

I don't care which side you choose for your game. Both sides are valid extrapolations of a murky rule. I do think it is important to realize you have chosen a side and can not prove it is correct.


Bladelock wrote:
Perfect Tommy wrote:
And the majority of people in the thread disagreed.

...but the majority of the community beyond this thread disagree with you.

Scott Wilhelm also pointed out that adoption of rule use doesn't make the popular use correct.

But in this case, whether it's popular or not, a Pathfinder Society GM can confidently state that he is square with RAW to impose a -4 penalty on you if you try to Brawler's Flurry by hitting with your Temple Sword (or other non-light weapon) with your-not-off-hand-off-hand attack. I actually think that most of the time you can get away with the -2s most of the time, since probably most people play the game your way, but should should expect table variation, and don't be too disappointed if you have to settle for Flurrying with your Tiger Fork but having to make your off-hand attack with your Unarmed Strike to keep your penalties down.

351 to 400 of 415 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / Brawler’s Flurry and Power Attack All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.