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

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game


Pathfinder Society


Starfinder


Starfinder Society

Brawler’s Flurry and Power Attack


Rules Questions

401 to 450 of 454 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
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.

Until I get rulings I generally avoid characters with potential table variation. However after seeing your argument I can imagine that some GM's may decide to play your way.

Hopefully we see an FAQ soon.


Komoda wrote:


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.

I have never made any such claim. The rules do not give different penalties for different weapons in TWF. That is not how it is worded. The penalty is -6/-10.

Have TWF feat, reduce it by 2/6. Using a light off hand weapon, reduce it by 2/2.
This is not adding anything to the rules, this is reading the rules.

Think of 3 different sources: One increases your flanking bonus to attack rolls by 2, one doubles your flanking bonus to attack rolls, on changes yoru flanking bonus on attack rolls to 4. Alone, they are equivalent. But when considered in relation to other effects, they can all have very different results. In this case, the rule is -6/-10, with penalty reductions applied from any condition you meet. A table exists that gives the results of the two most common conditions that offer a penalty reduction, and everyone gets caught up on that. But the penalty is not -4/-4 for a one handed weapon with twf, -2/-2 for a light weapon with one handed fighting etc. It is -6/-10.


This

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

and this

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.

Seem mutually exclusive.

Does handedness exist or does it not? If it doesn't, then there's no such thing as an offhand weapon. If it does, then there is a dominant hand (main hand) and a nondominant (offhand).

Otherwise, what is the point of saying "offhand weapon" if you're equally capable with the weapon, regardless of which hands it's in?

Also

Perfect Tommy wrote:
If you say you have no offhand weapon - you have no extra attack.

Why not? Considering that, again, Brawler removes the need for a second weapon.

Citation for those who are extremely forgetful: "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.

Is it not strange to say an "offhand" weapon is required when Brawler specifically denotes otherwise, while also stating handedness doesn't exist, nullifying the point of the term "offhand" in the first place?

I'm just looking for some consistency in the argument.


Darkblitz wrote that Perfect Tommy wrote:
If you say you have no offhand weapon - you have no extra attack.
Darkblitz wrote:
Why not?

The reason why not is that Brawler's Flurry does not grant any extra attacks until you get to high level and you gain Improved and Greater two weapon fighting as Bonus Feats. Before that, Brawlers only get to make 1 attack/round until their BAB gets to more than +5, same as anyone else. Brawlers often do add an extra attack to their Full Attack Action using Two Weapon Fighting rules, same as everyone else. Brawlers are encouraged to by the fact that they get Two Weapon Figthing as a Bonus Feat. Two Weapon Fighting does not grant extra attacks: it only reduces the penalties for Two Weapon Fighting.

Darkblitz wrote:

Considering that, again, Brawler removes the need for a second weapon.

Citation for those who are extremely forgetful: "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.

Brawler's Flurry does say you can use the same weapon twice, but it doesn't say that the 2nd time you use it is not an off-hand weapon attack. Again, Brawler's Flurry doesn't grant extra attacks. The extra attack comes from the Two Weapon Fighting rules, and the Two Weapon Fighting rules say that one of your attacks is considered an off-hand weapon attack.

Darkblitz wrote:
Is it not strange to say an "offhand" weapon is required when Brawler specifically denotes otherwise,

Brawler does not specifically denote otherwise. No provision is denoted by the Brawler to gain and extra in her Full Attack Action except for the usual extra attacks awarded for high BAB and extra off-hand attacks awarded for Improved and Greater two weapon fighting.

Darkblitz wrote:
while also stating handedness doesn't exist, nullifying the point of the term "offhand" in the first place?

The Pathfinder Rules specify that when you Two Weapon Fight, one of your hands is an off-hand. Just because the Core Rulebook doesn't provide rules for describing humanoids as being left or right handed doesn't invalidate the Two Weapon Fighting rules.

The Two Weapon Fighting rules say that if you have the Two Weapon Fighting Feat and your off-hand weapon is light, you only suffer a -2 on both attacks. So, even if what you are saying is true, that there is no off-hand weapon, then clearly the off-hand weapon is not light, because you can't have a Light Weapon where there is no weapon at all! And if the off-hand weapon is not light, the penalties are -4/-4.


I'm in full agreement with Scott on the substance.

My only difference is that per the FAQ and TWF rules, offhand no longer has any relationship to hands;

The term is a relic from when hands did matter.

But as it stands now, offhand merely refers to the extra attack. Per the faq, your primary is your main and iteratives. The extra attack - gets the offhand penalties.


Darkblitz9 wrote:

This

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

and this

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.

Seem mutually exclusive.

Hey Dark - its hard to remain perfectly consistent when you're quoting rules sources use inconsistent labeling.

The rules use "main" "primary" and primary attack. And offhand weapon, offhand attack.

Quote:

Does handedness exist or does it not? If it doesn't, then there's no such thing as an offhand weapon. If it does, then there is a dominant hand (main hand) and a nondominant (offhand).

There is not a dominant hand and a non dominant hand.

Handedness does not exist, but yes an offhand hand attack (or offhand weapon) does exist SOLELY as an indicator of an extra attack that takes -10 penalties.

Quote:


Otherwise, what is the point of saying "offhand weapon" if you're equally capable with the weapon, regardless of which hands it's in?

It is used now solely to differentiate the attacks that get a -6 penalty (primary and iteratives) and those that get a -10. Extra Attack.

Quote:


Perfect Tommy wrote:
If you say you have no offhand weapon - you have no extra attack.

Because the first step in twf is deciding what the offhand attack will be. PER THE FAQ this occurs before EVERYTHING ELSE.

And it locks you into the format: primary= normal attacks and iteratives. Offhand (the other single extra attack). No offhand attack - no extra attack.


Ok, so Scott's comment helped clear things up a bit of confusion for me, and it seems it was due to Two-weapon fighting being both a mechanic, and the name of a feat.

Something stood out to me once I recognized that though...

Brawler's Flurry allows you to use the TWF (feat) to lower penalties while two weapon fighting (Mechanic). It also allows you to TWF (mechanic) without a second weapon.

Since this specific rule overrides the general mechanic of TWF(mechanic), that means a Brawler doesn't need to designate an offhand for TWF(mechanic) in order to get the extra attack.

That being said, that means a Brawler also doesn't qualify for the "offhand weapon is light" penalty reduction build into TWF (mechanic).

Perfect Tommy wrote:

Because the first step in twf is deciding what the offhand attack will be. PER THE FAQ this occurs before EVERYTHING ELSE.

And it locks you into the format: primary= normal attacks and iteratives. Offhand (the other single extra attack). No offhand attack - no extra attack.

If this weren't a Brawler, which has a specific rule that removes the requirement for picking a separate "offhand" weapon, I'd agree.

In this case, Brawler specifically denotes you can use your Primary weapon to gain the extra attack in place of using an offhand weapon.

If you'd like to argue that Brawler doesn't get a second attack because Brawlers flurry only denotes the feat, and not the mechanic, then you're arguing RAW vs RAI, where RAW is that they don't and RAI is that they do, as the spirit of the ability is very obviously one that allows a second attack with the same weapon, following TWF(mechanic) penalties while also granting TWF(feat) penalty reductions. Otherwise, Brawlers Flurry would be telling you that you don't need a second weapon to Flurry, but Flurry would give you no extra attacks, which seems very opposed to the concept of a Flurry.

In either case, I'm far more inclined to say that the argument for -4 is extremely strong, unless the weapon being used is light. That being said, I don't think I'd fault any DM for allowing a -2 penalty.


Darkblitz9 wrote:
If you'd like to argue that Brawler doesn't get a second attack because Brawlers flurry only denotes the feat, and not the mechanic, then you're arguing RAW vs RAI, where RAW is that they don't and RAI is that they do

I think there is a good chance that they did not intend a Brawler who used his 1 or 2 handed weapon twice while Flurrying to suffer a -4/-4, but rather a -2/-2. I suspect that this may very well be a case where the rules act a way that the author did not intend, and I think this invites inconsistant rulings in Pathfinder Society, so I have pushed the FAQ button.

Darkblitz9 wrote:
the spirit of the ability is very obviously

I wouldn't go that far. Maybe they didn't intend it; maybe they did. They clearly wanted Brawlers to have an ability kind of like Monks' Flurry of Blows, but not quite as magic as Monks'. How much less magic did they make it? How much less magic did they intend to make it? Those are the fundamental questions we've been arguing about.


Darkblitz9 wrote:

Ok, so Scott's comment helped clear things up a bit of confusion for me, and it seems it was due to Two-weapon fighting being both a mechanic, and the name of a feat.

Something stood out to me once I recognized that though...

Brawler's Flurry allows you to use the TWF (feat) to lower penalties while two weapon fighting (Mechanic). It also allows you to TWF (mechanic) without a second weapon

We've been talking about this for about 200 posts. The twf mechanism vs the TWF feat.

Welcome aboard = ).

Quote:


Since this specific rule overrides the general mechanic of TWF(mechanic), that means a Brawler doesn't need to designate an offhand for TWF(mechanic) in order to get the extra attack.

aaaannnd you're off the train again = ).

No where does Brawler's flurry say you don't have to designate a weapon/attack with which you are going to get the extra attack.

Since it doesn't say that - you must.

Just like a monk fighting with a 2h weapon, or a regular fighting fighting with a double weapon.

Quote:


In either case, I'm far more inclined to say that the argument for -4 is extremely strong,

And you'd be right. =)


[quote = Perfect Tommy]No where does Brawler's flurry say you don't have to designate a weapon/attack with which you are going to get the extra attack.

It's not explicitly stated, but Brawlers Flurry does designate not needing a second weapon in order to perform a Brawlers Flurry, which seems to function as TWF.

Now, if you want to argue that not designating a second weapon means you're willingly forgoing the extra attack, but are also using TWF, then you'd be applying a -4 penalty to your attack and gaining nothing as a result. That seems a bit silly.

I don't think it's reasonable to consider the lack of a second weapon the loss of the extra attack (as would happen in standard rules) when Brawlers Flurry supersedes the standard rules and implies that you can make multiple attacks with the same weapon (or appendage if using IUS).


Sure, b.f. says you may designate your (one2h ) weapon for the extra attack as per the rules for two weapon fighting.

But it says nothing about removing the penalty for doing so.
Those rules state if your extra attack is not light, the penalty is -4 .


Those rules are wholly undefined for using 1 weapon or for using a weapon 2 handed. There are NO RULES FOR USING A WEAPON 2 HANDED IN THE OFF HAND, NOR FOR USING NO OFF HAND WEAPON WHILE TWO HAND FIGHTING, AS BRAWLER FLURRY ALLOWS.

The most likely reading is that there is no need for an off hand weapon to take advantage of the extra attack as part of Two Weapon Fighting. No off hand likely means the least penalty should apply which is -2. The -4 vs -2 penalty while two weapon fighting was solely in relation with 1h and light weapons, which were the only weapons available in the standard 2 weapon fighting rules.

There is a possibility that there is a -4 penalty for weapons heavier than light but that would require a ignoring likely RAI and a tortured RAW with many issues remaining wholly undefined.

Personally I think trying to make this RAW case for -4 extremely off, problematic, and not the way rules should be reviewed.

Paizo Employee Customer Service Manager

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Folks, stop the back and forth bickering. Be respectful in your words and tone. Flag and move on if you feel someone has crossed the Community Guidelines. Take a break from the keyboard or paizo.com if you feel you cannot post and remain civil.


If you say the rules are undefined (they are not), then you apply the rules as given. Pathfinder is a game of exceptions. You need a clear written exception to allow you to do something apart from the rules as written.

The rules as written say: if you get an extra attack, the penalty is -10.
You can make the penalty -4/-4 if the extra attack is light - and -2/-2 if the weapon is light and you have the twf feat.

Quote:


Off-hand weapon is light and Two-Weapon Fighting feat -2/-2

The only exception you are granted is the ability to use a non-double 2h weapon for purposes of TWF.

Nothing about treating the extra attack as a light weapon.
Nothing about treating it like a monk flurry.

You are asserting that the writer of the feat created a undefined rule situation.

You are asserting that the editors missed it.

You are asserting no off hand weapon exists, even tho the feat itself apply 1x str to off hand weapon attacks.

AND you assert these things even though the clear language of the rules and FAQ assert how you should run TWF and running it that way creates no rules holes or undefined corner cases.

And you continue to assert it despite 80% of the people going through the rules and working out how it works disagree with you.


Darkblitz9 wrote:
...the spirit of the ability is very obviously one that allows a second attack with the same weapon, following TWF(mechanic) penalties while also granting TWF(feat) penalty reductions. Otherwise, Brawlers Flurry would be telling you that you don't need a second weapon to Flurry, but Flurry would give you no extra attacks, which seems very opposed to the concept of a Flurry.

You seem mostly on board here. But as I've pointed out a couple times in my most recent posts, Brawler says you do not need a second weapon, not that you do not need an off hand weapon. Go to the TWF rules, and mentally cross out the word second.

Your single weapon is your main hand when you're making your normal and iterative attacks, and it is your off hand weapon when you're making your extra twf attacks. The only word in the TWF rules that prevent the main and off hand attacks from being the same weapon is that little "when you wield a second weapon in your off hand". Brawlers remove the word second from that sentence.

At least, that's the argument anyways. If the weapon then is light, you get to reduce the penalty because your off hand weapon is light. If it's not, you don't. If you have a possessed left hand, and your holding it in your left hand, you get to reduce the penalty. If it is dual balanced, and you also have another dual balanced weapon out, you get to reduce the penalty. So on and so forth as normal.

Bladelock says this causes contradictions with other feats, but I cannot find any, and he has not provided any.

Quote:
In either case, I'm far more inclined to say that the argument for -4 is extremely strong, unless the weapon being...

ONE OF US


Removing the second weapon removes by definition and the need for an off hand or the increased off hand penalties for using 2 1 hand weapons.

Toasted,
Saying that there must be an off hand weapon means that the weapon is acting as two weapons or a double weapon. Off the top of my head, the following feats. abilities, and items mods are affected by potential conflicts that would require rulings by individual tables. There are likely others.

Feats:
Power Attack
Two Weapon Defense

Multiclassing with Fighter Archetypes such as:
Two Hand fighter
Two Weapon Warrior

Items
Dual Balanced Weapons

The fact that it is likely that no off hand is required while using TWF during the Brawlers Flurry means these rulings don't need to be made because the rules are then clear.


The rules are then completly non functional for:
Improved Two Weapon Fighting
Greater Two Weapon Fighting
Which really matter, as you get both of them on every brawler.

Two Weapon Defense is already worthless for a brawler. It is also not broken. You're using one weapon, so it doesn't work.

Power Attack is not broken. It is both an off hand and a weapon in two hands. +50% for one, -50% for the other. Direct reading of the feat.

Dual Balanced: "When wielding two weapons with the dual-balanced modification, reduce any two-weapon fighting penalties by 1 for both weapons."
Wielding 2 of them? Reduce any penalty from the TWF combat action incurred on attacks with either of them by 1. Not seeing a specific ruling being needed.

Two-handed Fighter: ?? There is a conflict between Overhand Chop / Backswing with Brawler's Flurry, but that exists regardless as far as I can tell.

Two-Weapon Warrior: It mostly won't work. If you're choosing to only use one weapon, your right as a brawler, you are not using two weapons. The only one that doesn't say "Two weapons" is double strike, which is a standard action and thus cannot be done in a flurry anyways. My way or your way, I'd say the clear rule is "No, your only using one weapon." Do you disagree?

Why do you believe these to need special rulings? None of these seem to have contradictions caused by one weapon being both Primary and Off-hand, nor Off-hand and Two-Handed.


Bladelock

Thanks for clarifying all the other ways in which your idea of how it works - doesn't work.

Note, that I am not saying there must be an offhand weapon .

Whatever you use to get an extra attack, gets a -10 penalty, then adjusted as per the TWF feat.

And of course - you can't find any feats or classes that stop working with that interpretation - because its the actual rule.


toastedamphibian wrote:

The rules are then completly non functional for:

Improved Two Weapon Fighting
Greater Two Weapon Fighting
Which really matter, as you get both of them on every brawler.

Two Weapon Defense is already worthless for a brawler. It is also not broken. You're using one weapon, so it doesn't work.

Power Attack is not broken. It is both an off hand and a weapon in two hands. +50% for one, -50% for the other. Direct reading of the feat.

Dual Balanced: "When wielding two weapons with the dual-balanced modification, reduce any two-weapon fighting penalties by 1 for both weapons."
Wielding 2 of them? Reduce any penalty from the TWF combat action incurred on attacks with either of them by 1. Not seeing a specific ruling being needed.

Two-handed Fighter: ?? There is a conflict between Overhand Chop / Backswing with Brawler's Flurry, but that exists regardless as far as I can tell.

Two-Weapon Warrior: It mostly won't work. If you're choosing to only use one weapon, your right as a brawler, you are not using two weapons. The only one that doesn't say "Two weapons" is double strike, which is a standard action and thus cannot be done in a flurry anyways. My way or your way, I'd say the clear rule is "No, your only using one weapon." Do you disagree?

Why do you believe these to need special rulings? None of these seem to have contradictions caused by one weapon being both Primary and Off-hand, nor Off-hand and Two-Handed.

The issue is not if you can make a ruling that "feels" right to you. The issue is that a ruling must be made when requiring an off hand attack during a flurry with a weapon wielded in 2 hands and/or only 1 weapon. There is no need for rulings if flurry acts as it was likely intended to, with no off hand attack required and no increased penalty for using a 1 handed weapon.

These ruling conflicts only exist when
- wielding a weapon 2 handed as an off hand weapon, or
- when trying to use 1 weapon as two weapons or a double weapon, as is needed to produce an off hand weapon and related attack.


Bladelock wrote:
Removing the second weapon removes by definition and the need for an off hand or the increased off hand penalties for using 2 1 hand weapons.

I don't think so. Brawler's Flurry grants special abilities through the specific-trumps-general principle. But when you apply that principle, you only get to do so when you the special ability specifically says you get to. Brawler's Flurry says you get to use the same weapon twice when you use Brawler's Flurry, but it doesn't say that 2nd attack isn't an off-hand weapon attack.

Also, remember, Brawler's Flurry doesn't grant bonus attacks all by itself. The way you get extra attacks from Brawler's Flurry is by gaining the Bonus Feats Two Weapon Fighting, Improved Two Weapon Fighting, and Greater Two Weapon Fighting, and the only bonus Attacks they grant are off-hand weapon attacks.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Bladelock wrote:
Removing the second weapon removes by definition and the need for an off hand or the increased off hand penalties for using 2 1 hand weapons.

I don't think so. Brawler's Flurry grants special abilities through the specific-trumps-general principle. But when you apply that principle, you only get to do so when you the special ability specifically says you get to. Brawler's Flurry says you get to use the same weapon twice when you use Brawler's Flurry, but it doesn't say that 2nd attack isn't an off-hand weapon attack.

Also, remember, Brawler's Flurry doesn't grant bonus attacks all by itself. The way you get extra attacks from Brawler's Flurry is by gaining the Bonus Feats Two Weapon Fighting, Improved Two Weapon Fighting, and Greater Two Weapon Fighting, and the only bonus Attacks they grant are off-hand weapon attacks.

That is the argument that makes me acquiesce to the point that Paizo may rule that the Flurry does cause one weapon to be treated as two weapons, both the primary and the off hand weapon.

Two possible RAW arguments.
Only one is a strong RAI.


No, there is only one RAW.

By RAW, BF uses the TWF rules to govern the attack penalty.
By RAW, the extra attack is at -10.
Light weapon & TWF feat: -2/-2. Just TWF -4/-4.

You are supposing that using two hands means there isn't an offhand attack. Not a rule. Certainly Not RAW.
You are supposing that "no hands" is less effort and therefore should count as light. Not a rule, certainly not RAW.


Bladelock wrote:

The issue is not if you can make a ruling that "feels" right to you. The issue is that a ruling must be made when requiring an off hand attack during a flurry with a weapon wielded in 2 hands and/or only 1 weapon. There is no need for rulings if flurry acts as it was likely intended to, with no off hand attack required and no increased penalty for using a 1 handed weapon.

These ruling conflicts only exist when
- wielding a weapon 2 handed as an off hand weapon, or
- when trying to use 1 weapon as two weapons or a double weapon, as is needed to produce an off hand weapon and related attack.

What rulings have I made? I read the rules, did what they said. What ruling conflicts do you see in ANY of these? I'm not following.


They are all rulings.

Two Weapon Defense:
If flurry works as you describe (being required act as two weapons because that is the only way there is an off hand weapon} then a ruling needs to be made on whether it receives other benefits of being two weapons or a double weapon.

Power Attack:
A GM could choose to say that an off hand attack supersedes handedness and power attack should be -1/+1. A GM could also say that Power Attack only cares about handedness and it is -1/+3. A GM could combine the two as you have. It would still be a ruling.

Dual Balanced:
Again, the only way there is an increased penalty is if there is a second off hand weapon, so you're interpretation forces the weapon in a flurry to act as two weapons. Acting as two weapons opens up legitimate questions about how dual balanced works on one flurried weapon. Answering that question is a ruling because opinions could differ on whether acting as two weapons is enough for this item.

Two Handed Fighter:
There can't be a conflict with Overhand Chop because it is limited to 1 attack, and Backswing only cares that the weapon is used in 2 hands for the x2 str bonus. However there would need to be a ruling on Greater Power Attack just like on the feat Power Attack.

Two Weapon Fighter:
It is not about whether I agree with your ruling or not, it is that forcing an off hand attack, where there is not a need for one, creates an uncertainty in the rules that requires a ruling.

The fact is that wielding a weapon 2 handed was not meant to be done in the off hand nor was tfw with one weapon. Brawler didn't create any rules for it because an off hand is implied to be unneeded to take advantage of TWF when flurrying.


Bladelock wrote:
(being required act as two weapons because that is the only way there is an off hand weapon}

No... that's not what i'm saying at all. The rule is that it has to be a second weapon, brawler says it does not have to be a separate weapon. The main hand attacks and off hand attacks are made with the same weapon. That is the only change. Nothing says to treat it as two weapons, so you would not. It is just your main and off-hand weapon, depending on which attack your making.

Quote:
then a ruling needs to be made on whether it receives other benefits of being two weapons or a double weapon.

Is one weapon, no ruling needed.

Quote:

Power Attack:

A GM could choose to say that an off hand attack supersedes handedness and power attack should be -1/+1. A GM could also say that Power Attack only cares about handedness and it is -1/+3. A GM could combine the two as you have. It would still be a ruling.

A GM can make any ruling they wish. The Rules say "If A, +50%. If B -50%". Not "If B, instead of A then ...". They are separate sentences, with periods and such, not dependent upon each other. If a GM decides to change that, that's on them.

Dual Balanced: It's not acting as 2 weapons
Two-Handed Fighter: I don't see the problem. Is it 2 handed? Then the bonus from PA for a 2 handed weapon becomes +100% instead of +50%.

Two Weapon Warrior: Again, the only problem I see is if you treat the one weapon as two weapons. I do not see why you would, that is not implied in the rules at all, or in my thoughts on what brawler's flurry means.

It is one weapon serving both roles, but it is still only one weapon.


- Either the weapon is behaving as two weapons (or a double weapon) because that is the only way that an off hand weapon is defined.
or
- it is behaving as one weapon, taking advantage of twf without the need for an off hand weapon.


Bladelock wrote:


Two Weapon Defense:
If flurry works as you describe (being required act as two weapons because that is the only way there is an off hand weapon} then a ruling needs to be made on whether it receives other benefits of being two weapons or a double weapon.

"When wielding a double weapon or two weapons (not including natural weapons or unarmed strikes)"

You are not wielding two weapons. No ruling needed, the feat does not apply.

Quote:

Power Attack:
A GM could choose to say that an off hand attack supersedes handedness and power attack should be -1/+1. A GM could also say that Power Attack only cares about handedness and it is -1/+3. A GM could combine the two as you have. It would still be a ruling.

This points to the numerous defects in your understanding.

Off hand has *nothing* to do with the number of hands used to wield.
It merely refers to an extra attack.

Two hands are used on the weapon, regular two hand rules apply to power attack. No ruling required. RAW.

Quote:


Dual Balanced:

Dual Balanced requires you to wield two weapons

"When wielding two weapons with the dual-balanced modification"
You are not wielding two weapons. No ruling required. RAW.

Quote:

Two Weapon Fighter:

Presumably you mean two weapon warrior.

Stacking a hybrid class with either of its parent classes is always going to cause issues. As a general rule: don't do it.

Quote:


It is not about whether I agree with your ruling or not, it is that forcing an off hand attack, where there is not a need for one, creates an uncertainty in the rules that requires a ruling.

Except the rules are clear: First determine what is going to be your offhand attack. All your others are primary.

Still waiting for your answer to:

The RULES:

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."

Quote:


The fact is that wielding a weapon 2 handed was not meant to be done in the off hand nor was tfw with one weapon. Brawler didn't create any rules for it because an off hand is implied to be unneeded to take advantage of TWF when flurrying.

The fact is that wielding a weapon is *not* done in the "offhand" as there is NO OFFHAND.

Brawling didn't create any rules for it - because it is your understanding of the rules that is faulty, not an error in the rules.
No, an offhand is not implied to be unneeded.

Offhands have nothing to do with handedness. Armor spikes are off hand weapons. They are wielded with no hands. Kicks are off hand weapons. They are wielded with no hands. Quarterstaffs can be an off hand weapon - weilded with both hands.

Offhand solely refers to the extra attack you get using TWFing. Period.
If you're not making an offhand attack you're not getting an extra attack and there is no TWFing. IF you are making an offhand attack it doesn't matter which or how many hands you're using. The only thing affected is the penalty applied (-4/-4) if the extra attack is not light.


Bladelock wrote:

- Either the weapon is behaving as two weapons (or a double weapon) because that is the only way that an off hand weapon is defined.

or
- it is behaving as one weapon, taking advantage of twf without the need for an off hand weapon.

Or the correct answer: Offhand has nothing to do with how you wield the weapon and merely refers to the extra attack you receive, regardless of how you get it or how you wield it.

This extra attack is "offhand" it gets a penalty of -10 unless you satisfy any of the conditions that lesson that penalty.


Perfect Tommy wrote:
Bladelock wrote:


Power Attack:
A GM could choose to say that an off hand attack supersedes handedness and power attack should be -1/+1. A GM could also say that Power Attack only cares about handedness and it is -1/+3. A GM could combine the two as you have. It would still be a ruling.

This points to the numerous defects in your understanding.

Off hand has *nothing* to do with the number of hands used to wield.
It merely refers to an extra attack.

Two hands are used on the weapon, regular two hand rules apply to power attack. No ruling required. RAW.

So because I disagree with your opinion, you accuse me of having "defects of understanding" concerning handedness and two weapon fighting. Just want to make sure that is what you are saying before I respond.


It has nothing to do with disagreeing with my opinion. There are certainly cases where one can legitimitely have different opinions, each supported by conflicting rules.

It is more a failure to even discuss the alternative. It is symptomatic - I have said since the start of this thread that offhand attacks merely refer to extra attacks. Yet you won't even consider that perhaps that position is right.

I have tried to engage you in a discussion of it; but each time you refuse. Such as when I asked you "What was the first step in two weapon fighting."

So when you present what the options are you say...

Spoiler:

Quote:


- Either the weapon is behaving as two weapons....
or
- it is behaving as one weapon,...

Instead of even including the possibility.

Either the weapon is behaving as two weapons...
or
- it is behaving as one weapon
or
- offhand attack is terminology which merely refers to an extra attack, unrelated to hands used to wield. It is a historical term, which is now unfortunately obfuscatory.

And yes, your position leads you to numerous rules problems, which you've outlined above. If my term is overly snarky, ok I apologize.

But how about start from the position I say

"offhand attacks refers to an extra attack" and then try to find where that causes a substantive rule disconnect, as your rule position have caused you.

For while this position suffers from a lot of verbiage issues because of how paizo (wotc) has changed how the term means which leads to confusion it doesn't actually cause any problems with how the rules function. Or at least I haven't found any.


Perfect Tommy wrote:

It has nothing to do with disagreeing with my opinion. There are certainly cases where one can legitimitely have different opinions, each supported by conflicting rules.

It is more a failure to even discuss the alternative. It is symptomatic - I have said since the start of this thread that offhand attacks merely refer to extra attacks. Yet you won't even consider that perhaps that position is right.

I have tried to engage you in a discussion of it; but each time you refuse. Such as when I asked you "What was the first step in two weapon fighting."

So when you present what the options are you say...

** spoiler omitted **

Instead of even including the possibility.

Either the weapon is behaving as two weapons...
or
- it is behaving as one weapon
or
- offhand attack is terminology which merely refers to an extra attack, unrelated to hands used to wield. It is a historical term, which is now unfortunately obfuscatory.

And yes, your position leads you to numerous rules problems, which you've outlined above. If my term is overly snarky, ok I apologize.

But how about start from the position I say

"offhand attacks refers to an extra attack" and then try to find where that causes a substantive rule disconnect, as your rule position have caused you.

For while this position suffers from a lot of verbiage issues because of how paizo (wotc) has changed how the term means which leads to confusion it doesn't actually cause any problems with how the rules function. Or at least I haven't found any.

No, your tone goes beyond snarky and ventures into the realm of condescension and nastiness. Also asking tangential questions, in order to hide the flaws in your argument and twist someone to your way of thinking, is not engagement. I prefer to discuss merits and flaws clearly without those games.

However this one post was civil so I will give you a civil answer.

Your assertion that:

Perfect Tommy wrote:
"- offhand attack is terminology which merely refers to an extra attack, unrelated to hands used to wield. It is a historical term, which is now unfortunately obfuscatory."

is not supported by the rules. Off hand attack is also not in the rules. It is simply a term used to describe the attack taken by the designated off hand weapon.

An off hand weapon is clearly defined in the rules. You are correct that the off hand weapon could be another legally designated second weapon that is unrelated to an actual hand, but there needs to be a second weapon. That second weapon must be declared in order to take an extra attack. If there is no second weapon the off hand is undefined for two weapon fighting.

If you remove the need for a second weapon, the only things supported by the rules are that:
- the weapon is either acting as two weapons
or
- there is no need for a designated off hand weapon to take advantage of two weapon fighting.


Mr. Bladelock.

A 5th level unarmed brawler may make two trip attempts.

What is the weapon?

We don't know. Perhaps it is his left leg. Perhaps it is his right leg. Perhaps he is using his hands to throw you off balance.

Can the brawler make a completely legal turn without specifying which leg he is using to trip?

Yes. Or do you really think the GM is going to ask - are you tripping him with your left leg, or your right. Or maybe your right hand?

The question of the weapon is completely immaterial. He gets the twf penalties because he took an extra attack.

So, which unspecified weapon, which uses no hands, is his offhand weapon?
We know, because the rules tell us.

""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."

The primary, or main attack is the one to which you are normally entitled. The offhand attack is the extra attack.

The primary attack is at -6 (lessened to -2, for feat+light) and the offhand is -10, (lessened to -2 for feat + light).

Its not really interesting for you to simply repeat my position isn't supported by the rules when lots of people have said, in fact the position is exactly right.

I've invited you to reconsider your position - assume my position is correct and try to come up with rule cases that show it is wrong.


Bladelock wrote:

...

An off hand weapon is clearly defined in the rules. You are correct that the off hand weapon could be another legally designated second weapon that is unrelated to an actual hand, but there needs to be a second weapon. That second weapon must be declared in order to take an extra attack. If there is no second weapon the off hand is undefined for two weapon fighting.

If you remove the need for a second weapon, the only things supported by the rules are that:
- the weapon is either acting as two weapons
or
- there is no need for a designated off hand weapon to take advantage of two weapon fighting.

Or option 3, you remove the requirement that the "designated off hand weapon" not be the same weapon as the "designated primary weapon"?

The normal rule is that the off hand weapon needs to be a SECOND weapon, brawler removes the requirement that it be a SECOND weapon. I really do not understand the nature of the disconnect here.


Perfect Tommy wrote:


Mr. Bladelock.

A 5th level unarmed brawler may make two trip attempts.

What is the weapon?

We don't know. Perhaps it is his left leg. Perhaps it is his right leg. Perhaps he is using his hands to throw you off balance.

Can the brawler make a completely legal turn without specifying which leg he is using to trip?

Yes. Or do you really think the GM is going to ask - are you tripping him with your left leg, or your right. Or maybe your right hand?

The question of the weapon is completely immaterial. He gets the twf penalties because he took an extra attack.

So, which unspecified weapon, which uses no hands, is his offhand weapon?
We know, because the rules tell us.

""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."

The primary, or main attack is the one to which you are normally entitled. The offhand attack is the extra attack.

The primary attack is at -6 (lessened to -2, for feat+light) and the offhand is -10, (lessened to -2 for feat + light).

Its not really interesting for you to simply repeat my position isn't supported by the rules when lots of people have said, in fact the position is exactly right.

I've invited you to reconsider your position - assume my position is correct and try to come up with rule cases that show it is wrong.

Your argument is that because the off hand weapon is not defined as an actual "hand" the off hand's sole defining quality is that it is the additional attack when two weapon fighting. We all agree that that both the primary and off hand weapon can be any legal weapon and does not need to be a hand. We can refer to them as the primary and secondary weapon if you prefer?

However the off hand (or secondary weapon) is clearly defined in the rules. It is a second weapon - only defined as light or 1 handed (or medium effort weapon to avoid hand confusion) - that is used to make the off hand (or secondary weapon) attacks.

This is clearly defined in the text bolded in the rules below.

Core Rules wrote:
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.

The bolded text is not flavor. It is a clear definition that a second weapon is required. As we discussed above, the off hand can be a foot, a weapon, or an elbow but that does not negate the need for a clearly defined second weapon as per the rules.

The Brawler Flurry removes the need for an actual physical second weapon. That means the weapon used in the Flurry either acts as two weapons or doesn't require an off hand (or secondary weapon) attack.


toastedamphibian wrote:
Bladelock wrote:

...

An off hand weapon is clearly defined in the rules. You are correct that the off hand weapon could be another legally designated second weapon that is unrelated to an actual hand, but there needs to be a second weapon. That second weapon must be declared in order to take an extra attack. If there is no second weapon the off hand is undefined for two weapon fighting.

If you remove the need for a second weapon, the only things supported by the rules are that:
- the weapon is either acting as two weapons
or
- there is no need for a designated off hand weapon to take advantage of two weapon fighting.

Or option 3, you remove the requirement that the "designated off hand weapon" not be the same weapon as the "designated primary weapon"?

The normal rule is that the off hand weapon needs to be a SECOND weapon, brawler removes the requirement that it be a SECOND weapon. I really do not understand the nature of the disconnect here.

This requires two steps away from the rules rather than 1 step.

If you remove the need for a physical second weapon while two weapon fighting, then as per core rules you need a weapon that acts as two weapons, like a double weapon, to take an off hand attack. It would take a second modification to then also say that the one weapon continues to act as one weapon in all other regards, including other two weapon feats... except feats along the two weapon chain... except if it calls out a second weapon... except (some future feat or ability yet to come).

If the weapon acts as 1 weapon, and can be allowed to two weapon fight, then it can take the additional attack from TWF without declaring an off hand: which is defined by a second weapon.


No Mr. Bladelock.

We do not agree that you can define them as primary and secondary weapons, as that is wrong.

If you have a twf who throws daggers at 11th level he will throw three daggers.

You keep trying to define this as tied to weapon, erroneously. If it were tied to weapon, you have yet another rule problem, since your thrower is now using what a tertiary weapon? As you have thrown your primary and secondary.

Which, if course is not covered by the rules, requiring you to make yet another rules exception.

At thus point, I think you realize you are wrong.


Perfect Tommy wrote:

No Mr. Bladelock.

We do not agree that you can define them as primary and secondary weapons, as that is wrong.

If you have a twf who throws daggers at 11th level he will throw three daggers.

You keep trying to define this as tied to weapon, erroneously. If it were tied to weapon, you have yet another rule problem, since your thrower is now using what a tertiary weapon? As you have thrown your primary and secondary.

Which, if course is not covered by the rules, requiring you to make yet another rules exception.

At thus point, I think you realize you are wrong.

No Tommy. It is not wrong. It is what the rules say.

Core Rules wrote:
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.

The thrower will need to identify which weapon is the primary and which is the off hand for each set of thrown weapons. There is no need to identify a tertiary weapon. This tangent has nothing to do with actual conversation because it still works just like regular two weapon fighting. There still needs to be a second weapon to define the off hand (secondary) weapon.

At thus point, I think you should realize you are wrong, but I somehow doubt it.


So you just admitted you were wrong.

If you're throwing 4 daggers and you're "identifying which is primary for each set"... then you are conceding, in fact, it has nothing to do with the physical weapon.

In other words, its the attack, not the weapon.

Game.set. match.


No Tommy. I am not wrong.

The off hand attack is defined by the weapon. The weapons are designated by the user as primary or off hand. There can only be a primary and off hand if there are two weapons. One weapon is designated as primary and one is designated as off hand. There is nothing stopping a character from drawing another weapon (or using a foot or elbow) and re-designating that new weapon as the off hand weapon.

So in a small way you are right that the designation doesn't reside with the weapon, nor does it reside with the attack. The character designates which of their two weapons is the primary weapon and which is the off hand for any set of attacks.

In other words, you are making a logic leap that is not supported by the rules.

game.set.match.champion of the universe for all infinity.no take backsies (really??)


Shall I quote you the more than 20 times you said that was impossible? And then you said it was unlikely to be the right ruling. And now you've agree.

Great. Now that you agree the user designates whether the attack is primary or secondary;

And you've agreed he can designate any particular attack (with any particular weapon) to be primary or secondary.

So your last particular argument was that the same weapon could not both be primary and secondary.

So I ask you again, just like I did more than 300 posts ago, to explain how, if you thought a user could not make primary and secondary attacks with one weapon, how a monk can flurry with a Tiger fork?

And if, indeed he can designate the tiger fork to make the primary and secondary attacks with the Tiger fork - why is it that you think the Brawler cannot do the same thing?

Hmmmm?


Perfect Tommy wrote:

Shall I quote you the more than 20 times you said that was impossible? And then you said it was unlikely to be the right ruling. And now you've agree.

Great. Now that you agree the user designates whether the attack is primary or secondary;

And you've agreed he can designate any particular attack (with any particular weapon) to be primary or secondary.

So your last particular argument was that the same weapon could not both be primary and secondary.

So I ask you again, just like I did more than 300 posts ago, to explain how, if you thought a user could not make primary and secondary attacks with one weapon, how a monk can flurry with a Tiger fork?

And if, indeed he can designate the tiger fork to make the primary and secondary attacks with the Tiger fork - why is it that you think the Brawler cannot do the same thing?

Hmmmm?

No. That is specifically not what I said. I did not say, imply, or allude to the user designating any particular attack with any particular weapon being primary or off hand (secondary).

What I did say is that the character designates which of two weapons being wielded, which can only be a light or 1 hand(medium effort) weapon, are the primary and the off hand (secondary) weapon.

Tommy this isn't a high school debate. Your "any attack, any weapon" idea is not in the rules.

You are simply wrong.


Double weapons act as two weapons. You continually bringing them up only weakens your argument. btw a Tiger Fork isn't a double weapon so your can't use it as a primary and an off hand weapon.

Monks do not use an off hand attack when they flurry with a Tiger Fork but they get an extra attack. Again this is a tangent that has nothing to do with the discussion, but if it did, it would only weaken your argument.


Bladelock wrote:


The off hand attack is defined by the weapon. The weapons are designated by the user as primary or off hand. There can only be a primary and off hand if there are two weapons.

Why?


toastedamphibian wrote:
Bladelock wrote:


The off hand attack is defined by the weapon. The weapons are designated by the user as primary or off hand. There can only be a primary and off hand if there are two weapons.
Why?

Already shown to be wrong, bladelock.

11th level fighter. Twf thrower. 4 weapons.

4 <> 2.


Perfect Tommy wrote:
toastedamphibian wrote:
Bladelock wrote:


The off hand attack is defined by the weapon. The weapons are designated by the user as primary or off hand. There can only be a primary and off hand if there are two weapons.
Why?

Already shown to be wrong, bladelock.

11th level fighter. Twf thrower. 4 weapons.

4 <> 2.

At the risk of dragging myself back into this, you know damn good and well that he wasn't saying that it was only 2 weapons but that you can't do it with just 1 weapon. You know that and that is half the reason people have been getting irritated in this thread is the deliberate obtuseness going back and forth.


Bladelock wrote:

Double weapons act as two weapons. You continually bringing them up only weakens your argument. btw a Tiger Fork isn't a double weapon so your can't use it as a primary and an off hand weapon.

Monks do not use an off hand attack when they flurry with a Tiger Fork but they get an extra attack.

Lolol. Of course they do, Mr bladelock.

When doing so, he may make one additional attack .... as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat.

Monks flurry gives you an extra attack as if using twf.

Twf gives you an extra attack, when you follow the rules for twf fightibg. The only kind of extra attack given by twf is an offhand attack.

attack, mr. Bladelock.

This establishes that is the attack that determines the penalties, not the weapon.

You're right mr bladelock. The tiger fork isn't a double weapon. I chose it specifically for that reason. It isn't double, but it is a 2h weapon.

You previously said the Brawler cannot take twf penalties, because his primary weapon cannot also be his offhand weapon.
The rules don't allow for that.

Except the rules, DO allow for that. Both in double weapons and monks using flurry in tiger forks.


toastedamphibian wrote:
Bladelock wrote:


The off hand attack is defined by the weapon. The weapons are designated by the user as primary or off hand. There can only be a primary and off hand if there are two weapons.
Why?

That is how it is defined in the general core rules for two weapon fighting.

See the rules below. In the second half of the first sentence of the two weapon fighting rules, it says you can get an extra attack if you meet certain conditions. In the first half of the sentence the conditions are defined: wielding a second weapon in what becomes the off hand.

Core Rules wrote:
(1)If you wield a second weapon in your off hand,... (2)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.

It is the designated second weapon, which must be a light or 1h weapon (or double which acts as 2 wpns), that becomes the off hand. Anything else is undefined without a specific rule to override this general one. Brawler allows TWF with one weapon, so if that one weapon is be both primary and off hand then it is acting as two weapons unless we are told otherwise. The more likely option is that BF simply allows TWF to work with no off hand, removing the need for a second weapon.


Perfect Tommy wrote:
Bladelock wrote:

Double weapons act as two weapons. You continually bringing them up only weakens your argument. btw a Tiger Fork isn't a double weapon so your can't use it as a primary and an off hand weapon.

Monks do not use an off hand attack when they flurry with a Tiger Fork but they get an extra attack.

Lolol. Of course they do, Mr bladelock.

When doing so, he may make one additional attack .... as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat.

Monks flurry gives you an extra attack as if using twf.

Twf gives you an extra attack, when you follow the rules for twf fightibg. The only kind of extra attack given by twf is an offhand attack.

attack, mr. Bladelock.

This establishes that is the attack that determines the penalties, not the weapon.

You're right mr bladelock. The tiger fork isn't a double weapon. I chose it specifically for that reason. It isn't double, but it is a 2h weapon.

You previously said the Brawler cannot take twf penalties, because his primary weapon cannot also be his offhand weapon.
The rules don't allow for that.

Except the rules, DO allow for that. Both in double weapons and monks using flurry in tiger forks.

A monk doesn't though they do it as if they were. There was a huge blow up years back because it came out that monks were supposed to be using 2 weapons to flurry because you can't flurry with one hand. The DEV team decided to reverse that ruling but the original intent of the monk (which most players missed) was to have to use 2 weapons.


You're wrong on your recitation of events but its immaterial.You're missing the point, mr bladelock.

It monks flurry says they get an extra attack, as if using twf.

Which establishes that it's the attack that is what is conveyed. They didn't say you get to make 2 hands more effort.

It's the taking the extea attack that determines the penalties,

Once you take that attack, it's the type of weapon, not the weapon, that determines the penalties.


You said that one weapon could not serve as primary and offhand.

I've showed the rules already allow it. Both in double weapons, monks with tiger forks.

If they allow it in these two instances you have no basis to say it's impossible for brawlers flurry.

401 to 450 of 454 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 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.

©2002-2018 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.