Exhaltia's page

The rules arguing on a buckler is silly, the way you're ruling, i.e. RAW, was meant to make the buckler the most versatile shield not least. Any decent DM would say that restriction doesn't actually apply in this case. If you're the DM in your game make the rule, but I feel sorry for the players having to deal with that non-sense.

I personally think the real trouble (and the source of all the push back) is that TWF got really underpowered at some point, and gimping it with this decision (keep in mind I still agree that it was a problem) left those that was almost keeping up with THF feeling abandoned. There needs to be something to bring TWF up to par, or at least close to it, as the 8ish DPR difference is a little disheartening.

Exhaltia wrote:

You're wrong on everything you said, straight RAW. You can use those outside of a grapple, as someone already pointed out. Additionally you can THW and grapple in the same round as an iterative attack (you can perform as many special actions as you want provided you have the iterative attacks to do so.)

You can not THF and grapple in the same round, grapple is a sntandard action.

Uh... you're right, it changed from 3.5 to Pathfinder. My bad. I go back and forth too much I guess.

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Before, there was no indication that two-weapon fighting, and two handed weapons, were completely exclusive to each other.

You are right...and that is the reason why the FAQ entry was added and why they explained their decision. It was not their intention to allow a two-handed weapon to be used with two-weapon fighting.

blackbloodtroll wrote:

This is because there are no rules written to make them so.

They had to reference unwritten rules to make them exclusive.

Players and DMs have no way to go over these unwritten rules.

So what? Paizo is under no obligation to provide their customers with the explanation as to how the arrived at their current rule set. If they choose to give some visibility for the process, then I applaud them for sharing an aspect of the game that we normally do not see...but there is no reason that you as a customer should be ENTITLED to that information.

Paizo provided a product. You bought the product. That's it. It is great that Paizo also puts forth a great deal of effort in continued support of their product, but that is their choice.

blackbloodtroll wrote:

If the off-hand attack is not used up, then how does it become unavailable?

Why does it require an explanation? Paizo team members stated it is unavailable. It is unavailable.

Why can't I perform a standard attack and a double movement in the same round? Because you only get one standard action and one move action in a round. But Why? Because that's the rule. But why?

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Should I check the unwritten rules to come up with an answer?

I assume you are referring to the 'unwritten rules' in your imagination since you are not entitled to paizo's 'unwritten rules'.

We can go back and forth like this all day and night. There is no way I could possibly keep up with your constant posting. There is also no way I can convince you of anything if you aren't open to a different point of view...and I don't sense that you are. So, I...

You're actually quite funny. Let's stop pretending Paizo even thought up these rules. WotC made all of these rules that we are talking about.

Still, I agree with the no "Off-hand attack" when wielding a 2HW.

I disagree that you can't threaten with an equipped weapon, i.e. boot blade, armor spikes, ect. just because you're wielding a THW.

Edit - though I don't agree with them the RAW is confusing, and the people who wrote them actually said in a FAQ the RAI was to allow THTWF with them. Just saying.

"Armor spikes deal extra piercing damage (see “spiked armor” on Table: Weapons) on a successful grapple attack."

Armor spikes are not weapons in the traditional sense that a sword or battle axe or spiked gauntlets are. You can not make an attack with your armor spikes outside of a grapple. You can't strike with your two-handed weapon and make a grapple combat maneuver in the same round. I am not sure you should be able to do a two weapon attack and a 2hd attacks in the same round.
Using descriptions in novels to justify making punches and two-handed weapon swings is also not useful since novels don't have to follow the round by round combat rules we follow at the game table. Wulfgar may have punched one round and swung his hammer in the next or used an extra attacks for a high BAB or because the novel was written in 2nd edition days some other rational or maybe just artistic license. We don't have any real basis for deciding what the author intended except maybe to ask the author.

You're wrong on everything you said, straight RAW. You can use those outside of a grapple, as someone already pointed out. Additionally you can THW and grapple in the same round as an iterative attack (you can perform as many special actions as you want provided you have the iterative attacks to do so.)

mdt wrote:

So I really don't see the point of armor spikes then. Much better off with a boot blade, or IUS, or just about anything. Armor spikes are simply useless at this point.

If you wear armour spikes you can get extra piercing damage in a grapple. It also means that if you are disarmed or have to drop your reach weapon to hit an adjacent foe you have a weapon that you don't have to draw. This means you can have full attacks. To me that is the purpose of all these "no hand" weapons, you are always armed with a lethal weapon.

To extrapolate that out to gaining an extra attack, or being able to threaten at 5' and 10', seems a bit of having your cake and eating it.

No, it really doesn't seem that way with threatening. It makes perfect sense that you can attack with an equipped weapon. Obviously you didn't read my last post.

BTW, you have 4 limbs, not 2. So if light weapons require limbs, you have two left that you can use, righty and lefty boot.

It seems to me that there's a whole lot of smart people who have read the same rules, which are not too clear, and have interpreted them differently. They've then been using those interpretations of those rules ever since.

I'm not having a go at those people btw, this is what we all do. We decode & comprehend a text and work off that decoding. We certainly don't go back to the text and attempt to re-decode the text each time we look at it, in fact to do so is really hard. What I'm trying to say is that all this confusion is due to the rules either not being crystal clear, or not expansive enough to cover all the angles.

And that sounds like I'm having a go at the Devs, which I'm also not. Although, clarifications and rules should really be based on the written rules that we have access to. Basing changes/clarifications off stuff we can't see will seem jarring to some.

So from what has been written, can I see if I have this right?

Wielding a two handed weapon and trying to get an "off hand attack" with Two Weapon Fighting is no longer allowed. By off hand attack, I mean utilizing a weapon that may or may not require a hand to wield. You certainly can't use a weapon with two hands and then release one hand to punch, or use a 2 handed weapon and armor spikes, or 2 handed weapon and unarmed attack..?

I know there's loads of arguments about whether it's OP or suboptimal, whether it makes sense or not…

And as for the using a reach 2H weapon and trying to get an AoO with the armor spikes, my first thought was "Why not? That AoO is going to be pretty underpowered unless the PC has spent loads getting those spikes up to par with their primary weapon."

Your understanding of the two handed weapon and armor spikes seems to be in line with the FAQ.

It is both OP and suboptimal if that makes since. I know this statement requires explanation.

The reason being so is that TWF vs TWF with this combo means this combo is more powerful by apparently 6 DPR, but it's suboptimal because THF has two DPR above that (8 above TWF in general.)

Additionally since these base line rules' inception there are much more powerful weapon combos and feats to choose from, again making TWF in general suboptimal.

That's all going off of more dedicated mathematicians, so don't argue with me about the math.

Also agreed about the spikes, they are underpowered vs main weapon, but the choice is nice.

Edit - Especially since this clarification I hope this has shown the devs that TWF really needs some balancing to meet expectations in the difference between TWF and THF.

We've all made several points, none of them have ever been "Just 'cause" and that offends me that you could even think that. On the other hand it says a lot about someone who deliberately ignores a point, so maybe it's not my fault.

With that being said, if what examples and similarities don't prove the point then perhaps the english language will. If this all hinges on what it means to "wield" means then let's use the definition:

wield [weeld] verb (used with object)
1.to exercise (power, authority, influence, etc.), as in ruling or dominating.
2.to use (a weapon, instrument, etc.) effectively; handle or employ actively.
3.Archaic. to guide or direct.
4.Archaic. to govern; manage.

There by can the weapon be used actively? It's already been agreed that there is no restriction on using it for iterative attacks back and forth without any action, so the answer to the question ultimately is; yes, it is wielded.

Since we've agreed that a "wielded" weapon can be used for AoO even using a two handed weapon.

Yes but that doesn't answer my point.

"A shield uses up a hand, but it might or might not use up a "primary" or "off" hand, depending on whether or not it is used to attack"

Yet to wield a 2H weapon takes up a "primary" and an "off" hand, so to be ready to take an AoO you have to be wielding a weapon and the weapon takes a "primary" and an "off" hand to wield - how do you then wield another weapon?
You're doing that whole real hand/game mechanic hand thing again.

That did actually answer your question, you're just making up rules now.

You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity.

[Edit - Improved Unarmed would also allow you to threaten adjacent squares with a reach weapon.]

Though a hand maybe occupied literally the armor spikes can still be used. Threatening an area has no such contingency saying that you have to have had an attack using that weapon last turn, only that you must be able to make a melee attack into that square. Since you can freely choose between equipped weapons (only you can't get an extra attack since your primary and off-hand attacks were occupied last turn) you can choose to use the armor spikes at any time for an attack based on your high BAB, but not for an off-hand attack if you use a THW (except that you probably wouldn't since generally speaking the THW will do more damage.)

To clarify the point if you have three attacks due to high BAB then you could use a greatsword, then decide to use the armor spikes for the 2nd, and then back to the greatsword for the 3rd. The whole of the original debate is that you can't then ALSO get "off-hand" attacks in addition.

Another example is a creature with natural weapons, two claws and a bite. If it used a claw to attack the round before, it can still use it's bite as the opportunity attack during that round simply because it's "equipped."

The whole point is that opportunity attacks do not have anything to do with what other attacks you used in your last round.

Exhaltia wrote:

Edit - I do want to point out that the usefulness of spikes is still there, for instance you can still threaten within 5 feet if you have them equipped and are also using a reach weapon, just as if you're using an unarmed strike with improved unarmed.

Not in my world, you can threaten with one but not the other - unless you can threaten with a sheathed weapon and quick-draw? Removing your hand/drawing your weapon with QD are both free actions not immediate ones.

Of course you're allowed your own rulings, but I believe there is a rule, or ruling, somewhere the specifically says you threaten with any and all weapons you wield. Since you would be wielding armor (with spikes) then you can make opportunity attacks with it.

Exhaltia wrote:

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Exhaltia wrote:

The reason why this rule is here is basically saying that if you're using a two-handed weapon you don't get an "off-hand attack" in addition to your regular attacks based on BAB because that would be OP.

HA!

LOL

Um... I'm going to take this unintelligible guffawing to mean that you don't agree, but look at what else is around this equipment combo. What equipment combo for a TWF would this even equal to? When one choice is clearly superior then it is too powerful and needs to be rebalanced. Simply put, you can't have the best of both worlds.

Okay, I have to conclude that you haven't read the whole thread(s).

You said 'When one choice is clearly superior then it is too powerful and needs to be rebalanced', and in this you are correct. At first glance, it seems that getting 1.5 x Str bonus on your 'main' attack will result in more damage, and therefore that attempting to do so is sneaky and cheaty and must be stopped. This of course ignores all the other ways that players try to optimise their characters within the rules, without being accused of cheating.

But take more than a glance and you'll realise that, just because your main attack will do slightly more damage if it hits, this does not mean that you'll do more damage per round overall, because of the damage you'll lose by missing with attacks that would have hit if you weren't taking the attack penalties for TWF.

Doing the maths (and many have on these threads) it turns out you do more damage using a single greatsword than you do TWFing with greatsword AND armour spikes!

Futher, TWF requires a feat while using a single two-handed weapon doesn't. Unless you try without the feat, and then the attack penalties of -4/-8 result in far less damage than before.

There are further costs associated with being worse than a single 2H weapon. TWF requires a Dex of 15, higher if you want Improved (17) and Greater (19) TWF. And that takes...

Your point is flawed because of your approach at the argument. You're still thinking TWF vs THF, but this is not the argument at all. The argument is TWF vs TWF.

What other combination of weapons gets you the same STR bonus for the same character design with the same feats while TWF? None and that's the problem. That means that this combo is clearly superior in every way. In other words your interpretation would create imbalance.

Exhaltia wrote:

The reason why this rule is here is basically saying that if you're using a two-handed weapon you don't get an "off-hand attack" in addition to your regular attacks based on BAB because that would be OP.

HA!

LOL

Um... I'm going to take this unintelligible guffawing to mean that you don't agree, but look at what else is around this equipment combo. What equipment combo for a TWF would this even equal to? When one choice is clearly superior then it is too powerful and needs to be rebalanced. Simply put, you can't have the best of both worlds.

Edit - I do want to point out that the usefulness of spikes is still there, for instance you can still threaten within 5 feet if you have them equipped and are also using a reach weapon, just as if you're using an unarmed strike with improved unarmed.

Exhaltia wrote:

yeti1069 wrote:

Quandary wrote:

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

I have to say that when the rules worked as I thought they did (see the peek into my mind earlier) then everything else fell into place with no problems whatsoever.

Which seems like a pretty good guideline for rules interpretation, if one interpretation means a bunch of other mechanics need separate clarification that's probably not the best interpretation. Of course, if it's truly urgent for balance you have to do what you have to do, but Paizo doesn't seem to be saying that.

I share these opinions.

Honestly, it always seemed clear to ME that it was entirely possible to two-hand one weapon and use TWF for that and a "handless" weapon, because I took the main- and off-hand attack language to basically mean primary and secondary attack, which doesn't cause any of the problems this FAQ ruling has.

The problem is that does cause problems, balance problems. However as a house-ruling a DM might say "Ok, but you choose STR and a half on main hand, or STR on main and half STR on off-hand," and then only because of the extra penalties involved.

Edit- That's only straight up, doesn't even think about "what happens when power attack gets involved." So on 2nd examination, the ruling for 2H plus no hand weapon does require clarification for other rules... unseen consequences perhaps... but sometimes things clear to one person might not be to another due to the differences in thinking processes.

Except that it DOESN'T cause balance problems. There are so many ways in the game to get more attacks, and more than 1.5x Str in round before level 6, that this CANNOT possibly be viewed as a balance issue unless you also want to start going to change natural attacks and Flurry of Blows, and all sorts of class features, racial traits, feats and magic items to dial everything back a few notches.

Level 1 monk gets 2d6+2x Str in the round.
Several races can add a bit attack to that for another 1/2...

You forget to mention the fact that these things you're talking about are all class features, or feats, and also were added much later in the game than this particular quandary. Plus you never even addressed the issue with power attack, does the main-hand get a +3 bonus and the "off-hand" get a +1? How is that balanced? A two-weapon fighter with a longsword (or bastard) plus a short sword who would get +2 and +1. So now the guy with a great sword and armor spikes gets 2d6 + (STR x 1/2) +3 and 1d6 + STR + 1. Longsword 1d8 + STR + 2 and swordsword 1d6 + (STR x 1/2) +1. What's the difference in feats for that math? None, clearly every single TWF ever should choose 2H plus armor spikes because it's a superior choice in every mathematical way possible.

Quandary wrote:

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

I have to say that when the rules worked as I thought they did (see the peek into my mind earlier) then everything else fell into place with no problems whatsoever.

Which seems like a pretty good guideline for rules interpretation, if one interpretation means a bunch of other mechanics need separate clarification that's probably not the best interpretation. Of course, if it's truly urgent for balance you have to do what you have to do, but Paizo doesn't seem to be saying that.

I share these opinions.

Honestly, it always seemed clear to ME that it was entirely possible to two-hand one weapon and use TWF for that and a "handless" weapon, because I took the main- and off-hand attack language to basically mean primary and secondary attack, which doesn't cause any of the problems this FAQ ruling has.

The problem is that does cause problems, balance problems. However as a house-ruling a DM might say "Ok, but you choose STR and a half on main hand, or STR on main and half STR on off-hand," and then only because of the extra penalties involved.

Edit- That's only straight up, doesn't even think about "what happens when power attack gets involved." So on 2nd examination, the ruling for 2H plus no hand weapon does require clarification for other rules... unseen consequences perhaps... but sometimes things clear to one person might not be to another due to the differences in thinking processes.

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

James,

Ugh.. these rules are giving me a headache. It is so terribly poorly put together. This is quickly rising to the top of the list of things I had cleaned up in Pathfinder.

Jason

Jason,

First thanks for the answer to mine and a lot of other questions.

Second I think that this mess really is a nice place to have the dev team's full touch and look forward to what comes from it.

Lastly, on the order for TWF and 'descending order' for BAB.. I've often wondered if there was a real reason for this rule, if the reason is now outdated, and if it's even known at this point. I would think that letting someone take one weapon's iteratives before the other weapon's top attack would invalidate most of what I see as the potential mechanical reasons for it. Regardless, it seemed like a thing to question as rules shouldn't exist just because they 'always' have.

Best of luck with all of this, and thank you again,

James

I believe the reason for this rule is not about this rule, but about other parts of the game that this balances. For instance True Strike is the one that jumps out right away.

True Strike- You gain temporary, intuitive insight into the immediate future during your next attack. Your next single attack roll (if it is made before the end of the next round) gains a +20 insight bonus. Additionally, you are not affected by the miss chance that applies to attackers trying to strike a concealed target.

If you could choose the order in which the attacks happened you should choose your worst first since it would then get a +20 to the attack roll.

On the other hand; that would make true strike significantly more useful.

I don't see anything as needing clarification.

The original question from the FAQ refers to "off-hand attack" as in the attack made using an off-hand weapon in the case of TWF. Can you THF and TWF at the same? No, you can't. Can you use it as a weapon for your second attack granted by a high BAB even though you're using a two-handed weapon? Yes, since the "weapon" in this case is equipped (though not literally in a hand) however, if you're using a two-hander that's a terrible choice since it would do less damage plus STR instead of the damage of a two-handed weapon (> 1d6) plus STR+1/2. The reason why this rule is here is basically saying that if you're using a two-handed weapon you don't get an "off-hand attack" in addition to your regular attacks based on BAB because that would be OP.

I'm not here to argue with anyone, more importantly I don't care one way or another about FP 2.0. I do want to make a few points. First of 3.0 and 3.5 were not "edition" wars. They were semi-compatible, but the 3.5 changes were completely necessary. For instance in 3.0 I found rangers completely unplayable. I'm not saying this from a players stand point, I was DMing those games, and not a single player would play a ranger as-is.

Also, I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this, but, well first of all WotC puts out a new edition every decade. That's just how it works, they like revision and fresh life. They have a niche market that way. Let Paizo live off of what someone else put all of the initial research and work into. Hell when 5.0 comes out maybe Paizo will release a "new" game called Fathpinder based off of the 4th ed DnD rules. Great for them.

More importantly though, that might just all be a moot point, the stated goal of the research being done in 5th ed DnD is actually to be, paraphrasing: "the missing link," to all of the DnD editions. With that being said, and if that is the goal and they pull it off Pathfinder may then actually be compatible with a new edition of DnD.

If someone releases a new edition of your favorite game, don't cry about it, try it and like it, or don't. Please don't be prejudice just "because it's new." This is a ridiculous human gamer practice that needs to be abolished. Rest assured that if there is enough demand for something, there will be a market for it, especially with the free gaming license. Hell, who knows, maybe I'll start designing PFRPG1 modules and adventures once PFRPG2 comes out and make a ton of money.

You're a tabletop RPG player, be creative and make up your own stuff, I know you can do it.

Wolf Hunter wrote:

While at paizo con there was a hero story about a move somone pulled off in the "master of the fallen fortress" mod being hosted by nonother then it auther Rob McCeary. It went that a fighter with an 18 str and a greatsword droped one of the tuffest opponents in the modual by hurling his blade.He did 2d6 plus 6 dmg. Rolling near max on the die and gaining X1.5 on his strenth bones to toltal.

I dont know about spears but here it DID apply here. Hope this helps.

Makes sense with the great sword, it's an over-the-head throw, like with a soccer ball, and going end over end.

Now if someone tried throwing something like a spear two-handed at my table, I'd half both the range and the strength bonus.

This is a short-sighted and stupid thing to say. While, yes, it wouldn't make sense to literally have two hands on the shaft of a spear while throwing it, using your other arms to steady yourself and to actually throw it properly would be using both hands, when, comparatively, a flick of a wrist, or bicep is all that is required to throw a smaller, or "one-handed" weapon.

That's not to also mention the increased weight, and thus force, of the weapon.

So, balance and game-rule wise it also makes sense. You can throw two one-handed weapons as a full-round action applying STR damage bonus to the main-hand and 1/2 STR damage bonus to the other, you only take the two-weapon fighting penalty that normally applies, and can even get more attacks with quick-draw and a full-round action with a high base attack bonus.

Comparatively, you have to use a full-round action to throw a "two-handed" thrown weapon (whether or not both hands are on the weapon), you should get weapon damage plus 1 1/2 times STR damage bonus.

There are two important balance reasons for this, for one, will have over all less damage potential, but better average damage (just like duel wielding vs two-hand wielding) because you'll hit more often, but have less over all potential for damage rolls. The second point is that there is only potential for one attack as levels progress (without taking a special feat to, say, make two-hand throwing a standard action, and quick-draw) vs multiple attacks (with just quick-draw).

So overall 2-handed thrown damage:

Pros: More accurate than duel-wield throwing, fewer weapons to purchase since fewer things needed to be thrown, better a lower levels

Cons: Limited number of attacks, less mobility options (no move actions).