Thiles Targon's page

I can’t believe this post is still going on, let me just re-iterate again (stamp out and eliminate all redundancies, see what I did there), since it seems like most of the replies are from people who have not read anything I have posted after the first post. I was convinced by the first reply and reading the FAQ and the huge post on this topic from a year ago that the off-hand damage penalty is (now) the TWF penalty. My question then was is there anything clearer on the subject other than the FAQ, which I have asked like 5 times now, to which most people have told me to read then FAQ and have I read the posts, which is rather ironic.

I have also been presented the same usual evidence over and over and over, much of which is not true, circular or irrelevant, which I have responded to.

Basically the damage section makes an un-qualified statement that off-hand does ½ strength damage, the TWF fighting section says the extra attack you get when you wield a weapon in your off hand has these to-hit penalties. You can either assume the damage penalty is for using your off-hand, and not TWF, since that is pretty much what the rules say, or you can say off-hand only exists when TWF and therefore, despite the common meaning of the words, and without further text defining the words differently, the damage penalty is for TWF, even though it is never mentioned in the TWF section.
Then the FAQ comes along and says you don’t take TWF penalties when using iterative attacks with both hands, well okay the only penalty I have seen mentioned in regard to TWF is the to-hit penalty.

Question and responses we get

Off hand is only mention in the TWF section, not true.

This has been the rule for 10 years. Not true, the devs and others may have thought that, but it is clearly not what the rules say.

Why would anyone think there is handedness in the game? Because, it’s mentioned in the game.

If there is handedness how do you determine it? You pick it.

My favorite If you are correct then why don't the rules tell you how to determine which hand is the off-hand when it is not your turn? What?? I roll a d12 and subtract 7. This is a typical circular argument, only meaningful to either side if they are correct. I pick which hand is my off-hand like my hair color, which also stays the same throughout my turn and after my turn.

Everybody in pathfinder is ambidextrous. I guess that’s why the rule talks about off-hand

You're looking for an explicit statement that a rules element pertinent to TWF and TWF doesn't apply outside of TWF – no I’m looking for a statement that the element you assume is only pertinent to TWF is only pertinent to TWF, another circular argument.

They can’t waste time and space putting a statement in the rulebooks that goes without saying. Well certainly a statement which is not said goes without saying. It’s a 550 page rule book they have plenty of room, It would not even take any room, how about saying "Extra attacks made when TWF: When you deal damage with your extra attack when TWF, you add only 1/2 your Strength bonus. If you have a Strength penalty, the entire penalty applies." Rather than "Off-Hand Weapon: When you deal damage with a weapon in your off hand, you add only 1/2 your Strength bonus. If you have a Strength penalty, the entire penalty applies."

If you only draw one weapon and it happens to be your defending weapon, does the damage that weapon applies depend upon which hand you're wielding that weapon with? It’s assumed your using you main hand unless you say otherwise, and pre-faq RAW if you choose your off-hand it would do ½ strength damage.

Thiles Targon wrote:

@Kazaan - I don’t know why you have to be insulting.

I don't know why, either. But then, considering I wasn't being insulting, that's understandable. Maybe you shouldn't take non-insulting statements as being insulting. You're looking for an explicit statement that a rules element pertinent to TWF and TWF only doesn't apply outside of TWF. You got the closest you're going to get in the FAQ response. As far as the book goes, they figured that it went without saying that your off-hand is only a factor in the context of TWF. No where in the description of Full-Attack does it say you're limited to making your normal iterative attacks with a single weapon. It just says if you want to make extra attacks with an off-hand weapon, it's TWF and there are specific rules for that. In short, they're not going to waste time and space putting a statement in the rulebooks that goes without saying. If someone really needs it spelled out for them in order to comprehend it, this is far too complex of a game for them and they should try something more appropriate. That's not an insult, it's an objective statement; like saying that the game of Chess is too complex of a game for a 1 years old child and they should play a more appropriate game. That's not offensive to the child but an objective statement of their intellectual capacity.

Telling someone they have half a brain or the intellect of a 1 year old is an insult to people that actually have half a brain, just so you know. May not have been clear… just sayin.

Thank Durngrun I was just about to point that out. at no time in the FAQ is the example physical switch weapon to a different hand.

Edit I found this for your here from James Jacobs on the subject

Link

This is exactly what I was looking for, thanks for answering the question I was asking!

LazarX wrote:

The Morphling wrote:

Bane says nothing about it being an "effective bonus." It literally says "Against a designated foe, the weapon's enhancement bonus is +2 better than its actual bonus."

I would rule that, based on this language, the additional +2 can be applied to AC... but that bonus to AC would only apply to attacks by the designated foe.

That's pretty awesome, actually. Talk about flavorful rules interactions.

On the other hand since the power is "BANE" over your enemies, not protect your sorry butt, the enhancement for bane MUST be used for offense.

It don't say that anywhere in the rules. So it is your opinion as a GM.

I don't like much the idea as I think it can create some confusion and maybe slow down the game, but it seem perfectly within the rules.

I don't think The Morphling was being serious

Being impossible to hit would still make you the Bane of your enemies :)

Bane says nothing about it being an "effective bonus." It literally says "Against a designated foe, the weapon's enhancement bonus is +2 better than its actual bonus."

I would rule that, based on this language, the additional +2 can be applied to AC... but that bonus to AC would only apply to attacks by the designated foe.

That's pretty awesome, actually. Talk about flavorful rules interactions.

It's funny yesterday while I was mowing the lawn I came to the same conclusion. "Lets see, you decide at the start of your turn, before bane can really even kick in, how to divvy up the +3 (in my case), so I guess you can't set the extra +2 to defense. Oh wait, but then when you fight the orc the +3 is +5 hmm... no body else would buy that, kinda cool though"

@Thiles Targon

Another way of looking at this is, where in the rules does it say to decide or determine whether your character is left or right handed? Are there any rules for using skills with an off-hand? Or taking any other actions with an off-hand?

Yes the rules say the off-hand attacks get 0.5 strength on damage, but the only mention of when you make an off-hand attack is in the rules on doing TWF.

Now I understand where you are coming from, in the real world and under normal English rules we can understand that my right hand (me being left handed) would be my off hand. However there are no rules on Pathfinder to suggest on character creation a player should choose a handedness, nor a designation that the other hand is then the off hand.

Given then that TWF is the only place where it mentions what an off-hand attack is (the off-hand strength damage section doesn't define what an off-hand attack is), that is indeed the only place where we are making an off-hand attack.

Just to reiterate I don’t need convincing at this point. By the way I was convinced by the first post that you could choose which hand is primary each attack, and then found the long series of posts and read them, at that point I was just curious if in the year since the FAQ, if Paizo had put out anything clearer about this and the things that keep getting said, like everyone is ambidextrous. Then a bunch of people reply some saying nasty things (not you) and untrue things and asking questions like “how could anyone possibly believe blah blah blah”, so I answered the questions, and tried to make it clear I’m not debating this.

LazarX wrote:

Orfamay Quest wrote:

LazarX wrote:

Here's the question... Why do you want to attack in this way?

Different weapon type? If I have a longsword in one hand and a hammer in the other, and I'm fighting a creature like a skeleton with DR/bludgeoning, for example.

Than why have the longsword out? with a non zero BAB, you can draw while moving and I've always believed in having one hand free for unexpected contingencies.

Possibly because there are other opponents that I might want to use the longsword on, perhaps with an attack of opportunity. While I agree that preparing for unexpected contingencies is a good thing, one shouldn't neglect expected contingency planning either.

I’m TWF and have a defending weapon in my off-hand, when I take just a standard attack (normally after moving to engage), I would use that hand to allow the defensive bonus to kick in, but don’t want the lower hit chance in my more damaging hand during subsequent full attack actions.

Thiles Targon wrote:

This may have been answered before but I could not find it.

I’m dual wielding, the first round of combat is frequently just a standard attack. If I choose to take that attack with my off-hand, is there a penalty (other than the lower str damage)? I’m not TWF, but I’m striking with my less talented hand.

Here's the question... Why do you want to attack in this way?

I’m TWF and have a defending weapon in my off-hand, when I take just a standard attack (normally after moving to engage), I would use that hand to allow the defensive bonus to kick in, but don’t want the lower hit chance in my more damaging hand during subsequent full attack actions.

If the rules don't say the other hand does less damage then it does not. The only place it mentions an off-hand is for TWF because it is a special attack, making it a special case.

The FAQ says there is no penalty if you do not TWF.

The only time a penalty comes is when you use an off-hand attack.

So tell me how are you getting to an off-hand without TWF'ing?

Not true in the section of the rules on how to calculate damage it says off-hand does 1/2 strength damage.

"Off-Hand Weapon: When you deal damage with a weapon in your off hand, you add only 1/2 your Strength bonus. If you have a Strength penalty, the entire penalty applies."

I'm not sure why someone reading the rules would conclude this is only for TWF. This is something I have seen repeated over and over "The only place it mentions an off-hand is for TWF" not true, unless you engage in a tautology, off-hand is for TWF only therefore the section of the rules that seem to apply to all combat only apply to TWF because they mention off-hand which is only for TWF. In fact in my case, I keep getting told to look at the TWF section, which I have, but why would I, I’m not TWF, so I look at the damage section.

The FAQ says you take none of the to-hit penalties for TWF when you are not TWF. It is silent on damage, unless there is a FAQ I'm missing. If you read the damage section is seems to clearly say there is a damage penalty for off-hand attacks, not for TWF, for off-hand attacks, therefore the damage penalty should apply when taking an iterative attack with the off-hand.

I think many if not most people reading the rules would conclude, off-hands do 1/2 strength damage whenever you attack with them (cause that is what it says in the damage section). If you use TWF there are to-hit penalties that can be overcome by feats. You also only do 1/2 strength damage with the extra attacks, because you use your off-hand, not because you are TWF.

You seem to be asking me why someone would come to this conclusion so I'm explaining it, it is the most natural reading of the rules in my opinion, but again I'm not really interested in the debate, I have read the other debates and the FAQs. I was just interested to see if Pazio has come out with something clearer and specifically; does it say directly anywhere, off-hand only exists for TWF, or everyone in the Pathfinder world is ambidextrous or whichever hand, right or left, deals damage during a standard attack, you get the full damage bonus, so I can show other people at the table

@ Kazaan - The post you are replying to was to Redneckdevil, I had not read your yet. I would not have thanked you for insulting me.

@Kazaan - I don’t know why you have to be insulting.

In the combat section of the rules under calculating damage (not some special TWF section) it says off-hand attacks do ½ strength damage, I put the entire quote in my last post. It does not say off-hand only exists for TWF, I don’t know why anyone would assume that, since most of us have off-hands and would assume if this departed from the actual definition that it would be mentioned. To say they can’t include 1 phrase in a 550 page rule book is ridiculous, in fact removing the off-hand damage calculation from the combat section would make the rules shorter and clearer. But see I’m getting pulled into the debate.

I don’t want to debate, I’m just wondering, does it say anywhere directly, off-hand only exists for TWF, everyone in pathfinder world is ambidextrous or better yet whichever hand, right or left, deals damage during a standard attack, you get the full damage bonus. It looks like this has been debated for years, I just thought maybe Pazio put out a couple sentences about it in a FAQ or newer rulebook that I was not aware of that I could show other people.

Sounds like the answer is no.

Thanks for your response, truly, but...

You are saying something that is not stated in the rules directly. I don't need to be convinced that the rules are this way, I need to be able to convince the other people at the table the rules are this way, with a concise direct quote from the rules or FAQ. If it does not exist, it does not exist, but does it say anywhere directly, off hand only exists for TWF, everyone in pathfinder world is ambidextrous, or better yet, during a standard attack whichever hand you use deals full strength damage.

I have read all the FAQ and the rules sections you are talking about and hundreds of posts.

Where does it say “The "off hand" exists only whilst two weapon fighting.“

Where does it say “everyone in pathfinder world is ambidextrous”

The FAQ quoted says nothing about damage, only that iterative attacks don’t take TWF penalties, nothing about offhand damage penalty. The portion of the FAQ that talks about TWF does talk about damage. I don’t know what the FAW BBT posted is.

I’m TWF and have a defending weapon in my off-hand, when I take just a standard attack, I would use that hand to allow the defensive bonus to kick in. When I add my full strength bonus to damage the GM and others are going to ask me why. When I say “everyone in the pathfinder world is ambidextrous, and there is no off-hand unless TWF” they are going to laugh and ask where it says that, cause look it clearly says in the damage calc section of the rule book, “Off-Hand Weapon: When you deal damage with a weapon in your off hand, you add only 1/2 your Strength bonus.” When I say "that only applies to TWF", they will laugh again and say, "It doesn't say that". When I say, "well here read these 20 pages of posts and FAQ that make it clear that due to my invisible hands I get full damage, even though it never says it in plain English anywhere", they are going to laugh harder.

I don’t want to open this whole can of worms again, I’m just wondering, does it say anywhere directly, off hand only exists for TWF, everyone in pathfinder world is ambidextrous, or better yet, during a standard attack whichever hand you use deals full strength damage.

I don’t want to open a can of worms that has been hashed out many times, but I don’t see in any of the rules citations, or the FAQ I looked at where offhand only exists for TWF. Is there a rule citation, or errata, or FAQ or is it just the consensus of the forums? The rule reference on how to calculate damage lists main hand, offhand and 2 hands, it does not label the offhand as only applying for TWF.

Thanks again!

I think this makes sense, but is this in the rules or FAQ somewhere? I have never seen a distinction between effective pluses and actual enhancement bonuses before.

If I have a +3 Orc bane weapon with defending, and I’m fighting an Orc, for purposes of defending is the weapon +5 or +3 (I’m an inquisitor with a defending weapon so this comes up all the time).

There is no penalty. Even your strength is calculated normally.

Unless you use TWF to get an extra attack, there is no "off hand"

There's even a FAQ entry about it here

Thanks. I did not see anything specifically about the str mod not applying. It implies you can choose which hand is your primary and I have read threads where it is said the offhand does not exist unless you TWF, but I can’t find that rule either, do you know where this is spelled out.

This may have been answered before but I could not find it.

I’m dual wielding, the first round of combat is frequently just a standard attack. If I choose to take that attack with my off-hand, is there a penalty (other than the lower str damage)? I’m not TWF, but I’m striking with my less talented hand.

@Khrysaor I don't think removing 4 or 5 feats is a fair amount of work.

The problem is not just the magic shops, magic items are too easy to make in Pathfinder. The players don’t need to find a magic shop to get items they can just make them. You would need to remove the magic shops, and change the craft rules. You could add the experience requirement from 3.5 back in, or eliminate the craft feats you don’t like, maybe scribe scroll and craft potion are ok with you, but craft ring is not. Or keep all the feats but add a house rule that crafters can only make an item worth 500 gp per cast level.

If the hair is your ONLY natural attack, then it is treated as a primary attack. No penalty to attack with it and 1.5 strength (replaced by int) damage.

Quote:

Most creatures possess one or more natural attacks (attacks made without a weapon). These attacks fall into one of two categories, primary and secondary attacks. Primary attacks are made using the creature’s full base attack bonus and add the creature’s full Strength bonus on damage rolls. Secondary attacks are made using the creature’s base attack bonus –5 and add only 1/2 the creature’s Strength bonus on damage rolls. If a creature has only one natural attack, it is always made using the creature’s full base attack bonus and adds 1-1/2 times the creature’s Strength bonus on damage rolls. This increase does not apply if the creature has multiple attacks but only takes one. If a creature has only one type of attack, but has multiple attacks per round, that attack is treated as a primary attack, regardless of its type.

The text for the ability says "Her hair has reach 10 feet, and she can

use it as a secondary natural attack", so it's a secondary attack, no attack penalty, .5 strength bonus.

@ Corbin Dallas Are you really saying a person who is helpless can wield a weapon? So a sleeping person can wield a weapon?

Helpless: A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent's mercy. A helpless target is treated as having a Dexterity of 0 (–5 modifier). Melee attacks against a helpless target get a +4 bonus (equivalent to attacking a prone target). Ranged attacks get no special bonus against helpless targets. Rogues can sneak attack helpless targets.

I would say it does not. The general point of AoO is you are not focused on the person if you move away, unless it is all you concentrate on (full withdrawal) or you back away very slowly (5’ step). If you are pushed back by a spell, you can still be focused on your opponents.

You could argue, the force of the spell forces you to let your guard down, but in other situations where you are disadvantaged, like being knocked prone etc, stunned etc, you don’t provoke, so I don’t know why you would here.

Chemlak - By the way used the spreadsheet last night worked great!

I added a sheet for tracking purchases and such that automatically handles the kingdom sheet (total farms etc) I can send it to you if you like

I kind of agree with you, but it seems like pretty tortuous language, if that is what they meant, it seems like they could have said something clearer, like “This cost reduction applies only to the first constructed building.”

Can I choose not to take the discount on the first building? For example skip the 6 point library savings if I build a library first, when I want to save the discount for a magic shop I intend to build later and save 30+? As written it looks like no.

The other problem I have with this whole thing, by having the discount get used up (under either interpretation) means you have to track it, which over the long haul is a total pain, I guess less so with the one building period.

Chemlak - Actually it sounds like you and the elf disagree. He is saying you get one of each free. It sounds like you are saying just one building.

"This cost reduction applies only to the first constructed building of the types listed in the line."

For example an academy has casters tower, library, and magic shop listed for discount. Does that mean the first library the first casters tower and the first magic shop are half cost, or only the first building period?

The spreadsheet looks awesome! I was working from a version 2 one.

I pulled the values for the buildings out to their own sheet, so changing the values in one spot effects all city sheets

I have also added a sheet called months where you can track what you did each month, and keeps a running total of BPs based on improvements you build, and also feeds into the kingdom page.

It's actually where the aqueduct question came from. If aqueducts give a flat +1/+1, I was going to put them with the buildings rather than the terrain improvements.

Thanks again for all your help.

Ah 95 miles, I just took 12 squared and rounded.

I have modified an old kingmaker spreadsheet with the new values, are you saying your working on a new one?

RuyanVe - It says under filling Item Slots "This item's price cannot exceed the base value for the settlement (reroll if the items price exceeds...)" Are you saying that has been officially changed?

Buri - "There are a set number and type of magic items for each city based on its size"

"The only items in the city available for purchase above that base limit are those set items"

Are the set items you refer to the slots from the buildings? I have not seen anything about items based on city size. I have only read chapter 4 though.

The rules say you can find an item with a value less than the town’s value 75% of the time. It also limits the value of items produced by buildings to the town’s value. This seems a little counter intuitive. What is the point of a major or medium slot when most of the things it produces, it can’t produce. Has there been any clarification of this.

You could easily house rule it, but I’m a little surprised something as important as magic items don’t have a more detailed treatment, perhaps you can get item ½ value 95% of the time twice value 50% and thrice 25% of the time. And perhaps value x10 for item slots. Am I missing something in the rules, or clarified on the forums or FAQ?

Chemlak - Good points.

Yeah I think a hex is around 150 sq miles and a city district is 1 sq mile.

"While there is no explicit statement anywhere in the rules about terrain improvements and settlements"
The only thing I saw was indirect, the building stockyard says it improve farms in it's hex, which means a farm in a city hex.

Thanks for all your help! Only have 2 more questions for now.

Can you put a farm, a road, or for that matter any * item in the same hex as a city. I know there was a thread about that, but I can’t find it. In any event I was wondering if people’s opinions have changed now that the rules have been around a little longer. Under stock house it says it increase the consumption decrease of any adjacent farm or farm in the same hex, which seems to support it, but the sentence may not have been thought through.

I think it’s a no-brainer that a road can go in the same hex as a city, so It seems to me you should be able to put the * stuff with a city, but I would treat the city like the non * stuff, a mine, quarry, sawmill or city in the same hex and any * items. The only exception are the ones that have building equivalents, so no fort or watch tower (I can’t find the text that says what a fort becomes if you found a city, but I know I have read it.)

Just to be clear, your interpretation and mine are the same correct?

"I think they meant something like, you put all the * stuff in a hex And a sawmill Or a quarry Or a mine."

You must build them from a hill or mountain to a settlement. Effect +1 Loyalty and +1 Stability.

If the aqueduct is 3 hexes long do I get +3 loyalty and +3 Stability or +1 Loyalty and +1 Stability, i.e. is the bonus per hex like the other terrain improvements, or per settlement like a building?

Can I a run a second Aqueduct from the same mountain to another city along the same path, and if I do, do I pay the cost again for the shared part of the route?

It says terrain improvements with an *can share the same hex with other improvements. So I can put an aqueduct, canal, farm, fishery, fort, road, watchtower all in the same hex, but I can’t put a road in the same hex as a mine?

I think they meant something like, you put all the * stuff in a hex and a sawmill or a quarry or a mine.

I found nothing about it in FAQ, does anyone have a better reading of this?

I can only assume invisble means "has the invisible status".

No, you could assume it means "is invisible to the observer."

A bastard sword is a two-handed weapon. It is used that way by all but the small subset of people in the world that have the special feat. Exotic weapon just means it takes an extra feat to use it one handed, it’s not a real category like melee vs ranged, one handed vs two-handed.

The exception, is when a bastard sword is used one-handed, I don’t know why you would take the exception to be the norm.

Sword, Bastard: A bastard sword is about 4 feet in length, making it too large to use in one hand without special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon.
Which does not tell us if it is a two-handed weapon or not.
Sword, Bastard: A bastard sword is about 4 feet in length, making it too large to use in one hand
If it’s not a one-handed weapon, must be a two-handed weapon.

I think it’s pretty clear invisibility does not make it so someone can’t see themselves or their gear. I think in a description that long, it would mention such a major negative effect of the spell, which is not immediately obvious. It goes out of its way to mention in the case where you cast it on someone else, that you can’t see the subject of the spell. It does not say if you cast it on yourself you can’t see yourself. I have seen several mentions of the potential hazards of multiple invisible or silenced characters in the party at the same time, but never once a discussion of the hazards of pointing your wand the wrong way since you can’t see it.

I think invisibility is the condition where others can’t see you or your gear, but you still can.

By the way if you could not see yourself, don’t you think someone would have researched an improved version where you could see yourself?

So
1) If Invisibility is cast upon you, then you are invisible. (by definition)
2) If something is invisible, then it cannot be seen, except by the subject of the invisibility. (by definition)
3) If invisibility is cast on you, you are the subject. (by definition)
4) Therefore, if someone casts Invisibility upon you, then you can see you. (from 1, 2, and 3)

Putting by definition and RAW after your arguments when the whole point is the rules are unclear does not help your argument.

@Are - That makes a lot of sense. Swift action to turn on, Free action each round to maintain or turn off. - Thanks by the way changed my avatar name this is OP

It's not a spell, Supernatural Abilities are not like spells, Spell like abilities are like spells. "Supernatural abilities are magical but not spell-like."

I have a question about Bane. It takes a swift action to activate it. Does that mean, it is then on until I turn it off? Can I decide when I turn it on to make it on until I turn it off, or just turn it on for 1 round? Does it take a swift action to turn it off?

The problem I have is, most fights I’m in; involve a couple rounds of fighting, a round or 2 of moving, 1 round of fighting a couple rounds of moving and spell casting, a couple rounds of fighting etc. I can’t afford to just leave bane up all those rounds, but I also don’t have the swift actions to spend one every round on bane. Especially with litanies to cast and judgments to fiddle with.

If I want bane up for 1 round, I use a swift action the 1st round to turn it on, and a swift action the second round to turn it off? Does that cost 2 rounds of use?

It seems to me it should take a swift action to turn it on, and a free action to turn it off. A second (worse) option would be it takes a swift action to turn it on and when you turn it on, you can declare it will be on for 1 round (no action to turn it off) or indefinitely (swift action to turn it off). Third option would be always a swift action to turn off.