| 6 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
A friend of mine insists that he can take two weapon fighting feats and use a two handed weapon for his primary and his FOOT as an "offhand" weapon. I know that you can use Two Weapon Fighting with a normal weapon and armor spikes, but that is different because armor spikes are a weapon that have rules which specifically supersede other rules.
my argument against him is that he can use a foot to make an unarmed strike, even if his hands are full, because it says you can, you can use an unarmed strike with your offhand because it says you can, but you CAN'T use your FOOT as an "offhand" for the purpose of two weapon or multiweapon fighting, and if you could then every fighter would take multiweapon fighting and use his falchion along with two kicks and a headbutt at low levels, dragons would take an extra two attacks with their back legs and basilisks?... man... don't even get me started about giant centipedes.
But then I thought I could be wrong. Maybe the creators of the game will say something like "Well... when we say 'offhand' we don't really mean HAND, we mean anything that you could conceivably attack with, like a foot or a wing (if your a flying character) or whatever, in which case I would love to see a build with a half dragon rogue that gets EIGHT ATTACKS PER TURN! I would totally play that character.
|
A friend of mine insists that he can take two weapon fighting feats and use a two handed weapon for his primary and his FOOT as an "offhand" weapon.
Nope.
You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your
hands. You can make one extra attack each round with the
secondary weapon.
Prerequisite: Dex 15.
Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with
two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand
lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6. See
Two-Weapon Fighting in Chapter 8.
“Each of your hands” is pretty clear. Unless there is specific over-writing rule (such as armor spikes or a monk’s special unarmed ability), then having both hands full prevents it right off the bat—let alone trying to finagle something with a two-handed attack in the “primary” slot.
Ok, but by my reckoning a character with a bite could still use a headbutt as an unarmed strike, IF that is, any other character can use a headbutt to make an unarmed strike even if they have no natural weapons on their head.
The reason why I bring this up is because the rules on unarmed strike in the combat section refer to headbutts but not monks, but then again they may just be referring to the monk implicitly.
If this is the case then it would explain a lot, and eliminate a lot of apparent optimization opportunities for doing things like dealing 16 points of strength damage at level 10, with a rogue's crippling strike, as opposed to 11 points with a maximized ray of enfeeblement... that would just be silly.
IIRC, it's stated that unarmed attacks can be done with hands or feet even as a non-monk, it's only elbows and the other more "odd" ways to attack that are specific for the monk.
And when you look at multi-attack feet and natural attacks it shows situations where on a full round action a creature with claw attacks as secondary attacks can make full round unarmed attacks, with claws and bite, as long as a different limb is used for the unarmed attacks than there natural attack limbs.
Unless your friend has some Monk levels or another way of boosting his unarmed strike damage the kicks probably won't hurt much. I think unarmed strikes do 1d3 damage, right? Meanwhile armor spikes could do 1d6 and are easier to enchant.
The other problem with this fighting style is that most PCs don't have both the Dex for TWF and the Str to take full advantage of a two-handed weapon. I guess a Monk/Ranger with the TWF style might not be bad. I wonder if there's anything you can sacrifice flurry of blows for. I guess being a Zen Archer would help you round out your abilities a little.
You CAN however 2WF with a two-handed weapon and armor spikes as far as I understand the rules. Slightly different flavor, similar mechanics. If you want to adjust the flavor, just say he has spikes on his armored boots instead of the rest of the armor. I don't see why that can't work.
Core rulebook page 182.
Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following...
Core rulebook page 202.
Two-Weapon Fighting
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in two ways. First, if your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered
light.
There's nothing in either that precludes this behaviour. Go ahead and use a greatsword as your primary weapon and your foot as a secondary weapon. That being said, the rules are clear for primary and secondary weapons and the damage they deal. You only get 1x Str modifier on the primary weapon. That being said, there are still tactics and reasons why this might be desired.
Related: I've got a 5th-level fighter I'm playing right now who is a high-AC bow-user. He provokes frequently, using his bow up close. He's got Improved Unarmed Strike specifically so he threatens (with his feet etc) so he's useful as a flanking buddy. Yes, a ranged-attack anvil.
Core rulebook page 182.
Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following...Core rulebook page 202.
Two-Weapon Fighting
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in two ways. First, if your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered
light.There's nothing in either that precludes this behaviour. Go ahead and use a greatsword as your primary weapon and your foot as a secondary weapon. That being said, the rules are clear for primary and secondary weapons and the damage they deal. You only get 1x Str modifier on the primary weapon. That being said, there are still tactics and reasons why this might be desired.
Related: I've got a 5th-level fighter I'm playing right now who is a high-AC bow-user. He provokes frequently, using his bow up close. He's got Improved Unarmed Strike specifically so he threatens (with his feet etc) so he's useful as a flanking buddy. Yes, a ranged-attack anvil.
I like this reading, it makes sense!
Additionally, I still think there needs to be a feat or chain of feats, or at least a class feature to eliminate the AoO from firing a ranged weapon. Meh, that's what houserules are for I guess.
Point-Blank Master (Combat)
Do not provoke attacks of opportunity while firing one ranged weapon
Prequisitites: Weapon Specialization with a ranged weapon
Benefit: Choose one type of ranged weapon. You do not provoke attacks of opportunity when firing the selected weapon while threatened.
Normal: Using a ranged weapon while you are threatened provokes attacks of opportunity.
Special: Starting at 6th level, a ranger with the archery combat style may select Point Blank Master as a combat style feat, but he must have Weapon Focus instead of Weapon Specialization in the selected weapon.
Source: Advanced Player's Guide
unfortuanetly this is mostly a fighter build feat....tho I seem to recall somewhere some other class getting access to weapon specialization but it escapes me.
Point-Blank Master (Combat)
Do not provoke attacks of opportunity while firing one ranged weapon
Prequisitites: Weapon Specialization with a ranged weapon
Benefit: Choose one type of ranged weapon. You do not provoke attacks of opportunity when firing the selected weapon while threatened.
Normal: Using a ranged weapon while you are threatened provokes attacks of opportunity.
Special: Starting at 6th level, a ranger with the archery combat style may select Point Blank Master as a combat style feat, but he must have Weapon Focus instead of Weapon Specialization in the selected weapon.
Source: Advanced Player's Guideunfortuanetly this is mostly a fighter build feat....tho I seem to recall somewhere some other class getting access to weapon specialization but it escapes me.
Monk: Zen Archer or Weapon Master
Obviously PBM benefits the Zen Archer more than the Weapon Master, but Weapon Master can still use it with.. sling, shuriken, spear.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Special: Starting at 6th level, a ranger with the archery combat style may select Point Blank Master as a combat style feat, but he must have Weapon Focus instead of Weapon Specialization in the selected weapon."
Don't forget this part!
If it is fun and won't completely unbalance things, why look for a reason to keep him from doing it?
Note that if he's using a weapon in his hands and has UA prepared, he's taking TWF penalties. It's considered just another readied weapon.
==Aelryinth
You do know that you threaten when all you are holding is a bow right? You can make an improvised attack with the arrow you are holding to stab the enemy at a -4 penalty for improvised weapon and you don't provoke.Core rulebook page 182.
Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following...Core rulebook page 202.
Two-Weapon Fighting
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in two ways. First, if your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered
light.There's nothing in either that precludes this behaviour. Go ahead and use a greatsword as your primary weapon and your foot as a secondary weapon. That being said, the rules are clear for primary and secondary weapons and the damage they deal. You only get 1x Str modifier on the primary weapon. That being said, there are still tactics and reasons why this might be desired.
Related: I've got a 5th-level fighter I'm playing right now who is a high-AC bow-user. He provokes frequently, using his bow up close. He's got Improved Unarmed Strike specifically so he threatens (with his feet etc) so he's useful as a flanking buddy. Yes, a ranged-attack anvil.
No you don't. An arrow can be used as an improvised weapon, but it is assumed that it is in the ready to fire position unless you state otherwise. I know the difference between "you can" and do threaten is small but the difference is there.
|
You CAN however 2WF with a two-handed weapon and armor spikes as far as I understand the rules. Slightly different flavor, similar mechanics. If you want to adjust the flavor, just say he has spikes on his armored boots instead of the rest of the armor. I don't see why that can't work.
I would like to throw in, I'm a pretty big history channel buff and watched a program a few years back on dark ages combat tactics. The standard training for a knight was to implement a kick to the groin in between swings to get an advantage over him. This would be performed in full armor, with a two-handed weapon or even a weapon and shield.
Just thought that it might be relevant that they really did do that very thing in real life - fight with a two-handed weapon and a off-hand weapon of "kick". I allow it in my games btw.
|
BTW, I am that guy, and I still say one can attack with a two-handed weapon, and an unarmed strike, or "foot". One can do this with a blade boot, why not a foot? It's best to see one's body, or unarmed strike, as just another weapon, when thinking about it rules-wise. You don't get multiple attacks with it, unless you have some ability that allows you to do so, like a high BAB.
If you do something like make it an improvised weapon, you complicate it, because now, it can be used with the catch off guard feat. It has no need to be balanced, that's already been done, and unless one has three hands, there will be no PCs taking the multiweapon fighting feat.
Think about it, you don't have to be a martial artist to kick someone, why make it so?
It doesn't defy logic, it doesn't break balance, it isn't outside the rules, it's flavorful, and if it is fun for a character to do, why take away that fun? I can fight with a dead gnome(improvised weapon), a giant needle(injection spear), or a metal beard stuck to my face(barbazu's beard), but I need years of special training to kick a guy?
Now, that's just silly.
|
|
As long as you are just using the kick to do damage, IMO there is little issue with it. The problem is future development. What if you do obtain a blade-boot, and then enchant it with various magic like Keen, energy damage, wounding, etc. That could significantly improve the damage potential and could lead the GM to be weary of allowing in the first place. Also, the kick could be used a a "bonus" trip attack each round. The GM might feel that is problematic to allow you to trip and do damage each round without having to take the Greater Trip feat. And combine it with Greater Trip and it becomes really effective. Take your iterative attacks with the sword, then use you TWF attack to trip. When the target is down, you get a "bonus" attack. Sounds pretty cool to me, but YMMV.
I'm not pro/con on this topic, just saying it might be part of the GM's fear. As a GM, when a player wants to do something that feels borderline or outside of RAW, I try to forecast how it could be used to break the game and then decide with that in mind.
|
I think Anguish bolded the wrong part of the rule, ignoring the feat description and the normal action that the feat applies to:
Core rulebook page 202.
Two-Weapon Fighting (Combat)You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands. You can make one extra attack each round with the secondary weapon.
Prerequisite: Dex 15.
Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6. See Two-Weapon Fighting in Combat.
Normal: If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. When fighting in this way you suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand. If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light.
The trouble with allowing two-handed weapons and armour spikes/unarmed/whatever without penalty is one of balance. Two-handed weapons do as much as double damage compared to two light weapons. If you add a non-monk unarmed strike or armour spike attack into the mix, you end up with more damage potential than the person the feat was designed for (the longsword/shortsword combo fighter). In fact, their damage potential is about the same as a bastard sword/short sword fighter (an additional feat) or a longsword/longsword fighter (an additional -2/-2 to hit).
Because it balances, I would allow that attack mode as if the off-hand weapon were not light, with an new feat to remove that penalty available that would have TWF as a prerequisite.
Bringing Monks into it is a red herring because flurry of blows is explicit about what weapons can be mixed in as part of the flurry.
I like this. It's flavorful, realistic, and sounds like fun. I would allow it, but I would want specifics and at least a little investment.
If you're going two-handed, it's gonna require some kind of feat to pull off. Maybe TWF or Imp Unarmed Strike. If the fighter is going with a one-handed weapon, I'd probably just allow the kick at a -5, or allow him to take TWF for it as normal.
Also, does armor have to be specified? Must one wear greaves or some other armored boot to perform this? I assume the damage is is intended to be equal to a gauntlet attack (1d3) plus half Strength (for off hand). I would probably allow full Str damage because of the extra mechanical advantage the legs have over the arms, but seeing it in action may change my opinion.
Awesome thread. I really like this idea.
|
|
It does not break balance, it needs no additional rules to make it work. If it is not broken, why fix it? It's not even something that breaks the suspension of disbelief, to rule otherwise actually does do this, and adds complication when none is needed.
Example: The evil wizard kneels, bound in ropes by the heroes."This is not over fools!" the wizard hisses. The mighty fighter walks over to the wizard, "That's what you think" he replies as he points his mighty greatsword at the wizard, then proceeds to kick him in the face. Enter DM, "I am sorry, your fighter cannot do that, as you are not a monk, you can only make an unarmed strike with a fist, even if I were to allow you to do so, you cannot do it while wielding a two-handed weapon". Fighter responds "What?!". End example.
As I have said, the unarmed strike is simply another weapon when it comes to combat, to try alter the way it works, or at least as I see how it works as per RAW, seems only to complicate it.
If you believe it breaks balance, ask yourself how.
If you believe it breaks suspension of disbelief, ask yourself why.
If you believe it takes something away from someone's enjoyment of the game, ask yourself who.
There are examples of RAW that do accomplish these things, but this is not one of them. I would love to see someone do this in society play, where rules are stricter beyond RAW, just to see the results.
You CAN however 2WF with a two-handed weapon and armor spikes as far as I understand the rules.No you can't. That is not what armor spikes are for. Unless you've got a third hand or some monk tricks, you've got nothing free for TWF when you're wielding a greatsword.
Armor spikes make unarmed strikes weapon strikes, do lethal damage, and allow you to attack without provoking AoO. You still get all those benefits with any unarmed strike.
A kick is listed as a type of unarmed strike.
Therefore, armor spikes make your kinks weapon strikes, do lethal damage, and allow you to attack with a kick without provoking.
To the OP, I have no issue with using multiattack or twf to use a THW to attack/kick/attack. It's not unbalancing, even if you enchant the armor spikes or boot blade. You're having to split your wealth just like any other TWF, you get MAD due to needing DEX/STR/CON on your fighter to pull it off effectively.
|
Everyone keeps quoting the phrase "off hand" and claiming it must mean your non-primary hand LITERALLY.
To those people, I have recently reviewed the Humanoid type and I noticed something. It says I have arms, legs, and a head. Even says I have to eat, sleep, and breath. No where does it say I have HANDS.
So, if you want to assume that "off hand" must be taken in the literal interpretation of the rules, you have broken your own game because no where in the humanoid description does it say that they have hands.
Now lets step back and assume "off hand" really translates to "NOT YOUR PRIMARY METHOD OF ATTACKING". If we assume and/or accept this, then what is to stop the Fighter with a greatsword, two weapon fighting, and either A) imp. unarmed strike or B) armor spikes on his shin guards, or even C) levels in Monk from 2WF with a Greatsword and one of his lower extremities?
|
|
Now lets step back and assume "off hand" really translates to "NOT YOUR PRIMARY METHOD OF ATTACKING".
The Feat rules I quoted and bolded explicitly contradict this interpretation:
"wielded in each of your hands.""primary hand"
"off hand"
"If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon."
If we assume and/or accept this, then what is to stop the Fighter with a greatsword, two weapon fighting, and either A) imp. unarmed strike or B) armor spikes on his shin guards, or even C) levels in Monk from 2WF with a Greatsword and one of his lower extremities?
There is nothing to stop any of these. Unfortunately, The Two Weapon Fighting feat explicitly refers to fighting with a weapon in each hand so by the rules as written, the attack penalty would be -4 (primary attacks)/-8(secondary attack).
It's a hard nosed ruling but if you delve into the damage per round implications, a 2-handed weapon + armour spikes/unarmed strike does more damage per round than 2-handed weapons alone or any dual wielded weapon attack options. There is purpose behind how strength modifiers apply and how much damage weapons of a certain class do and it's all pretty balanced as it is.
It takes an extra feat to step up to the amount of extra damage this option implies so it should cost a feat here as well.
Unbalancing is not the issue. My answer is a rules based answer. If you wish to modify it for home games that's your lookout.
To the OP, I have no issue with using multiattack or twf to use a THW to attack/kick/attack. It's not unbalancing, even if you enchant the armor spikes or boot blade. You're having to split your wealth just like any other TWF, you get MAD due to needing DEX/STR/CON on your fighter to pull it off effectively.
Actually, your answer is your interpretation of the rules. It's not even a very good interpretation of the rules, since you ignore the deffinition in the rules of an unarmed attack, as well as the game text about armor spikes. If you wish to house rule away the rules in the books in your game, that's fine, rule 0 and more power to you.
|
|
Everyone keeps quoting the phrase "off hand" and claiming it must mean your non-primary hand LITERALLY.
To those people, I have recently reviewed the Humanoid type and I noticed something. It says I have arms, legs, and a head. Even says I have to eat, sleep, and breath. No where does it say I have HANDS.
We have just entered crazy land. Will this winter never end? Please sun, shine on us. Let us know that we are humans, and let Reason once again take purchase before Total Madness descends.
|
|
Now lets step back and assume "off hand" really translates to "NOT YOUR PRIMARY METHOD OF ATTACKING".The Feat rules I quoted and bolded explicitly contradict this interpretation:
"wielded in each of your hands."
"primary hand"
"off hand"
"If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon."
If we assume and/or accept this, then what is to stop the Fighter with a greatsword, two weapon fighting, and either A) imp. unarmed strike or B) armor spikes on his shin guards, or even C) levels in Monk from 2WF with a Greatsword and one of his lower extremities?There is nothing to stop any of these. Unfortunately, The Two Weapon Fighting feat explicitly refers to fighting with a weapon in each hand so by the rules as written, the attack penalty would be -4 (primary attacks)/-8(secondary attack).
It's a hard nosed ruling but if you delve into the damage per round implications, a 2-handed weapon + armour spikes/unarmed strike does more damage per round than 2-handed weapons alone or any dual wielded weapon attack options. There is purpose behind how strength modifiers apply and how much damage weapons of a certain class do and it's all pretty balanced as it is.
It takes an extra feat to step up to the amount of extra damage this option implies so it should cost a feat here as well.
I'm not disputing the fact that the feat should be taken. TWF and IMP. Unarmed Strike in this instance should most definitely be taken to be done effectively.
However, my point here is people are using the definition of 'hand' as we know it: a five fingered appendage connected to the forearm.
I don't agree with that statement! If so, you cannot technically BY THE RULES AS WRITTEN do anything that involves a HAND because Humanoids are not listed with HANDS. And before you claim the silliness of that Rules Lawyering statement, think of your own!
I do believe that Humanoids have hands, but this isn't supported by the rules.
You believe that all of the bolded quotes referring to hands explicitly means the thing connected to your forearm. I'm not going to tell you your wrong, but your claim of an off hand being supported by the rules is contradicted by the description of the Humanoid.
And as for those that want to get into DPR, step back a moment and remember that some of us Gamers do things like the OP mentioned not because it's an awesome damage potential, but because it's cool, it mixes things up, and "I'm going to kick him and then swing my sword at him" sounds so much more fun than "I swing my sword at him".
And as for those that want to get into DPR, step back a moment and remember that some of us Gamers do things like the OP mentioned not because it's an awesome damage potential, but because it's cool, it mixes things up, and "I'm going to kick him and then swing my sword at him" sounds so much more fun than "I swing my sword at him".
Actually, I think this is cooler and more mechanically correct :
GM : "The hobgoblin whirls his longsword in a flourish and the flashing blade misses you... oh, no, wait, there's a burning in your chest, looks like he actually did get you. Just took you a second to realize it." GM Grins. "12hp total."
Player : "Ouch, ok, I hit him with my trusty greatsword Fjolknir, and then I kick the SOB in the nads, and while he's recovering from that, Fjolknir's gonna mess his face up." Player rolls dice with a vengeance.
|
|
IIRC, it's stated that unarmed attacks can be done with hands or feet even as a non-monk, it's only elbows and the other more "odd" ways to attack that are specific for the monk.
I was a bouncer in a dangerous club for about 6 years ( 3 bouncers killed there in that time ), and went to another place where most of the staff was gunned down ( strip club )
Elbow strikes are hardly odd. In fact they are a hell of a lot more natural than knee strikes, or feet strikes. I preferred them to punches ( also nice side effect of if no punches are visibly thrown less lawsuits )
I that the 'Two Handed Weapon' + 'Unarmed Strikes' shenanigans was worked out a while ago (I'll see if I can find the actual ruling, I know I saw it on these boards a while back!) and I believe that it was that the Unarmed Strike could be used in this situation. Again, I stress the part.
Technically, there is no description of what an 'Unarmed Strike' is in the reading of the feat. It doesn't say 'fists', so the argument about needing to only use your hands for the TWO WEAPON FIGHTING TREE is a fallacy. There were exotic weapons that could be tied into long braids and used as weapons, Tail Blades and Clubs, Armor Spikes and the like that all have nothing to do with a Character's hands, or lack of them, yet they could still be used as an 'off-hand attack'.
Re-reading the description of Two Weapon Fighting on page 202 of the Core Rulebook, again, no concrete statements about needing to wield the weapons in your hands.
Also note that Two-Weapon Fighting Feat on page 136 reads as "You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands." This can be interpreted as 'weapon used by both hands' or 'one weapon in each hand'. Also do not forget the term 'off-hand weapon' is used to describe the Secondary Weapon, not just the weapon in your left (or right!) hand. This feat does not match up to the wording of the description of the ability to fight with two weapons on page 202.
Yet on page 58, the Monk Description includes 'Unarmed Strike', which says that the Monk can make their unarmed strikes with fists, elbows, knees and feet. Which suddenly means Monks everywhere lose their ability to headbutt, shoulder-barge, slap and body-slam their targets. Again, Unarmed Strike does not specifically state that it MUST be with the Hands, but the Monk's description clouds the issue by stating that a Monk can make Unarmed Strikes with their hands full.
Now, if the Player has a Bladed Boot, they Cannot make a Greatsword+Unarmed Strike+Bladed Boot attack, they are limited to making only attacks with two of the weapons, unless they are some sort of mutant freak with three or more arms, at which point I get out the Cheese Grater and attack their character sheets with it, dealing 1d3 19-20x3 slashing damage to the Steaming Pile of Cheese.
Time to check the errata!
This came up a ton of times back in 3.x rules discussion and to the best of my knowledge the ruling was that you can use Unarmed Strikes with body parts or armor spikes as an off-hand weapon in addition to using a two-handed weapon.
In some cases armor spike+THF TWF is worthwhile but in many cases the potential increase in max damage isn't worth the decrease in attack bonus associated with TWF and the high build cost of going with the necessary dexterity to drive TWF. I think it's a moderately decent mid-game option though.
|
|
You believe that all of the bolded quotes referring to hands explicitly means the thing connected to your forearm. I'm not going to tell you your wrong, but your claim of an off hand being supported by the rules is contradicted by the description of the Humanoid.
And as for those that want to get into DPR, step back a moment and remember that some of us Gamers do things like the OP mentioned not because it's an awesome damage potential, but because it's cool, it mixes things up, and "I'm going to kick him and then swing my sword at him" sounds so much more fun than "I swing my sword at him".
The core rules are built around two-armed, two-handed bipeds so I can't imagine coming up with your interpretation. In my game, hand means hand and two hands means both of those things at the end of your arms.
Putting that aside, the problem is still one of increased damage potential, whether it is cool or not.
The reason for this is first in weapon dice:
- THW greatsword = 2d6 (7 damage average, but hits more often)
- TWF longsword/shortsword = d8/d6 base dice (8 damage average)
- TWF greatsword/armour spike = 2d6/d6 base dice (10.5 damage avg.)
This is a 31% increase in the average.
The second reason is strength damage:
(e.g. 18 Str)
- THW greatsword = 6 damage
- TWF longsword/shortsword = 4+2 = 6 damage
- TWF greatsword/armour spike = 6+2 = 8 damage
This is a 33% increases in the average, which scales as strength increases.
The third reason is Power attack damage (per step in power attack):
- THW greatsword = 3 damage (2*1.5)
- TWF longsword/shortsword = 2+1 = 3 damage
- TWF greatsword/armour spike = 3+1 = 4 damage
This is a 33% increase in the average.
You'll notice that the greatsword and the longsword/shortsword do about the same amount in all three classes (ultimately the greatsword does more because you can optimize feats better with one weapon) and the build we are talking about does about a third more.
This gets much much worse if you were to imagine a TWF Giant Ranger or something where the strength multipliers and base dice damage are that much bigger and worse yet if you imagine a TWF giant Monk or something like that where the base damage is that much higher and presumably the "kicks" get full strength damage.
Ultimately, if the build is 1/3 stronger and it requires some extremely strange interpretation of the wording of the feat that reads two hands to mean not two hands, I would say it's not as intended in the rules.
|
|
The core rules are built around two-armed, two-handed bipeds so I can't imagine coming up with your interpretation. In my game, hand means hand and two hands means both of those things at the end of your arms.
See that there, your game. We aren't talking about your game though. This discussion would be resolved if we were.
Putting that aside, the problem is still one of increased damage potential, whether it is cool or not.
The reason for this is first in weapon dice:
<DPR Statistics>The second reason is strength damage:
(<more DPR Statistics>The third reason is Power attack damage (per step in power attack):
<Yet again, DPR Statistics>
Yet again, this is not a DPR olympic. It's a simple rule question. Are you saying a player should be prohibited from using an idea because it puts out too much DPR?
This gets much much worse if you were to imagine a TWF Giant Ranger or something where the strength multipliers and base dice damage are that much bigger and worse yet if you imagine a TWF giant Monk or something like that where the base damage is that much higher and presumably the "kicks" get full strength damage.
Monks skew the curve in this example, and if you're wanting to use statistics, read up on them. Monk's are what is known as "outliers".
Ultimately, if the build is 1/3 stronger and it requires some extremely strange interpretation of the wording of the feat that reads two hands to mean not two hands, I would say it's not as intended in the rules.
Again, as before with your statement of the core rules being built around creatures with hands, show me where it says this and I'll acquiesce that your stance on "off hand" implying a physical hand that is not a foot or any other body part is correct.
|
|
Again, as before with your statement of the core rules being built around creatures with hands, show me where it says this and I'll acquiesce that your stance on "off hand" implying a physical hand that is not a foot or any other body part is correct.
Ignoring your condescending language, let's look at the feat we are talking about:
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/feats.html#two-weapon-fightingThe first sentence reads:
"You can fight with a weapon in each of your hands."
A weapon means "one weapon", each means every one of the thing that applies in the context of the sentence. The thing in this case is your hands.
Therefore "each of your hands" means every one of your hands, not your hands and your feet (because your feet are not your hands), not your hands and your spiked boot (because your spiked boot is not your hands), not your hands and your armour spikes (because your armour spikes are not your hands), not your hands and the spike on your helmet (because your helmet spike is not your hands).
The feat goes on to talk about "primary hand" and "off hand" (both singular, both using the word hand), not "primary attack" or "primary weapon" and "secondary attack" or "secondary weapon". It explicitly uses the singular word "hand" repeatedly.
If the intended interpretation was the one you are using, the two-weapon fighting feat would be written like this:
Two-Weapon Fighting (Combat)
You can fight with an extra secondary weapon. You can make one extra attack each round with the secondary weapon.
Prerequisite: Dex 15.
Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary weapon lessens by 2 and the one for your secondary weapon lessens by 6. See Two-Weapon Fighting.
Normal: If you wield a secondary weapon, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. When fighting in this way you suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary weapon and a –10 penalty to the attack with your secondary weapon. If your secondary weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light.
The description of two weapon fighting would look like this:
Two-Weapon Fighting
If you wield a secondary weapon (in your off hand, armour spike, unarmed attack or other), 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 weapon and a –10 penalty to the attack with your secondary weapon when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in two ways. First, if your secondary 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 weapon penalty by 2, and the secondary weapon penalty by 6.
Yet again, this is not a DPR olympic. It's a simple rule question. Are you saying a player should be prohibited from using an idea because it puts out too much DPR?
No, I am saying that the player should be prohibited from that idea because it is implicitly forbidden under the rules that say that Two-Weapon-Fighting means attacking with a weapon in each of your hands.
I plainly illustrated that the other builds are balanced with respect to each other and that THW+TWF is not balanced, by a factor of ~4/3 in terms of DPR. If you want to houserule that hand != hand but that hand = weapon/attack, that's up to you but it's not supported by the core rules whatsoever and it's not balanced. Balance is important because it contributes to each player feeling like they contributed with some parity.
You are deliberately misreading the text of the feat and the combat chapter description. There is no statement in the book that says that humans have two hands. Similarly, there is no statement that says that in the context of the game, "hand" has a different meaning than that in the rest of the english language. In this sense, I think trying to convince you would be like trying to convince an athist that God Exists by saying "Prove to me he doesn't exist" or the Atheist saying "Prove to me he does exist". I suspect I will have as much luck convincing you as if I were taking either side of that argument.
|
|
Again, as before with your statement of the core rules being built around creatures with hands, show me where it says this and I'll acquiesce that your stance on "off hand" implying a physical hand that is not a foot or any other body part is correct.Ignoring your condescending language, let's look at the feat we are talking about:
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/feats.html#two-weapon-fighting
The first sentence reads:
"You can fight with a weapon in each of your hands."A weapon means "one weapon", each means every one of the thing that applies in the context of the sentence. The thing in this case is your hands.
Therefore "each of your hands" means every one of your hands, not your hands and your feet (because your feet are not your hands), not your hands and your spiked boot (because your spiked boot is not your hands), not your hands and your armour spikes (because your armour spikes are not your hands), not your hands and the spike on your helmet (because your helmet spike is not your hands).
The feat goes on to talk about "primary hand" and "off hand" (both singular, both using the word hand), not "primary attack" or "primary weapon" and "secondary attack" or "secondary weapon". It explicitly uses the singular word "hand" repeatedly.
...
I am saying that the player should be prohibited from that idea because it is implicitly forbidden under the rules that say that Two-Weapon-Fighting means attacking with a weapon in each of your hands.
I plainly illustrated that the other builds are balanced with respect to each other and that THW+TWF is not balanced, by a factor of ~4/3 in terms of DPR. If you want to houserule that hand != hand but that hand = weapon/attack, that's up to you but it's not supported by the core rules whatsoever and it's not balanced. Balance is important because it contributes to each player feeling like they contributed with some parity.
You are deliberately misreading the text of the feat and the combat chapter description. There is no statement in the book that says that humans have two hands. Similarly, there is no statement that says that in the context of the game, "hand" has a different meaning than that in the rest of the english language. In this sense, I think trying to convince you would be like trying to convince an athist that God Exists by saying "Prove to me he doesn't exist" or the Atheist saying "Prove to me he does exist". I suspect I will have as much luck convincing you as if I were taking either side of that argument.
+1
Part of the problem is that there is unclear terminology at work here in both 3.x and ported over to PF. "Offhand" means two separate things. One it's a mechanical effect meaning that the attack gets x0.5 strength and second it means the secondary hand. One is a mechanical effect and the second is a fluff description. I think 90% of the arguments revolve around the imprecise language.
Depending on where you stand as to whether Sage Advice from 3.x is relevant to Pathfinder here is a sage advice that references this question:
Skip said:
When you fight with more than one weapon, you gain an extra attack (Improved Two-Weapon Fighting and Greater Two-Weapon Fighting give you more attacks with the extra weapon). Armor spikes are a light weapon that can be used as the extra weapon.
If you attack only with your armor spikes during your turn (or use the armor spikes to make an attack of opportunity) you use them just like a regular weapon. If you use the full attack action, you can use armor spikes as either a primary light weapon or as an off-hand light weapon, even if you're using a shield or using a two-handed weapon. In these two latter cases, you're assumed to be kicking or kneeling your foe with your armor spikes.
Whenever you use armor spikes as an off-hand weapon, you suffer all the penalties for attacking with two weapons (see table 8-10 in the Player's Handbook). When using armor spikes along with a two-handed weapon, it's usually best to use the two-handed weapon as your primary attack and the armor spikes as the off-hand weapon. You can use the armor spikes as the primary weapon and the two-handed weapon as the off-hand attack, but when you do so, you don't get the benefit of using a light weapon in your off-hand.
You cannot, however, use your armor spikes to make a second off-hand attack when you're already fighting with two-weapons. If you have a weapon in both hands and armor spikes, you can attack with the weaons in your hands (and not with the armor spikes) or with one of the weapons in your hands and the armor spikes.
Technically speaking this tends to make TWF (Great Sword + Armor Spikes) > TWF but it's pretty clear that not every combat option is balanced against each other.
In effect it's really no different than a THF with a bite attack doing a bite attack in addition to the THF.
Personally I'd prefer if they just dropped the unarmed attack/natural weapon distinction and make it so that unarmed combatants have a natural slam attack doing nonlethal damage. It would probably solve a ton of issues.
|
|
Part of the problem is that there is unclear terminology at work here in both 3.x and ported over to PF. "Offhand" means two separate things. One it's a mechanical effect meaning that the attack gets x0.5 strength and second it means the secondary hand. One is a mechanical effect and the second is a fluff description. I think 90% of the arguments revolve around the imprecise language.
Depending on where you stand as to whether Sage Advice from 3.x is relevant to Pathfinder here is a sage advice that references this question:
Skip said:(snip)
Technically speaking this tends to make TWF (Great Sword + Armor Spikes) > TWF but it's pretty clear that not every combat option is balanced against each other.
In effect it's really no different than a THF with a bite attack doing a bite attack in addition to the THF.
Personally I'd prefer if they just dropped the unarmed attack/natural weapon distinction and make it so that unarmed combatants have a natural slam attack doing nonlethal damage. It would probably solve a ton of issues.
First, I would disagree with the Sage Advice/3.X FAQ. I presume that this kills my argument as far as the true believers are concerned but I still feel the text is with me. They had two editions (3.5 + PF) to revise the language and didn't.
Second, it's not the same as a bite attack because bite attacks such as the Barbarian's Rage Bite are "secondary attacks" with a -5 to hit while the Dragon Disciple's Dragon Bite is a "primary attack" in an erstwhile non-melee class, both of which are special class abilities, which are allowed to be more powerful than feats. Neither of these options is more effective than a TWF combattant with a longsword/shortsword or a THF combattant with a greatsword, the baseline for balance comparisons.
Both of these attack options require some investment from the player unlike just using a knee or boot spike or something to add to your two-hander attacks. That's exactly what I said I would allow - a feat to get the option or an extra penalty to hit. Another alternative would be to allow the spike/unarmed strike attack but to give it no strength or power attack bonus (because the attacker has already used his *1.5 strength bonus allotment on his two-handed weapon - compared to 1 + 0.5 for a longsword/shortsword guy). A damage die on its own isn't that big of a deal without the strength bonus damage. In this regime, Two-Weapon Slice would add +0.5*Str to the spike damage, so it'd be the same as the longsword/shordsword guy.