|
James was answering a question as to whether shield bash attacks were always 'off hand attacks' rather than the question that you are reading into his answer.
My namesake is a great developer, but one should not hold a board post to that level of reading in... Take it for the question he was asked rather than other consequences to his choice of wording for answering it.
Go to the core rules on what 'two weapon fighting' means and you'll see that it means when you use a second weapon to gain an extra attack. So the way that you want to rule it is indeed correct.
If you want to further convince yourself simply ask 'what is three weapon fighting' for a human with 2 hands? Via quickdraw it's perfectly acceptable and even intended (expressly mentioned via thrown weapons.. which btw to the other poster are not, except for shuriken, ammunition).
The problem you are seeing is that the 3.5 rules needed a lot of patching in places. They were carried over patchwork style from 3e and some things just don't make as much sense, or they get confused even at the level of writers/authors at times. Paizo has done a great job with Pathfinder, but there are many places where they just took the SRD as it was rather than rewriting it entirely. That's laudable to an extent, and perfectly understandable (as they've done herculean work to come this far) but there are places where things could be polished and places where people have the tendency to misread the rules.
It was my hope that an active FAQ system would compile these and let them get addressed by the developers. Both on the level of what's confusing thus in need of rewording and on the level of what simply needs fixing.
-James
James, I like your argument and will gladly point any overzealous GM to your post. Thanks
Concerning the Shield Fighter class feature, I realized that it makes sense if there is indeed an exception for shield bash which would be that you can freely alternate with weapons during your attack routine except for shield bashes which have to be considered off-hand attacks if you mix them with any other weapon.
Thanks again for answering my admittedly argumentative post with poise and grace :-)
|
|
If you don't want to be all spiked-up, and aren't interested in spending a Feat on Improved Unarmed Combat or Quickdraw, then you may want to take a look at the spring loaded wrist sheath from the Adventurer's Armory - it holds a light weapon of 1lb or less (like a dagger) and can drop it into your hand as an immediate action. That way the other guy happily runs past you, thinking you don't have a melee weapon to hand, and you can pop the thing out and AoO him as he passes.
I do not see how this is possible. When the guy makes his move past you, either you have a weapon in hand and threaten or you have no weapon in hand, you do not threaten and thus you cannot get an AoO. In my understanding, an immediate action, though it can be taken out of turn, does not interrupt another character's action (here a move).
A weapon cord is another idea - just leave your melee weapon dangling there as you fire your bow, then swift action it into your hand at the end of your turn, before dropping it as a free action at the start of your next turn of bowmanship.
As for the weapon cord, I believe that trying to use your bow while your dagger is attached to it falls under the aegis of "you cannot switch to a different weapon without first untying the cord (a full-round action) or cutting it (a move action or an attack, hardness 0, 0 hp)."
There's also a weapon like the Bow-Lance, which is in Luven Lightfinger's Gear & Treasure Shop. It's basically a three-fold weapon, in that it's a longbow, a light lance, and a double-spear. Weirdest of all, it's a real world weapon, used by many Plains peoples such as the Lakota (among the Kit-Fox society).
|
I do not see how this is possible. When the guy makes his move past you, either you have a weapon in hand and threaten or you have no weapon in hand, you do not threaten and thus you cannot get an AoO. In my understanding, an immediate action, though it can be taken out of turn, does not interrupt another character's action (here a move).
'... an immediate action can be performed at any time...' (CRB page 189). Sure it can interupt someone else - otherwise Feather Fall and similar spells become pointless ('sorry, can't cast that until he's completed his falling action...'). In this case, you take an immediate action just as the other guy's about to exit a square which you'd normally threaten if you had a dagger out.
As for the weapon cord, I believe that trying to use your bow while your dagger is attached to it falls under the aegis of "you cannot switch to a different weapon without first untying the cord (a full-round action) or cutting it (a move action or an attack, hardness 0, 0 hp)."
'... Unlike a locked gauntlet, you can still use a hand with a weapon cord...' (APG page 183).
What do people think of the idea of letting Point Blank Master cause you to threaten neighboring squares in addition to no longer provoking AoOs yourself?
What do people think of the idea of letting Point Blank Master cause you to threaten neighboring squares in addition to no longer provoking AoOs yourself?
I, for one, like this notion, and find it to be a greatly satisfying remedy to the apparent truth that under the current rules only a specific kind of Monk can manage to execute AoOs with a bow, while no breed of Ranger or Fighter can ever hope to aspire to such an accomplishment...
Don't get me wrong, I like the Zen Archer. I like Rangers too, and they ought to be able to do something similar...
|
Anybody can do it.
1) take improved unarmed strike.
2) use a bow
3) kick people when you get an AOO
4) take full TWF penalties when doing so.
Now characters with the TWF feat will take lower penalties but the same thing applies.
Taking one level of monk will also let you do that without feats because unarmed attacks can be done with hands full
Yes, anyone can do it, but not *with the bow* and I think that making an AoO with the bow should not be restricted to Zen Archer Monks...
An Archery Ranger should be able to develop some degree of skill with a bow that allows her to use the implement with which she is deadly (and on which she undoubtedly spent most of her resources for improvements) for Attacks of Opportunity.
You can get an AoO *while using a bow* but not *with the bow itself* if that makes any sense.
I think the points people before have made so far are great (Spiked Gauntlet, Armor Spikes, Improved Unarmed Strike) but just to point one thing out in Karkon's post:
You wouldn't take TWF fighting penalties for only swinging with one weapon in a round.
Yes, anyone can do it, but not *with the bow* and I think that making an AoO with the bow should not be restricted to Zen Archer Monks...
An Archery Ranger should be able to develop some degree of skill with a bow that allows her to use the implement with which she is deadly (and on which she undoubtedly spent most of her resources for improvements) for Attacks of Opportunity.
Precisely. I should perhaps have worded my question differently. I meant to propose that Point Blank Master allowed you to threaten neighboring squares with your bow.
You can get an AoO *while using a bow* but not *with the bow itself* if that makes any sense.
I think the points people before have made so far are great (Spiked Gauntlet, Armor Spikes, Improved Unarmed Strike) but just to point one thing out in Karkon's post:
You wouldn't take TWF fighting penalties for only swinging with one weapon in a round.
I completely agree. During your round you shot with the bow. At this time, you also count as "wielding" another weapon, but you do not use it presently, so there is no TWF penalty.
Later, in the opponent's round, they provoke an attack of opportunity from you. You may make that attack at normal, unadjusted, attack bonuses and you may make the attack with any weapon you count as "wielding", that is not a ranged weapon. - Here; boot, spike or other. - No TWF going on, no penalty.
A weapon cord is another idea - just leave your melee weapon dangling there as you fire your bow, then swift action it into your hand at the end of your turn, before dropping it as a free action at the start of your next turn of bowmanship.
That sounds dangerous.