|
IMO I'd let it fly only because I don't see a problem with it at all. So he hits them with his two hander and uses the momentum of his swing to do a neat kick during his full attack. Considering he's choosing a highly flavorful attack that yields significantly less damage, in our example of falchion 2d4 str 1.5 18-20 vs unarmed strike 1d4 .5 str for off hand 20, sure go for it. My immediate thought upon reading this was Ninja Turtles.
What is the modifier for 3 limbs combat?
Two Weapon Combat
1 handed weapon + 1 handed weapon =-6/-10
1 handed weapon + 1 light weapon = -4/-8
1 handed weapon + 1 handed weapon and TWC feat = -4/-4
1 handed weapon + 1 light weapon and TWC feat = -2/-2
2 handed weapon and kick = -?/-?
What you are describing under Pathfinder rules are either actions in different rounds or trips attacks.
IMO I'd let it fly only because I don't see a problem with it at all. So he hits them with his two hander and uses the momentum of his swing to do a neat kick during his full attack. Considering he's choosing a highly flavorful attack that yields significantly less damage, in our example of falchion 2d4 str 1.5 18-20 vs unarmed strike 1d4 .5 str for off hand 20, sure go for it. My immediate thought upon reading this was Ninja Turtles.
What is the modifier for 3 limbs combat?
Two Weapon Combat
1 handed weapon + 1 handed weapon =-6/-10
1 handed weapon + 1 light weapon = -4/-8
1 handed weapon + 1 handed weapon and TWC feat = -4/-4
1 handed weapon + 1 light weapon and TWC feat = -2/-2
2 handed weapon and kick = -?/-?What you are describing under Pathfinder rules are either actions in different rounds or trips attacks.
Since when does the to hit say anything about 1 handed weapon as primary? Quote please. The table you are miss quoting looks more like this.
Circumstances Primary Hand Off Hand
Normal penalties –6 –10
Off-hand weapon is light –4 –8
Two-Weapon Fighting feat –4 –4
Off-hand weapon is light and Two-Weapon Fighting feat –2 –2
Spiked armor lets you do the same thing.. but spiked armor specifically calls out being able to do this. Unarmed strikes do not. Its not an unreasonable call to say that unarmed strikes would work with the same mechanism as the spiked armor but for PFS there's no raw that indicates that its the case.
|
|
The only counter I can think of would be: Imagine a humanoid creature (without natural weapons) possessing the TWF feat and four arms. (I'm keeping this abstract in effort to focus the discussion, but if necessary I can try and come up with concrete examples). In that case would the "You can't use a two-handed weapon when TWF" still apply?
Multiattack (Combat)
This creature is particularly skilled at making attacks with its natural weapons.
Prerequisite: Three or more natural attacks.
Benefit: The creature's secondary attacks with natural weapons take only a –2 penalty.
Normal: Without this feat, the creature's secondary attacks with natural weapons take a –5 penalty.
Multiweapon Fighting (Combat)This multi-armed creature is skilled at making attacks with multiple weapons.
Prerequisites: Dex 13, three or more hands.
Benefit: Penalties for fighting with multiple weapons are reduced by –2 with the primary hand and by –6 with off hands.
Normal: A creature without this feat takes a –6 penalty on attacks made with its primary hand and a –10 penalty on attacks made with all of its off hands. (It has one primary hand, and all the others are off hands.) See Two-Weapon Fighting in the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook.
Special: This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms.
Creatures with 3+ natural attacks and/or 3+ hands can do that, with a specific feat that require their particular body configuration to work.
|
|
IMO I'd let it fly only because I don't see a problem with it at all. So he hits them with his two hander and uses the momentum of his swing to do a neat kick during his full attack. Considering he's choosing a highly flavorful attack that yields significantly less damage, in our example of falchion 2d4 str 1.5 18-20 vs unarmed strike 1d4 .5 str for off hand 20, sure go for it. My immediate thought upon reading this was Ninja Turtles.
What is the modifier for 3 limbs combat?
Two Weapon Combat
1 handed weapon + 1 handed weapon =-6/-10
1 handed weapon + 1 light weapon = -4/-8
1 handed weapon + 1 handed weapon and TWC feat = -4/-4
1 handed weapon + 1 light weapon and TWC feat = -2/-2
2 handed weapon and kick = -?/-?What you are describing under Pathfinder rules are either actions in different rounds or trips attacks.
Since when does the to hit say anything about 1 handed weapon as primary? Quote please. The table you are miss quoting looks more like this.
Circumstances Primary Hand Off Hand
Normal penalties –6 –10
Off-hand weapon is light –4 –8
Two-Weapon Fighting feat –4 –4
Off-hand weapon is light and Two-Weapon Fighting feat –2 –2
Primary Hand, not primary hands, plural.
How many primary hands a human or orc has?|
|
It's amazing how often this same argument comes up.
Two-Weapon Fighting has a primary weapon, and a secondary weapon. Neither of these can be natural weapons, but aside from that handedness does not come into play in determining validity, only penalties.
Handedness and "Primary" versus "Off" attack are not related except for the penalties taken.
As james wrote before, if a weapon does not require a free hand then it is entirely possible and valid to use that as the "Off" weapon and a two-hander as the "Primary" weapon, and you threaten with all weapons that are currently in a valid wield status (which is all weapons that require no hands, all two-handers that have two hands, all one handers that have at least one hand, and all light weapons that have a hand).
To re-iterate and clarify, any weapon combination for which you are able to threaten with both weapons at the same time is a valid combination for two-weapon fighting.
Since you can threaten with a two-hander, unarmed strikes and armor spikes at the same time you can mix any two of those together for two-weapon fighting, and can even mix all three (as long as no single attack form gets more than one attack at the same BAB tier and you take no more than your normal number of attacks at a given BAB tier, haste not-withstanding).
EDIT: Minor word fix.
|
|
cp, those terms do not refer to actual hands in the general case, they only use those terms because they are simpler for the specific case of "most characters."
There is already ample support for the case that the word "hand" in those two terms is a misnomer, including (but no limited to) being able to use unarmed strikes as a kick, and treat it as either off-hand or primary hand depending on how you're attacking with the same kick. This doesn't use a hand, but is definitely going to have a primary/off designation.
This is not a specific rule. Every single weapon that can be used without using a hand follows these rules. This includes the boot knife, unarmed strike, armor spikes and barbazu beard. Barbazu beard makes the extra stipulation that it can only be used as the "off" attack.
The only thing in the rules that normally prevents the Two-Handed/Two-Weapon Fighting combo is the lack of skill in a weapon that does not take a hand, or the lack of possession of such a weapon.
Two-Weapon Fighting says "Primary Hand" and "Off-Hand". A two-handed attack is a "Primary Hand" attack. An unarmed strike can be used as an "Off Hand" attack, even when your hands are full. Therefor, you may two-weapon fight a 2H weapon with an unarmed strike.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People are giving the word hand way too much consideration. Do you also consider that there exist many weapons that don't require hands? According to your literal hand interpretations, no one could ever attack with a weapon that doesn't use a hand as it would never be a primary hand or off-hand weapon.
If you are saying I should be able to make an attack with a 2 handed weapon - well why can't I make TWO attacks with the two handed weapon since I'm wielding it in my off hand.
This is simply rediculous. It's called *two* weapon fighting, not Rapid Attack. You must use *two weapons*. This hyperbolic example achieves nothing for your argument.
A two-handed weapon is a single weapon, an unarmed strike is also a single weapon. Thus, Two Weapon Fighting.
Wielding a Armor Spikes and a Blade Boot on your foot would result in the same conclusion. Primary Hand: Armor Spikes *oh no!* and off-hand Bladed Boot *gasp*.
cp, those terms do not refer to actual hands in the general case, they only use those terms because they are simpler for the specific case of "most characters."
There is already ample support for the case that the word "hand" in those two terms is a misnomer, including (but no limited to) being able to use unarmed strikes as a kick, and treat it as either off-hand or primary hand depending on how you're attacking with the same kick. This doesn't use a hand, but is definitely going to have a primary/off designation.
This is not a specific rule. Every single weapon that can be used without using a hand follows these rules. This includes the boot knife, unarmed strike, armor spikes and barbazu beard. Barbazu beard makes the extra stipulation that it can only be used as the "off" attack.
The only thing in the rules that normally prevents the Two-Handed/Two-Weapon Fighting combo is the lack of skill in a weapon that does not take a hand, or the lack of possession of such a weapon.
Two-Weapon Fighting says "Primary Hand" and "Off-Hand". A two-handed attack is a "Primary Hand" attack. An unarmed strike can be used as an "Off Hand" attack, even when your hands are full. Therefore, you may two-weapon fight a 2H weapon with an unarmed strike.
Could not have said it better myself. Added the bolding.
|
|
cp, it's obvious you're never going to understand that the use of the term "hand" is not meant literally. Even your own quote of two weapon fighting rephrases as "secondary weapon" in the second half.
Do NOT use flavor text as rules. That stuff can often contradict the rules. Anything between the name of the feat and the first bolded entry is flavor text and not to be taken literally.
You also cannot show anywhere that indicates that you CANNOT wield a weapon two-handed as a primary weapon with the exception of the lack of an "s" on "hand", which is about the worst evidence I've ever seen and is itself an inference.
By rules a two weapon fighter can dual-wield with a longsword and kicks. By your interpretation of the rules, he'd somehow lose the ability to do that if he put another hand on the weapon, despite the fact that the secondary (or "off-hand") weapon does not interact with the longsword in any way.
At this point I've come to the conclusion that you're stuck on your position, so I'm not going to bother arguing past this point.
The attack penalty is entirely dependent on the secondary weapon and whether or not you have the TWF feat.
Does it matter if the primary weapon is one-handed, light or two-handed? No.
This is the only thing that matters. You cannot wield a 2H weapon in one hand. Therefore, you cannot make an "offhand" attack of any kind while wielding a 2H weapon, and you cannot use a 2H weapon as part of TWF.
If you make an attack with a 2H weapon, that is your full attack. Unless you have iterative attacks, your turn is over.
The only way he can achieve what he wants is to either use an iterative attack to kick, simply be holding the falchion (in which case he could TWF with 2 kicks but make no attack with the falchion, or use a 1H weapon/kick offhand.
The attack penalty is entirely dependent on the secondary weapon and whether or not you have the TWF feat.
Does it matter if the primary weapon is one-handed, light or two-handed? No.
This is the only thing that matters. You cannot wield a 2H weapon in one hand. Therefore, you cannot make an "offhand" attack of any kind while wielding a 2H weapon, and you cannot use a 2H weapon as part of TWF.
If you make an attack with a 2H weapon, that is your full attack. Unless you have iterative attacks, your turn is over.
The only way he can achieve what he wants is to either use an iterative attack to kick, simply be holding the falchion (in which case he could TWF with 2 kicks but make no attack with the falchion, or use a 1H weapon/kick offhand.
So what if wielding a 2 hand weapon disallows TWF. Remember letting go of one hand and putting it back on to the weapon are free actions. So he can attack with the falchion, free action let go of one hand, then TWF with the kick, then regrip the falchion.
In two rounds, or with an iterative attack.
This is the only thing that matters. You cannot wield a 2H weapon in one hand. Therefore, you cannot make an "offhand" attack of any kind while wielding a 2H weapon, and you cannot use a 2H weapon as part of TWF.
Sure you can. You can use a 2H weapon as part of TWF along with any other weapon that you can wield at the same time and can be used as an off-hand attack.
Just like you could in 3.5, where the relevant rules were exactly the same, and this conclusion was explicitly spelled out.
I think I might get it:
Level 1 fighter
dex 15
TWF, Imp unarmed
can use 2H weapon + kick as full attack with -2 hit penalty each and 1/2 str penalty on his 1d3 kick.
Right?
I think I might get it:
Level 1 fighter
dex 15
TWF, Imp unarmedcan use 2H weapon + kick as full attack with -2 hit penalty each and 1/2 str penalty on his 1d3 kick.
Right?
Yes, you can do this. You could do this back in 3.5 as well.
You can also drop the IUS feat and just get armor spikes.
Incidentally, this is generally considered to be a sub-optimized attack routine.
How so? It seems to add a bit over 10% to dpr:
fighter, 18 STR, 15 DEX
TWF, IUS
Greatsword (2d6 + 6) x .7 = 9.1
GS + kick (2d6 + 6) x .6 + (1d3 + 2) x .6 = 10.2
|
|
How so? It seems to add a bit over 10% to dpr:
fighter, 18 STR, 15 DEX
TWF, IUSGreatsword (2d6 + 6) x .7 = 9.1
GS + kick (2d6 + 6) x .6 + (1d3 + 2) x .6 = 10.2
And exactly where are you getting the points for that 15 dex? From other stats, of course. 15 is a 7 on a point buy, which is nearly half your points. On top of that, you need at least a 17 for the second feat and a 19 for the third. If you only take the first then as soon as you get the second attack from BAB you start falling behind.
How about a 10 dex and heavy armor, but pumping strength to 20:
Greatsword: (2d6+7)*.75 = 10.5
Seems the greatsword wins. Oh, and they didn't need an extra feat for this.
The attack penalty is entirely dependent on the secondary weapon and whether or not you have the TWF feat.
Does it matter if the primary weapon is one-handed, light or two-handed? No.
This is the only thing that matters. You cannot wield a 2H weapon in one hand. Therefore, you cannot make an "offhand" attack of any kind while wielding a 2H weapon, and you cannot use a 2H weapon as part of TWF.
If you make an attack with a 2H weapon, that is your full attack. Unless you have iterative attacks, your turn is over.
The only way he can achieve what he wants is to either use an iterative attack to kick, simply be holding the falchion (in which case he could TWF with 2 kicks but make no attack with the falchion, or use a 1H weapon/kick offhand.
But you are perfectly capable of wielding a two-handed weapon, and wielding a weapon which does not require a hand to wield. Such as an unarmed strike which can explicitly be made with any part of the body. Ergo, you are wielding two weapons.
|
|
By the way, I certainly have no objections power wise....
Can we make the following concession, then:
Two-Weapon Fighting with a 2-Hander + No-hander is interesting and balanced, therefor it *should* be allowed.
This way we at least can say that we agree it is an agreeable concept even if we disagree on RAW.
Well, I'm convinced. I can see how this would be difficult to play in PFS though. I'm sure many people would initially have my original reaction and not take the time under pressure to figure it out.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Well, I'm convinced. I can see how this would be difficult to play in PFS though. I'm sure many people would initially have my original reaction and not take the time under pressure to figure it out.
An unfortunate reality of PFS. Fortunately, this particular situation is remedied by simply carrying a second (one-handed) weapon. Before the session starts, you talk to the GM. If he gets it, great. If not, just use your "backup" weapon.
Anything other than a weapon wielded in each of your hands is unsupported.
No matter how many times you repeat it, it still isn't true.
No matter how many times you repeat it, it still isn't true.
Anything other than a weapon wielded in each of your hands is unsupported.
There are things that are supported (natural weapons, armor spikes) but unarmed strike is technically not one of them.
|
|
I am still confused as to the obsession with the use of the word "hand". A character is perfectly able to two-weapon fight without even having a single hand. To nitpick the flavor of two-weapon fighting is, to me, a fruitless endeavor. It would seem that there are many who have their nose to the map, as I like to say. I would really like some kind of official response, if not to just quiet those who seem lost. If someone can give me a balance or flavor reason in addition to the rules interpretation they have given with the "hands" focus, I might be able comprehend the reasons behind it. You have to ask yourself, why would the rules be this way? Does this make sense in RAW, or even RAI? I must say, in a home or society game, if a GM ruled in favor of the "hands" as it were, I would leave. This may sound extreme, but to me, it clue me in to many bad rulings to come.
|
|
From this very thread you will have the write-up for the barbazu beard which Paizo made for PF ...<snip>... Which expressly spells out the logical conclusion for not requiring a hand to use the secondary weapon which contradicts your theory.
Attempting to extrapolate the rules for a specific item into general practice is a fool's errand; and a cruel, cruel DM will paddle your ass every time you try it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And exactly where are you getting the points for that 15 dex? From other stats, of course.How so? It seems to add a bit over 10% to dpr:
fighter, 18 STR, 15 DEX. ...<snip>
Who needs a 15?
20pt buy....
STR+19 DEX:14 CON:14 INT:12 WIS:14 CHA:07
1. figh1 EWP:Fauchard, WF:Fauchard, FEAT(any)
2. monk1 [hungry ghost:punishing kick], Combat Reflexes, Improved Unarmed Strike
3. (any) FEAT(any)
At 2nd, you've already locked down all the feats you need to be a juggernaut of doom with the most-badass polearm in the game, and use your Flurry of Blows to punishing-kick backwards those jerkwads who are always 5'-moving inside your threatened range and then take your main attack to klonk them good and hard. Downside: you need to be wearing light armor (so this build benefits from good DEX anyway -- but you don't have to kill yourself for a 15 at creation).
Fight versus Jerkwad comparison:
-- Compared to full BAB, at BAB6 (7th for you), you'll be -2/-3/-8 att versus a standard full-BAB polearm build who, at 7th, is comparatively (-4 or -6)/(-7 or -9) and is sacrificing his main attack to Pushing Assault away the jerkwad (with the haft of his polearm as an improvised weapon, -4 plus -2 Power Attack penalty) before getting his second attack with the weak iterative or is taking -4s on both the main and the iterative to employ the Pole Fighting feature of the Pole Master fighter variant (as well as endure all the depraved jokes coming from all the other players around the table).
How it works:
* Using monk FoB (with monk level offsetting BAB loss), punishing kick at -2 to drive Jerkwad back 5'.
* Take two attacks at -3 and -8 with polearm.
-- Two neat things about this: 1) You don't have to argue with your skeptical DM over ungrip/regrip rules; you just say you're gonna kick the guy while holding your polearm in two hands. DM is thinking to himself, "-1 from monk level and -2 to all of his attacks with flurry; I'm OK with this self-nerfage." 2) You don't need to Power Attack/Pushing Assault and saddle yourself with even worse penalties to do the same thing while having fewer attacks.
To these, you alternately substitute any number of light weapons (armor spikes, barbezu beards, monks strikes) as your off-hand attack.
A monk's strike is an unarmed strike...
|
|
From the FAQ today.
"If I make a shield bash (page 152), does it always have to be an off-hand attack?
The text for a shield bash assumes you're making a bash as an off-hand attack, but you don't have to. You can, for example, just make a shield bash attack (at your normal, main-hand attack bonus) or shield bash with your main hand and attack with a sword in your off-hand."Notice that the developers have ONCE AGAIN reiterated the main hand (primary hand) / off hand attacks. Once again specifically mentioning penalties that accrue to the main-hand attack or off hand attacks.
So in summation, once again:
You may TWF:
with a Double weapon (treating it as a light and 1h weapon).
with a 1 hand weapon and a light weaponTo these, you alternately substitute any number of light weapons (armor spikes, barbezu beards, monks strikes) as your off-hand attack.
Oh will you shut up about this already. "Primary hand" and "off-hand", despite being misnomers, are still the standard terms. This does not affect their actual meaning. We could use the term "fish" instead of off-hand, but that wouldn't mean that the off-hand weapons has to be a fish.
However, since it's obvious you're stuck on your opinion, I suppose we'll have to wait for a dev to directly state it.
"Primary hand can refer to any weapon, as can off-hand. The only requirement is that they can both be wielded simultaneously."
So, you see, the concept of handedness is *very* much relevent to the game.
Handedness is only in the game to represent how much power is behind the attack. That is all.
Armor Spike as a Primary Hand Attack (no hands involved) is 1x STR
Armor Spike as an Off-hand Attack (no hands involved) is .5x STR
Again, you can use a 2h weapon and an armor spike to achieve Two Weapon Fighting.
You can use a 2h weapon and a Barbazu beard to achieve Two Weapon Fighting.
You can also use a 2h weapon and an Unarmed Strike to achieve Two Weapon Fighting.
IMO the developers did not add this note because it is written in the rules that you can kick/use unarmed strikes as an off-handed weapon so the conclusion should be logical.
However, there have been so many ...contentious... debates regarding the subject they should really just add that sentence in the core.
If we buy into the "I can TWF with a two-handed weapon" argument, then I can take a mighty swing with my greatsword as my "main-hand attack" and then bash with my buckler because it's "off-hand." Never mind that it's strapped to the arm I just used to wield my mighty greatsword.
Except you're completely wrong in this specific case, because of the last line in the buckler's description. Sorry :(
"Benefit: You can also use your shield arm to wield a weapon (whether you are using an off-hand weapon or using your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon), but you take a –1 penalty on attack rolls while doing so. This penalty stacks with those that may apply for fighting with your off hand and for fighting with two weapons. In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you lose the buckler's Armor Class bonus until your next turn. You can cast a spell with somatic components using your shield arm, but you lose the buckler's Armor Class bonus until your next turn. You can't make a shield bash with a buckler."
Here's my argument.
#1) Two-Weapon Fighting (both the feat and as described the special attacks section of the rulebook) clearly states that you need to be wielding a second weapon in your offhand.
#2) The weapons section under equipment clearly states that an unarmed strike is considered a light weapon, and that light weapons require one hand to use.
#3) The weapons section also states that two-handed weapons require two hands to use.
Regardless of the fact that the attack itself can be flavored as a punch, a kick, or even an elbow jab, the fact remains that the attack still requires one hand to use. The body part involved (as silly as this may sound) does not change. If it did, there would be a specific rule that said "this attack requires one hand, one leg, or any similar appendage to use." This is really a place where unarmed attacks shine as being separate from natural attacks. Natural attacks ALWAYS specify body part, and therefore multiple attacks can be used based on the body part(s) you possess. Unarmed attacks lump all body parts into one category, and whether you have five arms or fifty does not matter, because the number of unarmed attacks you can do is based off of your base attack bonus. Natural attacks, as we all know, don't care in the slightest about how much base attack bonus you have; if you only have two wings, you can only make two wing attacks.
Because of this, it is very clear that you cannot combine Two-Weapon Fighting with a two-handed weapon unless you have some way to wield said weapon in one hand (3.5 Monkey Grip and Ultimate Combat's Titan Mauler all come to mind). Even if you're kicking the guy in the face, as far as the unarmed strike WEAPON is considered (and yes, it is a weapon. Check the weapons chart in the Core Rulebook), your hands are full with your Falchion or whatever.
There do not seem to be any rules/modifiers for using a two-handed weapon in your main hand and a light weapon in your off-hand. I would probably avoid this combo if I ever was going to play in PFS to avoid unnecesary discussion for minimal benefit. Personally I would allow it but would treat the two-handed weapon as a one-handed weapon, including 1.0 multiplier for strength and power attack purposes.
|
|
Thanks James.
Sorry, it was too much to quote and I'm going to beg off of all the copying & pasting for now.
First, TWF rules have not changed since 3.5 when they removed ambidexterity and the like from the 3e rules.
Here's the 3.5 FAQ dealing with armor spikes directly
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.You wanted something that spelled it out exactly, which is not always the easiest thing to do. Yet here it is.
...
Which expressly spells out the logical conclusion for not requiring a hand to use the secondary weapon which contradicts your theory.
Beside being a 3.5FAQ, it is fairly confusing.
The first statement is: 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.so far so good. You make only 1 attack and it go at full bonus.
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.
So it say that:
- you can use armor spikes as your primary attack while wielding a 2 handed weapon or a shield (really? and using the 2handed weapon as a secondary weapon?)
- you can use armor spikes as a secondary weapon while using a shield ..... At that point what is your primary weapon? The shield? a non cited 1 handed weapon? Something different?
So your citation without the question it is answering give some very dubious ruling.
Please link the location where you have found this citation. Without the question it answer it has little meaning.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
So, I have to ask, what about players without hands? They can't two-weapon fight? If it be armor spikes, blade boots, barbazu beard, or unarmed strike, they cannot attack with any combination of the two? I am not trying to poke or prod anyone, but the nearly obsessive focus on the word "hand" seems to be quite a hurdle for some to jump. At it's core, it is a way to get an extra attack, but at a penalty. There is not even a balance issue. Again, not to sound aflame, but I am inspired to build a character without hands, and two-weapon fights. I may even attempt to go into some PFS game with such a character, I doubt there will be much against nerfing myself. That all said, I would like to hear something of an official response.