| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Hey, folks. I have a friend who is has a specific character concept in mind that he thinks the rules support, but I think it's a grey area.
He wants to play a character who uses a Greataxe (a Two-Handed weapon), but uses Two-Weapon Fighting via Improved Unarmed Strike (head-butts, kicks and so on). He argues that IUS allows him to consider himself as armed even when he's not, and therefore he can use TWF even when both hands are holding his Greataxe. He's also thinking it might be possible (in the middle of a full-round attack) to take one hand off his Greataxe and make an unarmed strike with that.
I'm not 100% convinced, but I told him that if anyone knew, it would be the collective nerd hive-mind of The Internet. What do you guys think? Is that possible?
|
i'd allow TWF with a great axe and unarmed strikes(kicks and head butts ect), i wouldn't let him take a hand off the great axe to strike with a fist during the full round action though.
It's not terribly broken any, at least he isn't wanting to use a reach weapon and armor spikes to allow him to threaten 5ft and 10ft
|
1. The terms off-hand and main-hand only include the word hand for legacy reasons (3e had hard-coded handedness, 3.5e/PF do not). The only requirement is that you can wield both weapons at the same time (IUS is always wielded, so it can be combined with any other weapon for TWFing). This does NOT let you get more attacks than a normal TWFing routine (except what Multi-Weapon Fighting allows, but PCs can't take that normally).
2. You cannot take an action in the middle of a full-round attack (immediate actions notwithstanding). Taking a hand off/putting a hand on the sword is definitely an action, even if it is a free action. Thus, no switching mid-fullattack. However, this is not necessary since IUS can be done with anything, kicks and headbutts included, and the method of delivery does not affect the to-hit or damage of IUS.
3. Yes, they can TWF a greatsword + IUS, but it's quite sub-optimal. They need good Str to take advantage of the two-handing, and good Dex to take TWFing. In both short and long term the character is better off just using the sword and keeping IUS as a backup, reallocating the points that would have been spent on dex into getting more str.
|
|
It's not terribly broken any, at least he isn't wanting to use a reach weapon and armor spikes to allow him to threaten 5ft and 10ft
Which is legal and fine. It's not like he can get extra attacks, and either those armor spikes are going to do crap damage or he's going to spend loads extra keeping them enchanted.
|
i'd allow TWF with a great axe and unarmed strikes(kicks and head butts ect), i wouldn't let him take a hand off the great axe to strike with a fist during the full round action though.
It's not terribly broken any, at least he isn't wanting to use a reach weapon and armor spikes to allow him to threaten 5ft and 10ft
That's not broken. Broken is carrying a small-sized longspear, using a whip in the other hand, and wearing armour spikes for the ability to attack at 15, 10, and 5 ft. ranges.
2. You cannot take an action in the middle of a full-round attack (immediate actions notwithstanding). Taking a hand off/putting a hand on the sword is definitely an action, even if it is a free action. Thus, no switching mid-fullattack. However, this is not necessary since IUS can be done with anything, kicks and headbutts included, and the method of delivery does not affect the to-hit or damage of IUS.
I Can't get you an exact quote at the moment but you can take a free action during a full attack action. Drawing arrows is one example but somewhere one of the devs Jason or Sean i believe stated you can also take a 5ft step during a full round attack.
Before I say my own personal opinion, I must tell you this is a highly contentious issue here on the Pathfinder forums. Regarding using a two-handed weapon and an Unarmed Strike to perform Two Weapon Fighting. So prepare yourself for that.
There is a massive divide on this issue which mostly boils down to how you interpret the language of Two Weapon Fighting.
Before we start, it is *impossible* to attack with a two handed weapon, release your grip and then use that hand to make an Unarmed Strike. You'd have to kick or headbutt.
You cannot use limbs to repeat attacks unless your Base Attack Bonus is +6 and you've gained an extra attack during your Full Attack or you have a class feature that lets you do this (Monk's Flurry of Blows).
---Begin Bias---
I think it's fine to use a two handed weapon and kick during Two Weapon Fighting.
The combat chapter says this about Unarmed Strikes
Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon
So we know that any character can Punch, Kick or Headbutt.
Two Weapon Fighting says this:
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. Second, the Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6.
A lot of people will say - wow that mentions hands a lot. But, we know that people can kick/headbutt and use other unconventional weapons such as Armor Spikes (and more weapons from other books outside of the Core Book) to Two Weapon Fight.
You could use a Dagger and a headbutt (as your Offhand) to two weapon fight, without a hitch, under the rules. So does it make sense to call a headbutt an off-handed weapon? It uses no hands. This seems to be a misnomer.
For example, your friend could use also a Great Axe and Armor Spikes to Two Weapon Fight - again, in my opinion.
----End Bias----
Some folks will stick to their guns about the above entry singling out Hands, but I think that's an artifact in the rules that should be addressed, it's been a long time coming, but perhaps we'll see some developer insight on this issue one day.
Here's a similar thread: About TWF and a 2hweapon
2. You cannot take an action in the middle of a full-round attack (immediate actions notwithstanding). Taking a hand off/putting a hand on the sword is definitely an action, even if it is a free action. Thus, no switching mid-fullattack. However, this is not necessary since IUS can be done with anything, kicks and headbutts included, and the method of delivery does not affect the to-hit or damage of IUS.
You can take free actions during a full round action as talon said. But you can't repeat limbs unless you have more attacks (via BAB or haste or etc).
I Can't get you an exact quote at the moment but you can take a free action during a full attack action. Drawing arrows is one example but somewhere one of the devs Jason or Sean i believe stated you can also take a 5ft step during a full round attack.
In the core rules under Full Attack it stays you can 5ft step in the middle of a full attack. However, a 5ft step is not an action so it's not helping your case as much as the arrows bit.
2. You cannot take an action in the middle of a full-round attack (immediate actions notwithstanding). Taking a hand off/putting a hand on the sword is definitely an action, even if it is a free action. Thus, no switching mid-fullattack. However, this is not necessary since IUS can be done with anything, kicks and headbutts included, and the method of delivery does not affect the to-hit or damage of IUS.
You can take free actions during a full round action as talon said. But you can't repeat limbs unless you have more attacks (via BAB or haste or etc).
In the core rules under Full Attack it stays you can 5ft step in the middle of a full attack. However, a 5ft step is not an action so it's not helping your case as much as the arrows bit.
I Can't get you an exact quote at the moment but you can take a free action during a full attack action. Drawing arrows is one example but somewhere one of the devs Jason or Sean i believe stated you can also take a 5ft step during a full round attack.
Didn't have mine handy thanks for catching that besides i still got arrows.
Nothing prevents two handing a whip...
100% of the people I play with, in two separate groups, agree that the idea of two-handing a whip is stupid and should be disallowed, and I'm sure I've seen that argument around here, too. It's RAW, certainly, but it's the sort of thing that DMs may tend to disallow or at the very least mock mercilessly.
Anyway, yes, your friend should be able to dual-wield a two handed weapon and unarmed strikes, if he really wants to split up his stats and spend the feats. Is there a reason he needs to make the unarmed strikes with a fist? (I'm assuming brass knuckles, or something.) You can drop a weapon entirely and continue attacking with a held weapon or thrown ammunition, so dropping one hand and then attacking with it seems reasonable within a series of iterative attacks. I'm not sure about two weapon fighting, though.
Can you use TWF to get an extra attack with a spiked gauntlet on the same hand you're using to wield a longsword?
I see nothing wrong with it. I'm imagining all those action scenes where someone swings his weapon, then takes one hand off to backhand his opponent. Sounds fair to me.
Not to mention sigfrieds fighting style on SoulCaliber involves a lot of mid combo punches.
Before I say my own personal opinion, I must tell you this is a highly contentious issue here on the Pathfinder forums. Regarding using a two-handed weapon and an Unarmed Strike to perform Two Weapon Fighting. So prepare yourself for that.
There is a massive divide on this issue which mostly boils down to how you interpret the language of Two Weapon Fighting.
Before we start, it is *impossible* to attack with a two handed weapon, release your grip and then use that hand to make an Unarmed Strike. You'd have to kick or headbutt.
You cannot use limbs to repeat attacks unless your Base Attack Bonus is +6 and you've gained an extra attack during your Full Attack or you have a class feature that lets you do this (Monk's Flurry of Blows).
---Begin Bias---
I think it's fine to use a two handed weapon and kick during Two Weapon Fighting.
The combat chapter says this about Unarmed Strikes
Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weaponSo we know that any character can Punch, Kick or Headbutt.
Two Weapon Fighting says this:
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. Second, the Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6.A lot of people will say - wow that mentions hands a lot. But, we know that people can kick/headbutt and use other unconventional weapons such as Armor Spikes (and more weapons from other books outside of the Core Book) to Two Weapon Fight.
You could use a...
This has already been covered in the FAQ you don't need to hold your foot in your off hand to be able to make an off hand attack with it. This is legal.
This has already been covered in the FAQ you don't need to hold your foot in your off hand to be able to make an off hand attack with it. This is legal.
Oh really? I wasn't aware, I'll look to the FAQ for a link then. But, I can't seem to find it. Which FAQ section is it in?
|
|
It's not a contentious issue; the use the of word "hand" is mostly a hold-over from previous additions. You can do Two-Weapon Fighting with a two-handed weapon and armor spikes. it was doable in 3.5, and I believe even in 3.0.
It is, as mentioned, very sub-optimal. Using Ranger means char is stuck in Light Armor while trying to fight, using anything else means horrible MAD (Multiple Ability Dependency - needs high Str and Dex). He cannot benefit from feats like "Two-Weapon Defense" because they specifically exempt unarmed strikes and the like. He doesn't get to double-up his feats (must take Weapon Focus twice instead of just once and then using 2x same weapon). And so on.
Again, cheesiest use of this is a Fighter wielding a longspear (for reach) and armor spikes, and going into Whirlwind Attack, and he's not doing that (I think this is where the "debatable" kicks in; I'm not sure this works, and I'm not sure I want it to, but not relevant).
If I was you, I'd ask him why he was doing it. If he says "super cool character concept" let him have his fun. I e says "ultra cheese" show him this thread so he understands that it's actually not that good, and if he still wants to, let him.
|
|
It's legit and no reason not to be.
A normal TWF spends 2 Feats to get TWF and Double Slice (for full Str damage bonus) giving 1x Str + 1xStr
A 2h with IUS spends two feats to get TWF and IUS and gets 1.5xStr + 0.5 Str
So for the same Str benefit he is using same number of feats (in fact he is at a disadvantage depending on his Str, e.g 16 Str would be +4 2h and +1 IUS for a total of +5 whereas the conventional TWF would be at +6)
The advantage comes that he can spend a third Feat to get 1.5xStr and 0.5xStr. But that's only if willing to spend a 3rd feat and is not really broken.
It is not optimal due to stat requirements, though most Rangers I see tend to have 18 Str and 15/16 Dex so they could make use of it. But with those stats they are likely a switch hitter and finding space for 2 more feats may be tricky.
Concept wise it is fun though and well worth doing if it fits his char - while it is not optimal it is certainly effective.
I personally usually go with the Half Orc Toothy style for a 2h attack and a bite as that costs me a Trai and that's all. True, it has a -5 to Hit which is harsh, but on the other hand my main big hitting attack does not suffer any penalty which to me makes it worthwhile.
Course, you could be a TWF Toothy IUS guy and have 2h swing, kick and bite :)
|
Hey, folks. I have a friend who is has a specific character concept in mind that he thinks the rules support, but I think it's a grey area.
He wants to play a character who uses a Greataxe (a Two-Handed weapon), but uses Two-Weapon Fighting via Improved Unarmed Strike (head-butts, kicks and so on). He argues that IUS allows him to consider himself as armed even when he's not, and therefore he can use TWF even when both hands are holding his Greataxe. He's also thinking it might be possible (in the middle of a full-round attack) to take one hand off his Greataxe and make an unarmed strike with that.
I'm not 100% convinced, but I told him that if anyone knew, it would be the collective nerd hive-mind of The Internet. What do you guys think? Is that possible?
Technically: legal under RAW
However: anything players can do, my NPC's can and will do as well.
|
|
Hey, folks. I have a friend who is has a specific character concept in mind that he thinks the rules support, but I think it's a grey area.
He wants to play a character who uses a Greataxe (a Two-Handed weapon), but uses Two-Weapon Fighting via Improved Unarmed Strike (head-butts, kicks and so on). He argues that IUS allows him to consider himself as armed even when he's not, and therefore he can use TWF even when both hands are holding his Greataxe. He's also thinking it might be possible (in the middle of a full-round attack) to take one hand off his Greataxe and make an unarmed strike with that.
I'm not 100% convinced, but I told him that if anyone knew, it would be the collective nerd hive-mind of The Internet. What do you guys think? Is that possible?
Technically: legal under RAW
However: anything players can do, my NPC's can and will do as well.
I operate under the same rule, but I'm unlikely to use this. It's just not that great. At best you could make a TWF ranger so you don't have to sacrifice strength to get the TWFing feats, but even it's not great as you take a -2 penalty on your main attacks in order to hit with a weak off-hand that you now have to invest funds in if you want to keep it relevant.
Can it be effective? Yes. Is it good? Shaky, depends heavily on how you approach it. Is it great? No way.
|
|
I operate under the same rule, but I'm unlikely to use this. It's just not that great. At best you could make a TWF ranger so you don't have to sacrifice strength to get the TWFing feats, but even it's not great as you take a -2 penalty on your main attacks in order to hit with a weak off-hand that you now have to invest funds in if you want to keep it relevant.Can it be effective? Yes. Is it good? Shaky, depends heavily on how you approach it. Is it great? No way.
In this case, your right, it's not a very effective choice. Establishing it as a general rule is important though. It reduces player incentive to come up with a min/maxed death machines that can kill just about anything in one round. For example, if PC barbarians can deal 500 dpr, so can npc barbarians.
I thought that using natural attacks made the natural attack a secondary attack, and you took the penalties of TWF-ing, so it's a -4 to the primary attack without the feat, and -5 to the secondary...
Either that or it was -4 and -9...
|
|
No, this is not legal, RAW and this position was backed up by two developers. Search the forums for the last major TWF thread for a discussion of these rules.
The mentioning of hands is *not* a holdover; and the 'hands' convention continues to this day with the use of "hand" as a concept in the bestiary with multiweapon fighting, for example. (One "hand" is primary, all others are "off").
Recent rulings have confirmed this- such as the ruling that use of armor spikes required an open hand.
This issue is highly contentious, and I'm not going to post again on it.
I post to this extant only because the question is on the rules as written. More or less Two Weapon Fighting means what it says (paraphrasing) "when you fight with a weapon in each hand". The idea is to gain additional (light) attacks as opposed to the possibility of fewer, heavier attacks.
To my mind- the only significant reasons for caring about the RAW are
a). Power creep
b). Logical consistency
c). To act as a framework for future expansions of multiple arms (case in point: vestigial arms, eidolonsThat said, I sure would wish that an FAQ would address this point directly.
Could you please cite ANY of this? Because it directly contradicts basically everything I've read from any rule or official source.
The only place the rules mention that the extra weapon is in a hand do so by saying "off-hand", which we established is an antiquated term from when you had to declare your characters handedness.
The thing you cite from the Two-Weapon Fighting feat is *flavor text*. Flavor text is often slightly different from the actual rules of the feat, usually representing the normal case of usage.
|
|
I thought that using natural attacks made the natural attack a secondary attack, and you took the penalties of TWF-ing, so it's a -4 to the primary attack without the feat, and -5 to the secondary...
Either that or it was -4 and -9...
Generally, yes, but I think a couple cases are exempt (namely the ones that specify exactly how it interacts with a full attack, like a barbarian's rage power for getting a bit attack). They do this to prevent them from being completely useless instead of only slightly helpful.
Unfortunately I do not have a citation on this, so take it with a grain of salt.
Looking over the rules stated i'd say this is legal. It seems like a fun character concept that doesn't work as well on paper as it sounds in theory. When looking over this, i picture a raging barbarian crashing into his enemies with sword, albow, fot, and face. According to the RaW it's legal, and it's nowhere near min-maxing. I'd allow it.
@CP:
Hmmm, do you have a link to said FAQ and/or discussion?
As if that wasn't enough, here's the text of free actions, according to the PRD.
Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM.
Here's the text of full-round actions, emphasis mine.
Full-Round Action: A full-round action consumes all your effort during a round. The only movement you can take during a full-round action is a 5-foot step before, during, or after the action. You can also perform free actions and swift actions (see below). See Table: Actions in Combat for a list of full-round actions.
I'm uh...not sure what this means for the conversation, other than proof that StabbityDoom's point number 2 is incorrect.
|
|
As if that wasn't enough, here's the text of free actions, according to the PRD.
Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM.Here's the text of full-round actions, emphasis mine.
Full-Round Action: A full-round action consumes all your effort during a round. The only movement you can take during a full-round action is a 5-foot step before, during, or after the action. You can also perform free actions and swift actions (see below). See Table: Actions in Combat for a list of full-round actions.I'm uh...not sure what this means for the conversation, other than proof that StabbityDoom's point number 2 is incorrect.
Apologies, it seems I was wrong on this point. I thought there was merely an exception for a few actions, such as reloading and speech.
This doesn't change the result of this discussion since instead of switching their hand on-and-off the greatsword they can just kick, but it would meant that someone could TWF a two-handed and thrown weapons by releasing, quick-drawing, throwing as the off-hand, then regrasping for the next hit. Though probably not effective, this seems.. odd. Oh well, rule of cool kicks in on this one, I think.
Rule of Cool - In the absence of clear consensus otherwise, the ruling that results in the greatest amount of fun takes precedence. This generally means that the "cooler" option is preferred or, lacking that, the more permissive option.
|
|
All swordplay involves kicks, bites, punches, grapples, sand in the eye, and whatever else necessary to make your opponent fall down and stop trying to hurt you. Yet up to now all of that has been considered part of the abstract nature of "I attack with my greatsword". Do we really want to change that?
Can I also count my longsword as a double weapon because I occasionally hit my opponent in the face with the pommel rather than swing at them with the blade?
Because all of those things have rules. Kicks are unarmed strike. Bites are a natural weapon. Punches are unarmed strike. Sand in the eye is the Dirty Trick combat maneuver. In order to do these things as part of a full-round attack, you must do one of the aforementioned things, all of which take actions that generally can't be spared without it becoming a sub-optimal course of action (except possibly Dirty Trick, which might be the right idea that round).
In other words: You can say that's part of the abstract all you want, but that won't change that your interpretation is at direct conflict with the rules, and some people would like to be able to point to a rule and say "Yes, my character IS punching that guy in the face between sword strikes."
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
On a related tanged, you COULD read the Shielded Fighter´s ability to ´mix sword and shield attacks´ within a Full Attack, not gaining extra attacks ala 2WF but not needing those Feats either (except as Pre-Reqs for Shield Feats... whoops), as precedent to show that Full Attacks normally CAN´T be swapped between different attacks.
Of course, that restriction doesn´t actually exist in the Core Rules, and imagining it to be so would seem to impose harsh restrictions on throwing weapons/quickdraw or when your main weapon is just disarmed and you want to UAS with your remaining attacks (etc). Given that the Polearm Fighter Archetype also ´seems´ to grant an ability to Trip with Polearms that in fact ALL Polearms already have (clarified per latest FAQ), I will take the wording in Shielded Fighter to be superfluous (even if unfortunately that ability was judged as one of the ability the Class Archetype grants, i.e. the Class is wasting it´s ´budget´ on granting something all characters already have) and thus read that there ISN´T any such ´switching weapons within Full Attack´ restriction.
Both of those Archetypes (Polearm and Shield) should really be Errata´d in that case though.
So.. can anyone post the link to this recent thread that Captain and CP keep mentioning? I'm quite curious to read the developer opinions on the issue.
Other than that, though, I'm not sure to what they could be referring.
Yes, I did that too, but couldn't find it either...
I am surprised that no one is arguing this from a basic game balance point of view.
Unfortunately for you and those on your side of the argument, you're looking at Fighter VS Wizard in a vaccuum. And in a vaccuum very favorable to your argument in which the two are 5 feet apart and the Fighter goes first.
What would happen if said wizard cast Hold Person on said fighter? Dead fighter... especially as a 4th-6th level wizard has many more tricks available than that. Invisibility, Sleep, Scorching Ray, etc has not factored into your argument at all I see... all of which would toast a level 1 fighter.
Grappling a Wizard and beating him to death or stealing a spell component pouch achieves the same goal in fewer actions.
So I fail to see the game breaking impact of your outrage...
Plus, a barbarian with Power Attack and furious focus can do the same thing.
I'd be more amused then anything. IUS has to be readied in conjunction with the Greatsword like any other weapon. That means if he wants to use it, he's always at -2 To hit with his greatsword, which defeats the purpose of being a THW guy.
There's also the problem that while you CAN avoid using the hands while using IUS, there's also the problem of being UNABLE to use the hands while they are full. Fighting a kung fun guy who can ONLY use his kicks versus fighting one who can use everything can and should make a difference.
I'd probably impose a further -2 on the IUS for not having the whole body AVAILABLE. IUS uses the whole body, and he can't...his hands are occupied. It's like trying to wield a Greatsword in one hand...just doesn't function as well.
But, that's an interpretation.
==Aelryinth
|
|
I am surprised that no one is arguing this from a basic game balance point of view.Unfortunately for you and those on your side of the argument, you're looking at Fighter VS Wizard in a vaccuum. And in a vaccuum very favorable to your argument in which the two are 5 feet apart and the Fighter goes first.
What would happen if said wizard cast Hold Person on said fighter? Dead fighter... especially as a 4th-6th level wizard has many more tricks available than that. Invisibility, Sleep, Scorching Ray, etc has not factored into your argument at all I see... all of which would toast a level 1 fighter.
Grappling a Wizard and beating him to death or stealing a spell component pouch achieves the same goal in fewer actions.
So I fail to see the game breaking impact of your outrage...
He's also forgetting that the first level barbarian could instead take weapon focus (falchion) and power attack and reallocate to 20 str total (24 strength when raging) to end up at +9 to attack for 2d6 + 13 damage for 20 average damage (not counting critical). This is both more likely to hit (by +4) and does only a tiny hair less damage (0.5 less), an amount more than made up for by the difference in potency of an AoO and the extra +4 to attack. Toss on the fact that TWFing does not scale without further investment, but power attack does and they're doing a lot better.
I imagine if you made two 20th level barbarians, one with each of the two styles, they would be relatively comparable in DPR, but with the TWFer requiring a lot more feats and items to just make it work and the THFer able to invest in other options. The TWFer might even win in damage (barely), but still has a much higher investment and thus would deserve to eke out a little extra power.
|
|
I'd probably impose a further -2 on the IUS for not having the whole body AVAILABLE. IUS uses the whole body, and he can't...his hands are occupied. It's like trying to wield a Greatsword in one hand...just doesn't function as well.But, that's an interpretation.
==Aelryinth
By that logic having only one weapon in hand should impose a penalty versus having two since the opponent doesn't know which one the guy might strike with, even if only one is ever used. And holding a shield should impose an attack roll penalty because it restricts the ways you can attack. Heck, an unarmed strike user should have a penalty for not wielding weapons since you can confuse the opponent when you kick them instead of stab them!
While we're at it, let's add perception penalties to helmets and have reflex saves for chain users that walk through the woods to prevent things from snagging.
TL;DR - That's one of those rules that both introduces more book-keeping and reduces the fun of the game.
The problem with the whole, "Oh Noes! He gets 1.5 + 0.5 = unfair!" is that it ignores the 2 feat requirement/opportunity cost. You might as well say that a character with Weapon Focus and Power Attack has an unfair advantage.
Edit: Gang Ninja'd
Edit2: Oh how I wish a Dev would weigh in and settle this one.
I'd probably impose a further -2 on the IUS for not having the whole body AVAILABLE. IUS uses the whole body, and he can't...his hands are occupied. It's like trying to wield a Greatsword in one hand...just doesn't function as well.But, that's an interpretation.
==Aelryinth
By that logic having only one weapon in hand should impose a penalty versus having two since the opponent doesn't know which one the guy might strike with, even if only one is ever used. And holding a shield should impose an attack roll penalty because it restricts the ways you can attack. Heck, an unarmed strike user should have a penalty for not wielding weapons since you can confuse the opponent when you kick them instead of stab them!
While we're at it, let's add perception penalties to helmets and have reflex saves for chain users that walk through the woods to prevent things from snagging.
TL;DR - That's one of those rules that both introduces more book-keeping and reduces the fun of the game.
Wow, that's got to be absolutely the worst counter-example under the rules I've ever seen.
You're saying that because you're using a One handed weapon in one hand, the way it's meant to be used, you're at a penalty.
You're saying that because you're using a one-handed weapon in one hand, and a shield in the other, the way they are meant to be used, that you're at a penalty.
And you're saying that's equivalent to having someone using IUS NOT BE ABLE TO USE HIS HANDS OR ENTIRE BODY, should be equal to someone who is using IUS as it is supposed to be used...with the entire body, not sans hands.
Huh.
Great logic. Not.
==Aelryinth
|
|
I'd probably impose a further -2 on the IUS for not having the whole body AVAILABLE. IUS uses the whole body, and he can't...his hands are occupied. It's like trying to wield a Greatsword in one hand...just doesn't function as well.But, that's an interpretation.
==Aelryinth
By that logic having only one weapon in hand should impose a penalty versus having two since the opponent doesn't know which one the guy might strike with, even if only one is ever used. And holding a shield should impose an attack roll penalty because it restricts the ways you can attack. Heck, an unarmed strike user should have a penalty for not wielding weapons since you can confuse the opponent when you kick them instead of stab them!
While we're at it, let's add perception penalties to helmets and have reflex saves for chain users that walk through the woods to prevent things from snagging.
TL;DR - That's one of those rules that both introduces more book-keeping and reduces the fun of the game.
Wow, that's got to be absolutely the worst counter-example under the rules I've ever seen.
You're saying that because you're using a One handed weapon in one hand, the way it's meant to be used, you're at a penalty.
You're saying that because you're using a one-handed weapon in one hand, and a shield in the other, the way they are meant to be used, that you're at a penalty.
And you're saying that's equivalent to having someone using IUS NOT BE ABLE TO USE HIS HANDS OR ENTIRE BODY, should be equal to someone who is using IUS as it is supposed to be used...with the entire body, not sans hands.
Huh.
Great logic. Not.
==Aelryinth
You're saying I can't punch as well because my OTHER fist is holding something. You're saying the headbutt is worse because I have a shield in my left hand. You're saying a kick to the chest is less awesome because the character is holding a weapon in their hand(s).
You're saying the same thing, but don't realize it. Sure, the whole body is a weapon, but you don't need the whole body to be used at once any more than someone with swords for arms needs to use both arms to cut you. They say the whole body is a weapon, but in reality the body is made up of about a dozen separate weapons that happen to be part of the same object (you). Calling that out would be cumbersome.
But here it is: Headbutt, left fist, right fist, left elbow, right elbow, left shoulder, right shoulder, left knee, right knee, left foot, right foot.
So what if my left fist is occupied? I still have another 10 options (9 if you exclude left elbow for some reason).
You're being willfully obtuse. I said nothing about damage. I said effectiveness.
Take two martial artists. Let one use his hands, AND EVERYTHING ELSE; Let the other one NOT be able to use his hands.
I think you will very quickly see what I'm talking about in terms of effectiveness. The first guy doesn't have to fear your hands, so he's going to be able to defend himself more easily against your attacks. Your hands are your best weapon, and you don't have them.
Thus, a TH penalty, because it's much easier to defend against someone who can't use their hands then someone who can. In short, you're down two options from me, I can do everything you can, and more. That's never a good condition to be in.
==Aelryinth
Take two martial artists. Let one use his hands, AND EVERYTHING ELSE; Let the other one NOT be able to use his hands.
I think you will very quickly see what I'm talking about in terms of effectiveness. The first guy doesn't have to fear your hands, so he's going to be able to defend himself more easily against your attacks. Your hands are your best weapon, and you don't have them.
Unfortunately, Pathfinder has no rules for center of balance or potential combat effectiveness. Applying them here and not everywhere else is not exactly fair, imo. You're adding a little too much real world physics into this fantasy pie.
Pushing someone down that is covered in Steel Plate Armor should essentially be a death sentence due to the fact that they could probably not get up on their own.
|
|
You're being willfully obtuse. I said nothing about damage. I said effectiveness.
Take two martial artists. Let one use his hands, AND EVERYTHING ELSE; Let the other one NOT be able to use his hands.
I think you will very quickly see what I'm talking about in terms of effectiveness. The first guy doesn't have to fear your hands, so he's going to be able to defend himself more easily against your attacks. Your hands are your best weapon, and you don't have them.
Thus, a TH penalty, because it's much easier to defend against someone who can't use their hands then someone who can. In short, you're down two options from me, I can do everything you can, and more. That's never a good condition to be in.
==Aelryinth
Yes, and by the same logic someone with two weapons will be harder to defend against than someone with one simply because of the difficulty of prediction (even if they do not attempt to attack more frequently as a result). Just because the unarmed strike guy has a weapon AND a kick does not mean they're easier to predict, it just means that if you mess up there's a decent shot of getting cut instead of bludgeoned. You're confusing "not using hands ever" and "using hands for X and feet for Y".
D&D/PF do not model to that level of detail, and for a reason: It gets complicated, and it's not worth it.
To wit: How well would the average animal be able to discern your ability to strike with various body parts? Will they be more surprised by a kick or a punch? How about a construct? Or an undead? Would an opponent be surprised to learn that someone with a greatsword is also very good at kicking? How long does that effect last? Do they need to have personally defended against it or is 2nd hand enough? How about 3rd hand?
Too many questions, too much "not worth it", irrespective of the accuracy.
And no, I'm not being deliberately obtuse, I'm attempting to combat the idea that it's "cool" for a DM to throw in random penalties with minimal prompting.
Does it make sense that dust in the area is making you squint to avoid getting it in your eyes? Sure, and since that's a one-off thing that's simple and interesting, it's fun. Does it make sense that bows have a chance of their string snapping and hurting the player whilst simultaneously disarming them? Yes, but I fail to see that adding to fun in any context.
There are a few qualifiers for what makes a good house rule: Simple, fun, interesting and verisimilitude (insofar as what the game world supports, not the real world). What you propose is neither simple nor fun, and I would argue not interesting. Verisimilitude? Sure, maybe, but you need more than 1/4 to make it a good house rule.
If it isn't simple, it's probably not worth it since it'll soak time from your game. If it isn't fun, it defeats the purpose of the game. If it isn't interesting, then it won't even hold intellectual attention (harming the purpose of fun). If it doesn't pass verisimilitude then it breaks immersion, which is also not fun.
Your hands are your best weapon,==Aelryinth
I'll restrain my full snark for the sake of the thread, but still: WRONG.
Please, do not talk about martial artists, effectiveness, and then claim that hands are the best weapons. Because the last firmly cements that you do not actually know as much as you think you do about the first two.
You know which of two martial artists is likely more dangerous, assuming some phantasmal balance in skill/bodymass/style? The one with a weapon in his hands, because he can use all of its advantages PLUS the rest of his body.
Not even going to participate in this thread any further. No source has been found for the supposed "CONTENTIOUS DEV STATEMENTS", the RAW is pretty clear that its fine, its relatively sub-optimal, and its a visually dynamic and interesting concept. No points against, three in favor, judge bangs gavel, court is adjourned.