|
Here's the quote from Mark Moreland
Armor spikes are treated as light weapons for the purpose of threatening adjacent squares. Light weapons require the use of limbs, so you would only be able to make attacks with them if you have a free hand. Thus, wielding a two-handed reach weapon would negate your ability to "wield" (and thus threaten with) armor spikes. This isn't necessarily clear in the rules, but I just discussed it with Jason, and we're both on the same page about the intent.I don't have time to pull all the other quotes.
But essentially, look at multiweapon fighting - in the bestiary. this is a current rule, where they say one hand is primary, all others are offhand.
I would suggest you also look at:
1). The section on armor spikes - which gives you restrictions on what other weapons you may use.
2). The fact that you have to have a feat to use a dom duergar two hadned and twf.
3) The wording of TWF Rend.
4) Pathfinder expanded the definition of off hand weapons so that the class of weapon includes weapons that do not require a hand to wield. However they have not changed the definition of primary weapon again confirmed in the bestiary ruling.
5. The fact that there ARE 2handed weapons that you can use to TWF with. Each of them classes as a 1h and and off hand. Why create an entire class of weapons if you can TWF with any weapon?
6. "You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands."
7. [b] 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.
Notice the key phrases: primary hand. Two weapons.
8. There are a variety of other posts that indicate primary and off hand are not vestigial terms - they are terms with meaning. For example the Aug 31 FAQ.
0. Mark, to my knowledge, only works on non-core stuff (which get a bit of wiggle room). Taking his second-hand word of Jason's opinion is a stretch, especially for an issue that is so easily miscommunicated.
1. The only restrictions the armor spike gives is that you cannot use it as though you had a third arm (i.e., no more attacks than the normal two-weapon fighting progression you possess). It explicitly notes it can be both a regular and off-hand attack, despite not being in a hand.2. Care to cite this weapon? I am unfamiliar with it and it does not appear to be listed anywhere that I can find (google only returns 2 results on a search for that exact phrase).
3. This is because the term "hand" is a legacy term. Replace with "primary weapon" and "secondary weapon" and it simplifies it a lot.
4. I'm not even sure what you're saying here. Many weapons that do not require a hand can be main-handed, look at armor spikes for example.
5. Yes, these have a special property: They count as one weapon for the purposes of feats while giving one-hander damage at the light-weapon penalties and allowing you to wield as a single two-handed attack if you desire (but explicitly not while using it as a TWFing weapon). This in no way detracts from your ability to use two SEPARATE weapons in TWFing, they're a special case where you can use ONE weapon in TWFing.
6. Flavor text. Get over it. It usually matches the most common usage of the ability rather than what the rules actually intend.
7. Yes, two weapons. Weapon A: Kick. Weapon B: Sword. And again, "hand" is legacy as evidenced by the list of weapons that do not require a hand. (The double weapons are the exception to the "two weapons" rule, as is unarmed strike since you have almost a dozen different ways to deliver it's effectively that many different weapons, but the "no more attacks" rule prevents you from going over what a TWFing progression allows you.)
8. Care to link that FAQ? Several others have already stated they have searched for anything in the FAQs that might have been relevant and I do not wish to repeat that work. The closest I could find in a quick search was a post REMOVING the restriction that kept shield bash as an off-hand only thing, saying that it was only intended to describe the normal usage not the only usage (which backs up my assertion that the flavor text is superfluous).
|
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
Should a fighter with a shield and a sword take a constant -2 penalty because he COULD use his shield to bash?
Really, why do people make 1d3+ half str mod. sound overpowered?
Really, why do people make 1d3+ half str mod. sound overpowered?
Because they are scared because you just scattered there "sense of reality". Same reason Warlock's at will weak laser blast was considered in the begginning overpowered.
The very idea of at will magic could be balanced hurt them. Eventually the dust settled and people got over it. But for a while there was much gnashing of teeth.
Should a fighter with a shield and a sword take a constant -2 penalty because he COULD use his shield to bash?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
That's another straw man.
The instant he preps the shield to attack with it, he's got the -2 of a TWF. That's already in the rules.
Ditto IUS.
A shield bash is using the shield...exactly what it's designed to do.
IUS w. no hands is NOT using the whole body...i.e. NOT what IUS is supposed to do.
And note I DID say that's how I'd rule it, not that it was the rules.
===============
As for that numbskull comment from Black Bard on having a weapon in your hands...actually, 'melee weapon' is usually trumped by 'firearm', so you're wrong in your completely off-center example, also. Eesh.
In case you hadn't noticed, the Greatsword DOES do more dmg then the IUS strike. Duh. But we're talking about the IUS, not what the hands are doing. So, take the straw man outside, please.
===============
I'd also like to point out that's a very bad DPR example above. What you're basically saying is that you pick up 18 pts of damage for giving up 6 or 8 feats...but then you don't add in the 8 feats to solve the problem to the Fighter with no IUS. Surely there is SOMETHING he could take to up his damage marginally!
For instance, he could use a bastard sword two handed on his attack, one hand it at the end of his turn, pick up the Crane Style tree. Now he gets a free AoO, highest chance, every round, deflects an attack for free, and he can buy off the defensive fighting penalty with feats, so he picks up +5 AC. Kinda blows the IUS combo out of the water.
Just an example.
===Aelryinth
==Aelryinth
|
|
@CP: It's obvious to me you're not going to budge on the point that the use of the term "hand" isn't literal, so I'm just going to give up convincing you here. Have fun making your monks throw their foot at the bad guys to kick.You obviously haven't read a single thing I post.
Time and time again I have said that Pathfinder (like 3.5 before it) uses off-hand to describe weapons that are not wielded in a hand.
We agree completely on that point - so to continue repeating it just reinforces the fact that you are not making an effort to understand the argument.
So you're saying that a character can use TWF with a two-handed weapon and unarmed strike, because the unarmed strike can likewise be wielded not in a hand?
|
A player can two weapon fight with a blade boot and armor spikes, all while holding a greatsword. In fact, the player does not even have to have arms, an amputee pc who two weapon fights. It is all about choosing to gain an extra attack, with a penalty. As long as we can drop the "hands" issue of the two weapon fighting rules, we can move on and produce something viable.
|
|
Two weapon fighting and natural attacks are apples and oranges. A naga could two weapon fight with an unarmed strike and armor spikes, so the primary limb thing makes no sense. Primary and secondary attacks is what it is about, even though two weapon fighting refers to hands. Dropping the word hand, and replacing it with the word attack makes the whole thing make sense to those unable to look beyond the fluff.
Should a character using boot blades on ice roll to fall? Have penalties to attack?
This is rediculous. Does a character roll to fall *ever* when kicking? No. Does a character that has foot talons or claws roll to slip? No. Does PF even take this into account? No. Not even when standing in a puddle of Grease.
The rules state all characters are proficient with Unarmed Strike and they all can make a punch, headbutt or kick attack. Therefore you should not, purely by the rules, invoke any penalties on PCs that TWF with a kick.
Can you use a kick as an off-hand even though it isn't in your hand? Of course.
There are no secondary unarmed strikes. Please stick to the rules, you say you're an advocate for them.
There are creatures (and Dragon Disciples) that treat a Bite as a primary attack.
|
|
Are basing some of your opinion on the rules of natural attacks based on what is written in the core? The bestiary is the correct write up. Natural attack rules and two weapon fighting rules are two different things. Off-hand attacks do not require hands, there is no need to hold your foot to kick. As stated, you do not even need hands to two weapon fight.
|
|
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.
A ranger with the TWF combat style could pump STR and make good use of the attacks.
|
|
Okay, seriously, stop quoting flavor text as evidence! That is above the feat's mechanical description for a reason: it's just there to make the feat sound cooler. Nothing in either the benefit or normal section, or the full Two-Weapon Fighting section of the combat chapter says that the primary hand or off-hand must actually be a hand, and several OTHER sources directly say it does not.
Make other arguments all you want, but the moment you pull in flavor text as a major piece of evidence you lose all credibility.
|
|
A ranger with the TWF combat style could pump STR and make good use of the attacks.
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.
Yeah, but being extra dangerous when TWFing is basically a TWF Ranger's class feature. This just means they can spend an extra feat to have a sub-optimal secondary weapon in exchange for a more optimal primary. Good trade? Depends. I'd rather do a dual-kukri ranger for critical goodness, but some might prefer investing more heavily into a big weapon and just getting what they can from unarmed strike. The only way I can see that being useful is if they take IUS instead of double-slice (if they couldn't fit it in). With either feat they go from 1.5* str total to 2.0* str total, but with IUS they have a crappy critical on the 0.5* one. If they take both, they still have a crappy critical but now it's 1.0* and might match up better with dual kukris.
Either way, not overpowering enough to worry about IMO.
The real utility of TWF comes from being able to land effects, not from hp damage.Monk 2, R2, Fighter x. Be a half elf. Run around in shadow projection form(hours / level) (with the alternate racial ability you count as a mage for activating a wand).
Feral Combat training
TWF, ITWF, etc.
Flurry of blows.
1. Flurry and TWF don't stack.
2. Feral Combat Training can only be taken once and only applies to one natural attack form.Result: You're getting two more attacks (claws) in your Flurry than a normal monk.
The better choice is just to TWF where you get all your natural attacks, but lose out on the BAB boost and other stuff from flurry.
But let's get back on topic, you need all that and an extra 24,000 gold for the wand which costs more than your character's average wealth - until level 8 where it is a mere 72% of it. So you've sunk your character's entire wealth budget into this one item, for the first 10 levels of your game, must be fun to be your GM.
For the record, you're stating that the real danger with TWF is having access to more attacks and not the damage?
So, why are you taking issue with a two handed fighter having a kick attack? They are not likely to have a Wand of Shadow Projection.
|
|
Either way, not overpowering enough to worry about IMO.The real utility of TWF comes from being able to land effects, not from hp damage.
So take something like:
Monk 2, R2, Fighter x. Be a half elf. Run around in shadow projection form(hours / level) (with the alternate racial ability you count as a mage for activating a wand).
Feral Combat training
TWF, ITWF, etc.
Flurry of blows.Feral lets you Flurry with natural weapons. Shadows have strength drain as natural weapons.
Boost your dex; add weapon focus: natural weapons, finesse
You'll be hitting even with the flurry and twf penalties (which aren't much for light/light.
So instead of 6/1 around 7th level - you'll be doing something like what...five attacks - six with haste? With a 20 dex you are likely to hit 3/4 of them - or 14 points of str dmg. Even if you don't kill him.. you're going to nerf him to the point of irrelevence. At that point its likely he can't move do to his encumbrance - and besides having -7 to hit from strength loss - probably another -4 or more to encumbrance
Alright, look, that build you posted is illegal for a few reasons. One: It uses a wand that cannot possibly be afforded before 7th level by normal rules. Two: You cannot use TWFing with flurry because flurry IS TWFing. Three: Even if you could, the shadow only has one natural weapon, meaning you don't have two weapons to fight with (flurry bypasses this). In the end you have 2 attacks (3 at 6th level, 4 with haste) that do 1d6 strength damage. In the mean-time the enemy cleric has begun commanding you because you're undead type, or possibly bursting positive energy to heal the damage your companions are dealing while killing you. Sure, the tactic somewhat deadly, but has nothing to do with the rest of the discussion because these are special attacks that cannot be combined with normal TWFing for extra doses of the effect. If they could, they'd work with a manufactured weapon and already plan for TWFing. This discussion is only about people using a *particular* version of TWFing over others that has the distinction of contributing 0.5*str more damage with the penalty of requiring an extra feat and forcing one of your weapons to have a crappy critical.
For the flavor-text thing: Last I checked, feats have flavor text. It's the text after the name of the feat and before the Benefits/Prerequisites/Normal sections. The fact it's just flavor text should also be evident in the fact that what the text says for TWFing is stuff you can do without the feat (albeit with major penalties, but you can still do it). This does not mean that without the feat you can't fight with two weapons, it just means that this is what the feat is describing as its flavor.
d20pfsrd, for example, has this text in italics above the other parts of the feat: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/two-weapon-fighting-combat
If you look through other feats you'll see lots of "this is irrelevant to the rules" text like this. Some feats are closer than others for the match-up between the flavor and the rules, but generally come close.
TL;DR - Irrelevant and illegal build. In the case of feats, if it isn't after the Pre-requisites/Benefit/Normal/Special headings, it isn't a rule.
Should a character using boot blades on ice roll to fall? Have penalties to attack?
This is rediculous. Does a character roll to fall *ever* when kicking? No. Does a character that has foot talons or claws roll to slip? No. Does PF even take this into account? No. Not even when standing in a puddle of Grease.
The rules state all characters are proficient with Unarmed Strike and they all can make a punch, headbutt or kick attack. Therefore you should not, purely by the rules, invoke any penalties on PCs that TWF with a kick.
Can you use a kick as an off-hand even though it isn't in your hand? Of course.
There are no secondary unarmed strikes. Please stick to the rules, you say you're an advocate for them.
There are creatures (and Dragon Disciples) that treat a Bite as a primary attack.
I think an appropriate question should actually be, does a player who uses shield bash lose his shield armor bonus? If so it sets a precedence for losing a bonus or armor to gain the extra attack.
Also.....
Chuck Norris.
I think an appropriate question should actually be, does a player who uses shield bash lose his shield armor bonus? If so it sets a precedence for losing a bonus or armor to gain the extra attack.
I'm not sure why this would be an appropriate question, but the answer is yes. A player that shield bashes loses their shield bonus.
Improved Shield Bash(Combat)
You can protect yourself with your shield, even if you use it to attack.Prerequisite: Shield Proficiency.
Benefit: When you perform a shield bash, you may still apply the shield's shield bonus to your AC.
Normal: Without this feat, a character that performs a shield bash loses the shield's shield bonus to AC until his next turn (see Equipment).
Unfortunately, I don't see the connection between the current discussion and shield bash. You're already losing -6 and -8 from your attack roll for using Two Weapon Fighting to generate an extra attack. (this is reduced to a minimum of -2 and -2 with the Two Weapon Fighting feat)
Hey Stynkk. Like I said (often) if the question was asked if it was a balance problem the answer is no. Have fun.
So you have no issue with balance or damage or with the definition of off-hand. You seem to take issue with the fact that this fighting style is not prevalent in PF adventures. However, in PF the size of the "primary" weapon has no bearing on TWF, the higher penalties are associated with the size of the off-handed or "secondary" weapon.
What is your issue then? Do you view this as a cheap way of gaining more attacks?
To be clear: the dev statblocks can be in error, they're human. Up until recently they had long advocated the use of Spring Attack and Vital Strike which impossible in the rules structure they've created - one cannot take a Standard Action while Spring Attacking.
It was because of the questions brought forward by the community that this was discovered to be an impossible combination.
|
|
Alright, look, that build you posted is illegal for a few reasons. One: It uses a wand that cannot possibly be afforded before 7th level by normal rules. Two: You cannot use TWFing with flurry because flurry IS TWFing. Three: Even if you could, the shadow only has one natural weapon, meaning you don't have two weapons to fight with (flurry bypasses this). In the end you have 2 attacks (3 at 6th level, 4 with haste) that do 1d6 strength damage. In the mean-time the enemy cleric has begun commanding you because you're undead type, or possibly bursting positive energy to heal the damage your companions are dealing while killing you. Sure, the tactic somewhat deadly, but has nothing to do with the rest of the discussion because these are special attacks that cannot be combined with normal TWFing for extra doses of the effect. If they could, they'd work with a manufactured weapon and...It was off the cuff - but it looks to me like you can get two attacks from iteration, one from TWF, one from ITWF, and one for haste which is 5 attacks. So, ignore the haste. A regular fighter makes 2 iteratives. the TWF fighter is going to make 4. And because of the twf - is going to kill you.
The point is that for TWFing its never the direct hitpoint damage you have to look at -- its edge case balance issues - like str dmg.
As for the rest of it - Good luck commanding me as a monk. Especially since I can easily use str as a dump stat. Good luck on the bursting too. 4d6 (avg 14(save for 7)) vs 75-ish hp.
As for "they cannot be combined with normal TWFing attacks" I dont' really know what your saying. Regarding only having one natural weapon - it doesn't matter. Monks can use the same hand 5 times - or a foot, an elbow, and feral lets them use their natural weapon.
As for the money issue. Ok - whatever level you want. But personally its WAY easy to be way over money in PFS. The mods are joke easy.
I'm saying a couple things:
1) You cannot TWF that one natural attack. You can flurry it, but not TWF it. This still allows you 3 attacks (with haste) at levels 1-5 and 4 at level 6-7 (again with haste), and so on (assuming pure monk here). However, TWFing it would not be possible for two reason. One being that it's a natural attack (and those can't be used with iterative attacks, which is what TWFing is), and two being that even if it was usable with iterative it's only one weapon and you need two to use TWFing. Note that flurrying with a natural attack is an extremely unusual exception to the rule that a natural attack can only be used once per round.2) This is irrelevant to the original discussion of "Can you use TWFing with a two-hander and unarmed strike." It doesn't matter if combing oddball effects of the natural attacks other things comes into play, because if they can be used with TWFing then it was already calculated for and will be usable with any TWFing combo, 2-hander involved or not.
To me its just a question of
a). What do the rules actually say.
b). I think that allowing this brand of cheese spoils versimilitude a bit - it encourages archers to wear spiked gloves (which they never did)
and 2h reach fighters (and wizards) to have armor spikes or gauntlets or...
c) Finally I think its important to try to build a common understanding of the rules.Like giving your example.. why you can't spring and vital. Why you can't spell cast and charge. Why the attack at the end of a charge is NOT equivalent to a move and an attack action.
a) The core rules do not account in their descriptions for odd weapons such as Armor Spikes, Blade Boots, Headbutts, Kicks and Barbarzu (sp?) Beards. These do not fit into the "hand" centric rules of TWF. Going by strictly RAW, a character would never be able to TWF with any of those weapons.
Luckily, each of these has specific rules text that discuss their impact and use in their employment as off-handed weapons.
a1 - Rebuttal & continuation) there is nothing firm - for or against - this style in the rules. 2H weapons with an offhand could be considered an "unlikely" scenario with the most general weapon configuration being present in the rules description for TWF.
I have a hard time believing that using a Longsword (1h) + Kick is totally legitimate for TWF, but placing the extra hand (which was not on a "limb in use") on the Longsword invalidates the fighting style.
b) Archers have more options to wear spiked gloves. In fact, they could take Quickdraw or Improved Unarmed Strike or wear Armor Spikes to threaten. Archers did not usually wear spiked gloves but they usually did have secondary melee weapons. They didn't have to worry about heavy armor or melee capability as they were usually a part of a greater military unit. I'm sure if the real world was like pathfinder (with AoOs) then every archer would have some way of threatening.
Why wouldn't everyone desire a way to threaten enemies around you? It's like saying why wouldn't every character want to improve their armor or saving throws or attributes? The more capable the character, the more likely is the outcome of survival.
c) We very much agree on getting to the bottom of this, but aside from Paizo's reluctance to incorporate this style in their adventures, I don't see much that would invalidate the combat style.
|
|
While I think taking an off-hand IUS attack with a 2-handed weapon would not be game breaking it does lead to a slippery slope.
The very first thing I thought after reading this thread was "If I can get a IUS while using both hands on a 2-handed weapon, why can't I take an IUS while wielding two weapons?" now I have three attacks and only spent 1 extra feat over 2WF. Then when I get I2WF I now have 6 attacks. And 9 with G2WF. That's up to 11 attacks a round at 16 if hasted. 12 if I'm a razortusk half-Orc. Obviously this is not RAW, but it's a very short leap from allowing 2-handed weapon and IUS to 2-weapon and IUS.
Psst: The two-weapon fighting feats are the only way to get extra attacks from wielding extra weapons, and they only allow 1 extra one for each primary attack you normally receive (to a limit of 3 at the final feat). That means 7 attacks (8 with haste). Done. Over. Doesn't matter if you can wield 1000 weapons, you get 7 attacks.
(Multi-weapon fighting feat notwithstanding, but that's a monster feat requiring 3+ arms so it's safe to ignore.)
|
|
While I agree, it doesn't make sense that someone can use 2 hands on one weapon and still kick and I can't use 2 hands on 2 weapons and still kick. I'm just pointing out that that's not a far step.
You CAN use two hands on two weapons and still kick, you just won't get more attacks for it.
For example, a character with ITWF would have something like a +6/+6/+1/+1 to attack. They could take one +6 and one +1 with the weapon in their right hand, one +6 with the weapon in their left, and the last +1 with their kick. They got to use all three weapons in one full-round attack action, they just didn't get extra attacks for weapons beyond the second.
EDIT: The entire point of TWFing is to get one set of extra attacks on the condition that the additional attack be done with a different weapon/limb than the attack you normally have at that BAB level. The OP's question involved an unusual combination of two weapons, but a legal one nonetheless.
While I agree, it doesn't make sense that someone can use 2 hands on one weapon and still kick and I can't use 2 hands on 2 weapons and still kick. I'm just pointing out that that's not a far step.
The point is you're still using only TWO weapons. The amount of hands is irrelevant.
Use a greatsword and describe your attack as punching the dude or smacking him with the pommel or headbutting him or however else you want. You don't need to take five feats to describe punchin' a dude in the midst of your normal attack. If people give you flak over it then ask them what killed their imagination.
Edit: I dunno what or why the rest of you are arguing I just solved the problem like that.
