|
The Two-Weapon Defense point is a good one. I think that's got me leaning back to option b, that is, at the end of your turn you can alter your grip to wield your two handed / double weapon to one method (TWF) or the other (THF) so that you can take AoOs (if any) two-handed, but you give up the ability to use Two-Weapon Defense in this case.Again incorrect. You are wielding a double weapon. It does not matter if you've attacked even in the prior round.
There is no distinction to be made here. There is no 'TWF mode' or 'method' that many wish to ascribe. It is a decision that lasts for the full round attack action.
Think of it like fighting defensively EXCEPT it doesn't last the entire round. There is no 'defensive grip' to be had here.
-James
Maissen, maybe you should read SKR post about wielding:
Wielding means "actively trying to use the item," and is normally only used in the context of weapons or weapon-like objects such as rods, wands, and so on.
Otherwise, it's just an item you're holding/carrying.
And if you're not holding/carrying/bearing it, you're probably wearing it, or it's stowed in a sheath or backpack.
And if you're not wielding, holding/carrying/bearing, or wearing the item, it's probably unattended.
If you're wielding a sword, you're trying to hit people with it.
If you're holding or carrying a sword, you just have it on your person, perhaps because your fighter buddy dropped it and you didn't want him to lose it.
You probably can't wear a sword.
If you're not wielding the sword, holding/carrying/bearing the sword, or wearing the sword, it's on the ground.
Two-Weapon Defense (Combat)You are skilled at defending yourself while dual-wielding.
Prerequisites: Dex 15, Two-Weapon Fighting.
Benefit: When wielding a double weapon or two weapons (not including natural weapons or unarmed strikes), you gain a +1 shield bonus to your AC.
When you are fighting defensively or using the total defense action, this shield bonus increases to +2.
So, to benefit from two weapon defense you should have attacked using Two weapon combat, not simply hold two weapons or a double weapon in your hands.
So, to benefit from two weapon defense you should have attacked using Two weapon combat, not simply hold two weapons or a double weapon in your hands.
Nope, according to what you posted above, to benefit from two weapon defense you should only be wielding a double-weapon, which means having a double weapon in your hands, ready to strike, during a battle while you're not flat-footed (because you are probably trying to hit bad guys with it). Nothing in the rules or in SKR's post says that you have to perform the TWF full-attack action with your double weapon to benefit from two weapon defense. This goes against RAW.
You guys are missing the point of the original question. Which Crane Wing has nothing to do with, it's a bad example, and comparing a two handed weapon to a Double weapon is just wrong.
The question at hand in this thread is if using a Double Weapon to two-weapon fight on your turn can you use it later as a two handed weapon for an AoO.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone referenced this FAQ blog yet?
It's not talking specifically about double weapons, but does clarify that TWFing ends the moment you finish your full-attack, and has no bearing whatsoever on AoOs.
So if we know that TWFing ends when you finish your full-attack routine and doesn't carry over into AoOs, then that should apply to double weapons the same way: by the time the AoO comes around, you're not TWFing with the double weapon anymore, and don't use those mechanics.
|
Darksol, I can't remember the details, but in another thread the subject of 'attacking a large opponent with reach' came up. If a large opponent us 10 feet away and you only threaten 5 feet, can you ready an action to attack his arm (or head, or whatever) as he reaches in to strike you?
No. You have to threaten the square they actually occupy. There is even a high level fighter feat which gives you the ability to attack them if they attack you like in the situation above, which shows that you can't do it without the feat. It spoiled a lot of house rules apparently.
Imagine you have a bow in one hand and an arrow in the other. A bow requires two hands to use (as described in the equipment chapter), so you must co-ordinate both hands to allow you to nock the arrow. This involves getting the bow string between your fingers while keeping hold of the arrow. Then drawing the bow stave and the string apart, making sure the arrow stays in place, position the bow so you can sight (almost) down the arrow to aim at the BBEG, then release.
As the section on 'Not An Action' notes:-
'Not an Action: Some activities are so minor that they are not even considered free actions. They literally don't take any time at all to do and are considered an inherent part of doing something else, such as nocking an arrow as part of an attack with a bow.'
Compare this with simply adding an extra hand to a sword for extra power as you make the attack. Can anyone really convince us that this is more of an action than nocking an arrow? Remember that when fighting with a weapon that requires two hands to use your hands are not 'glued' to one spot. I've seen demonstrations of greatsword combat in the Royal Armouries Museum, and these reconstructions are based on actual fighting manuals of the time. Their hands were moving all round the weapon in constant motion. Think of using a quarterstaff, your hands slide up and down the thing as you fight. Think of a tennis player with a two-handed backhand, changing grip is part of the stroke.
On the subject of Crane Wing, it works as you describe, the writing is clear enough. I hate it though; I think it's broken. I get that they realised that monks badly need some love, so they created all these style feats to help them compete with other classes in combat. The trouble is that other classes take those feats, or have a slight monk dip, then carry on fighting with greatswords and armour as before.
The PrC 'Duelist' is quite tough to enter. At second level (minimum character level 8) they can Parry. The mechanics if which are:-
'Parry (Ex): At 2nd level, a duelist learns to parry the attacks of other creatures, causing them to miss. Whenever the duelist takes a full attack action with a light or one-handed piercing weapon, she can elect not to take one of her attacks. At any time before her next turn, she can attempt to parry an attack against her or an adjacent ally as an immediate action. To parry the attack, the duelist makes an attack roll, using the same bonuses as the attack she chose to forego during her previous action. If her attack roll is greater than the roll of the attacking creature, the attack automatically misses. For each size category that the attacking creature is larger than the duelist, the duelist takes a –4 penalty on her attack roll. The duelist also takes a –4 penalty when attempting to parry an attack made against an adjacent ally. The duelist must declare the use of this ability after the attack is announced, but before the roll is made.'
So, it's tough to qualify for the ability in the first place, pretty much defining your character. You must not only be fighting with a free hand to use duelist stuff, you actually give up one of your attacks! This must be done when you are full attacking, and you hope that you will get to use it, because if no-one attacks you then the attack you gave up is wasted. Then, when you do parry it burns an immediate action, and you have to make a roll to see if it actually parries the attack!
Compare that to Crane Wing:-
'Benefit: Once per round while using Crane Style, when you have at least one hand free and are either fighting defensively or using the total defense action, you can deflect one melee weapon attack that would normally hit you. You expend no action to deflect the attack, but you must be aware of it and not flat-footed. An attack so deflected deals no damage to you.'
It's much easier to qualify for, you don't need to be a monk or fight like a monk so this feat doesn't define your character in a way that being a duelist defines your character, you don't need to be using a full attack in the previous round, you don't need to commotion to it in advance, you don't need to give up an attack, you don't waste an attack if nobody attacks you, it does not take an action to deflect the attack, and the deflection is automatic without needing a roll like a duelist's parry does.
I think it is broken. However, there it is. It's in the rules so keep using it until the devs come to their senses.
[/rant]
Anyone referenced this FAQ blog yet?
It's not talking specifically about double weapons, but does clarify that TWFing ends the moment you finish your full-attack, and has no bearing whatsoever on AoOs.
So if we know that TWFing ends when you finish your full-attack routine and doesn't carry over into AoOs, then that should apply to double weapons the same way: by the time the AoO comes around, you're not TWFing with the double weapon anymore, and don't use those mechanics.
The blog only mentions the penalties for TWF, which isn't exactly the issue.
The issue is that is it legal for a character with a Double Weapon to have the choice of wielding a Double Weapon for TWF also be able to use it as a two-handed weapon simultaneously for 1.5X strength.
I say no; a Double Weapon has two wielding styles, and realistically, you don't two-hand a weapon for 1.5X strength by having both hands at separate ends to attack with (which is how I would see something like an Orc Double Axe operate). That's how you hold it for TWF, but not for 1.5X strength.
At the same time, it has been proposed that choosing how you have the weapon in your hands makes no impact when you are given the chance to provoke regardless, in which you can use the weapon you are holding (in one hand) for two hands upon that AOO provocation, due that such a thing does not consume any action. So the question is technically moot.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone referenced this FAQ blog yet?
It's not talking specifically about double weapons, but does clarify that TWFing ends the moment you finish your full-attack, and has no bearing whatsoever on AoOs.
So if we know that TWFing ends when you finish your full-attack routine and doesn't carry over into AoOs, then that should apply to double weapons the same way: by the time the AoO comes around, you're not TWFing with the double weapon anymore, and don't use those mechanics.
...and therefore, after our turn is over, any AoO we make is with a two-handed weapon being used in two hands, thus getting time-and-a-half on our strength bonus.
The question has been answered. The rest of this thread has largely been devoted to answering objections to this answer.
So, to benefit from two weapon defense you should have attacked using Two weapon combat, not simply hold two weapons or a double weapon in your hands.Nope, according to what you posted above, to benefit from two weapon defense you should only be wielding a double-weapon, which means having a double weapon in your hands, ready to strike, during a battle while you're not flat-footed (because you are probably trying to hit bad guys with it). Nothing in the rules or in SKR's post says that you have to perform the TWF full-attack action with your double weapon to benefit from two weapon defense. This goes against RAW.SKR says that "wielding" means trying to hit someone with the weapon. Keep in mind that all these 6s turns act in parallel to each other. It isn't a matter of you take 6s for your turn while everyone else stands there and patiently waits. While you're doing your attack, everyone else is doing their attack as well; higher initiative just means your actions resolve first. So how you qualify to take AoOs has to be the same manner in which you performed the attack (wielding). If you were wielding a weapon 2-h during the attack, even if you release it at the end of the turn, your AoO are based on 2-h wielding of that weapon because the AoO technically happened while you were engaged in your attack, not after you released your grip. This would also imply that even if you released your hand from your weapon at the end of your attack, it still wouldn't qualify to have a "free hand" for crane deflection. So to get a 2-h str bonus to your AoO, you have to be wielding the weapon in such a way that you'd get 2-h str bonus during your attack. Two-Weapon defense calls out that you need to be using (for that turn) either the Fighting Defensively or Total Defense (assuming Total Defense is "wielding" a weapon for the purpose of defense rather than attack).
The thing is that round time in this game is "universal," not "simultaneous". Yes, the characters aren't waiting around while your actions are being considered and completed, but at the same time if combat were simultaneous, the effects of a previous round would not take effect until the start of the next round, which wouldn't make sense realistically.
In addition, as you've said, initiative determines who acts first and completes their actions within that 6 second period sooner, meaning those with a lower initiative have to deal with the aftershocks of those who had initiative higher than them. The action economy has nothing to do with wielding and threatening, otherwise the concepts for AOO's and Immediate Actions would be broken and severely confusing.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This issue isn't rocket science. Why are we getting hyper critical with the wording of the rules to make things more complicated than they need to be?
BBT pretty much summed it up:
Iterative attack, 2-handed: 1.5 STR (unless for some reason the attack(s) are made one handed, then 1.0 STR with appropriate penalty).
TWF attack, iterative 1.0 STR, extra (off-hand) .5 STR
AoO, 2-handed: 1.5 STR (unless for some reason the AoO is made one handed, then 1.0 STR with appropriate penalty).
|
|
a Double Weapon has two wielding stylesNo, it does NOT.
Rather it has options on how you MAY choose to attack with it.
For example a longsword has the option to be used to deal lethal damage or non-lethal damage.
One does not need to specify 'how they are holding their longsword' at each of their turns, but rather when they make each attack they get to choose whether they are going to attack for lethal or non-lethal damage.
They do not need to 'switch grips' or do ANYTHING, but CHOOSE HOW THEY WILL MAKE THE ATTACK.
A double weapon is very much similar to this situation. At the start of a full attack action the wielder can elect to use such a weapon to TWF with the penalties as if the two-handed weapon wielded were a one-handed and light weapon.
When presented with another opportunity to attack (an AOO, or a different round) the wielder CHOOSES. Period.
Again no grips, no 'styles', no 'modes', no other undefined terms for something that is not occurring in the game.
-James
Spot on!
It is at the moment you make the attack that you choose how to attack; it could be a combat manoevre or a non-lethal strike or one-or-two handed or whatever. You don't have to choose during your own turn what your future attacks will be.
If you wield a reach weapon and wear a spiked gauntlet you threaten all squares both 5-feet and 10-feet away, allowing you to make AoOs, just as if you had armour spikes instead of a spiked gauntlet.
But in order to do TWF, you must treat the Double Weapon as if they were two weapons. In order to get 1.5X Strength, you must treat the weapon as if it was two-handed. Hence why I made the statement that it should be specified as to how you attack with it.
It would be simpler to classify it as fulfilling both pre-reqs simultaneously. So the question is, since you use two-hands for it, and you treat it as two weapons for TWF, why don't you get 1.5X strength with TWF?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But in order to do TWF, you must treat the Double Weapon as if they were two weapons. In order to get 1.5X Strength, you must treat the weapon as if it was two-handed. Hence why I made the statement that it should be specified as to how you attack with it.
It would be simpler to classify it as fulfilling both pre-reqs simultaneously. So the question is, since you use two-hands for it, and you treat it as two weapons for TWF, why don't you get 1.5X strength with TWF?
What you need to understand is that a Double Weapon doesn't function as both simultaneously. It has the option to be used to two-weapon fight or be used as a two handed weapon(1.5 STR), but not at the same time.
You make that choice when you attack with it. So every time you attack with it you choose.
It's the whole point of a Double Weapon is they have versatility.
But in order to do TWF, you must treat the Double Weapon as if they were two weapons. In order to get 1.5X Strength, you must treat the weapon as if it was two-handed. Hence why I made the statement that it should be specified as to how you attack with it.
It would be simpler to classify it as fulfilling both pre-reqs simultaneously. So the question is, since you use two-hands for it, and you treat it as two weapons for TWF, why don't you get 1.5X strength with TWF?
What you need to understand is that a Double Weapon doesn't function as both simultaneously. It has the option to be used to two-weapon fight or be used as a two handed weapon(1.5 STR), but not at the same time.
You make that choice when you attack with it. So every time you attack with it you choose.
It's the whole point of a Double Weapon is they have versatility.
It's quite broken, though. You can use a Double Weapon as a one-handed weapon, a two-handed weapon, and as two weapons; it's any damn weapon type you want, and that's not right.
I don't see why it doesn't function as all of those simultaneously. You use the weapon as two weapons for TWF. You use it as a two-handed weapon for 1.5X strength. You use it as a one-handed weapon for open hand requirements, choosing either end that you see fit. At any point during the round, mind you. If that's not the strongest armory and action economy weapon there is, I don't know what is.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's quite broken, though. You can use a Double Weapon as a one-handed weapon, a two-handed weapon, and as two weapons; it's any damn weapon type you want, and that's not right.
I don't see why it doesn't function as all of those simultaneously. You use the weapon as two weapons for TWF. You use it as a two-handed weapon for 1.5X strength. You use it as a one-handed weapon for open hand requirements, choosing either end that you see fit. At any point during the round, mind you. If that's not the strongest armory and action economy weapon there is, I don't know what is.
This is why you need to burn a feat to get the exotic weapon proficiency. : )
This is why you need to burn a feat to get the exotic weapon proficiency. : )It's quite broken, though. You can use a Double Weapon as a one-handed weapon, a two-handed weapon, and as two weapons; it's any damn weapon type you want, and that's not right.
I don't see why it doesn't function as all of those simultaneously. You use the weapon as two weapons for TWF. You use it as a two-handed weapon for 1.5X strength. You use it as a one-handed weapon for open hand requirements, choosing either end that you see fit. At any point during the round, mind you. If that's not the strongest armory and action economy weapon there is, I don't know what is.
It's still broken as a general weapon. Even burning an EWP feat, if I get it in a weapon that is not a Double Weapon, it is a wasted feat. For example, a Bastard Sword or Katana; sure, I can burn a feat to use the weapon in one hand, but that's its only benefit.
Burning the feat in a Double Weapon, I can use the weapon in 1 hand, 2 hands, or as two weapons, gaining all the same benefits of the examples I listed before. It's stupid to not have a Double Weapon for EWP, because it's a waste of a feat otherwise.
My point is that if Double Weapons truly function that way, it eliminates the point of all Exotic Weapons, which is hardly the intent of a Double Weapon (and most certainly not the way the Devs wrote it out to be).
You can't use it in one hand unless it's made for someone smaller than you, and then you can't use it as a double weapon.
I don't see why you can't just take one end of the weapon and use it one-handed. You use two hands to emulate two weapons, and you use two hands to use it as if it were a two-handed weapon (which is its classification). What's stopping you from using it as a one-handed weapon when you can wield it as if it were two one-handed weapons?
The falcata is a stonger exotic weapon than any double-weapon, so it's not broken.
I don't like it = Broken.
Am I right?
It's probably the first time I have ever heard that double-weapons are broken. If anything, they are decent exotic weapons among a bunch of useless ones, but they are in no way broken. Furthermore, TWF is suboptimal, so there's nothing broken in wasting a feat to use a double-weapon so that you can waste even more feats on the TWF feats chain.
Oh, and, by the way, a monk can wield a temple sword in two hands to get x1.5 Str modifier on damage rolls while flurrying (= TWF), using unarmed strikes as off-hand attacks (x0.5 Str modifier), which is stronger than using a double-weapon and do not require you to spend a feat.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am right there with you. I have never heard that double weapons are broken.
Now, to compare that to what I have heard, I have even heard someone call Monks, and Rogues broken.
What about the Sling? It's free, simple weapon, that adds strength to damage, at 50 ft. away. Broken, for sure.
|
|
So, to benefit from two weapon defense you should have attacked using Two weapon combat, not simply hold two weapons or a double weapon in your hands.Nope, according to what you posted above, to benefit from two weapon defense you should only be wielding a double-weapon, which means having a double weapon in your hands, ready to strike, during a battle while you're not flat-footed (because you are probably trying to hit bad guys with it). Nothing in the rules or in SKR's post says that you have to perform the TWF full-attack action with your double weapon to benefit from two weapon defense. This goes against RAW.
Have you read what SKR wrote?
"If you're wielding a sword, you're trying to hit people with it."
And the feat:
"Benefit: When wielding a double weapon or two weapons (not including natural weapons or unarmed strikes), you gain a +1 shield bonus to your AC."
Holding is not wielding.
According to ths Blog Jiggy linked
"If you use Two-Weapon Fighting on your turn to attack with two weapons, do you also take that penalty on attacks of opportunity made before the start of your next turn? How long do the penalties last?
No, the penalties end as soon as you have completed the full-attack action that allowed you to attack with both weapons. Any attacks of opportunity you make are at your normal attack bonus. Generally speaking, penalties on attacks made during your turn do not carry over to attacks of opportunity unless they specifically state otherwise (such as the penalty from using Power Attack)."
so it is possible to switch to a 2 handed grip after completing the attacks routine and use a double weapon as a 2 handed weapon for the AoO but you still need to have fought using the double weapon or 2 weapons during your round.
|
|
Have you read what SKR wrote?"If you're wielding a sword, you're trying to hit people with it."
And the feat:
"Benefit: When wielding a double weapon or two weapons (not including natural weapons or unarmed strikes), you gain a +1 shield bonus to your AC."
Holding is not wielding.
So you would have the bonus apply only DURING the character's attacks?
No?
What about when they double move? No.
How about after they've finished attacking during their turn? They're still not attacking RIGHT THEN.
How is the prior turn relevant? It's not unless they elected to go full defense or are flat-footed.
In short, No. You are trying to run with a FAQ answer. It's like running with scissors.. it's dangerous, don't do it.
Take FAQ responses as pin point surgeries and not general sweeping blows. They aren't vetted that way, else we'd never see any FAQs only new editions.
-James
So your idea is that it can loosely held my weapon in a hand and do whatever it please me and still get the AC bonus?
Very convenient.So if we use your interpretation of wielding I can have a defending weapon in a hand, use it to get the full Ac bonus and go merrily around casting spell without ever trying to hit someone. Or use a double move while claiming the bonus AC.
SKR was defining a game term. sadly it isn't a very good definition because most contributors to the rules don't keep it in mind when defining how a feat/magic item/class feature ecc. work. but it is the official definition.
Till Paizo don't find a specific term to differentiate between "hold in hand, ready to use" and "using/having used this round the item to bash some one head" it is what we have.
In the specific instance of Two-Weapon Defense wield seem to imply actively use, not "I have it in hand".
The feat even go on specifying "When you are fighting defensively or using the total defense action, this shield bonus increases to +2.", and the incipit is "You are skilled at defending yourself while dual-wielding.", not "while holding 2 weapons in your hands".
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like or not (and I don't) 'wield' is sometimes used to mean 'using/attacking with', and sometimes to mean 'have it in hand ready to use at a moments notice'.
We have to use our own judgement to work out which way 'wield' is meant in any given sentence.
When Two-Weapon Defence says 'When wielding a double weapon or two weapons' it cannot mean you only get the bonus to AC only during the act of striking with your weapon, because then it would never come into play!
|
|
Except that it does come into play because your AoO isn't happening after your 6s turn, it's happening during your 6s turn (while you're in the act of striking with your weapon) because turns happen in parallel, not in sequence. 10 guys all taking 6s turns doesn't take up a whole minute... it still only takes up 6s. Having "turns" is only a contrivance to make the system easier to manage in practicality.Like or not (and I don't) 'wield' is sometimes used to mean 'using/attacking with', and sometimes to mean 'have it in hand ready to use at a moments notice'.
We have to use our own judgement to work out which way 'wield' is meant in any given sentence.
When Two-Weapon Defence says 'When wielding a double weapon or two weapons' it cannot mean you only get the bonus to AC only during the act of striking with your weapon, because then it would never come into play!
I know what you're saying, but like it or not Pathfinder is a turn based game.
A spell with a casting time of one full round uses up your full-round action on your turn, but still doesn't come into effect until just before your next turn.
But normal full-round actions, including a full attack, do not work that way! They start, and end, during your own turn.
@ BBT: I say it's broken because it's any dang weapon you want it to be. One-handed weapon? Sure. Two-handed weapon? Sure. Two different weapons? Sure. What other weapons function in this manner? Not even any of the other weapons that are magic items, and while I will not say that they should function like this, there are none that do, whether through RAW magical weapon effects, or Specifics.
The only thing restricting a Double weapon from being "The Ultimate Weapon" in this manner are 2 factors: Range (for throwing, which even then I guarantee you there are throwing Double weapons, and enchantments to make it viable), and Base Damage types (which can probably be overcome with specific Double weapons or other Enhancement effects).
And I say again, it raises the question, especially regarding EWP feats: Why would anyone even bother to use a Bastard Sword or Katana, or any other weapon that isn't a Double when it is severely less useful than a Double weapon? My Falcata isn't going to allow me to act though as if I have Two Weapons, a Two-Handed Weapon, and a One-Handed Weapon simultaneously, meaning I can't get both 1.5X strength, utilize TWF, and have a free hand open for feats like Crane Style, all within the same round. What other weapons are going to allow you to do that other than a different Double Weapon, which requires no other special proficiency (feats) than the other Exotic Weapons?
Except that it does come into play because your AoO isn't happening after your 6s turn, it's happening during your 6s turn (while you're in the act of striking with your weapon) because turns happen in parallel, not in sequence. 10 guys all taking 6s turns doesn't take up a whole minute... it still only takes up 6s. Having "turns" is only a contrivance to make the system easier to manage in practicality.Like or not (and I don't) 'wield' is sometimes used to mean 'using/attacking with', and sometimes to mean 'have it in hand ready to use at a moments notice'.
We have to use our own judgement to work out which way 'wield' is meant in any given sentence.
When Two-Weapon Defence says 'When wielding a double weapon or two weapons' it cannot mean you only get the bonus to AC only during the act of striking with your weapon, because then it would never come into play!
He's saying that it will come into play until after the attack is made; meaning unless you provoke multiple AOO's (which would happen "simultaneously"), you will not get this bonus. It's a pointless feat when you state that you must attack with the weapon, outside your turn, mind you, when 90% of the time that you provoke (or when they provoke you), it's only going to be maybe one attack, since there is the rule regarding "One AOO per Action".
Some guy moves 30 feet? Ok, 1 attack. Some guy casts a swift spell? Ok, 1 attack. Some guy drinks a potion? Ok, 1 attack.
See, it's pointless, because unless there are other creatures that do not function within the same "turn" as other creatures, this effect does not take place until after their "turn" is done, since it is all universal (that is, within a 6 second window).
|
|
You can't use a double weapon sized for you in one hand.
Also, to get good use out of it, you need to burn feats on TWF on top of the EWP. If you've spent all these feats on it, no wonder it has advantages. So would any weapon with so many feats devoted to its use.
If you don't believe me, put a two bladed sword in the hands of an otherwise capable melee warrior who doesn't have all these feats, and see how 'versatile' it is then!
|
|
Like or not (and I don't) 'wield' is sometimes used to mean 'using/attacking with', and sometimes to mean 'have it in hand ready to use at a moments notice'.
We have to use our own judgement to work out which way 'wield' is meant in any given sentence.
When Two-Weapon Defence says 'When wielding a double weapon or two weapons' it cannot mean you only get the bonus to AC only during the act of striking with your weapon, because then it would never come into play!
The "defending" ability that is added to weapons requires you to attack with the weapon in order receive the AC benefits. There does seem to be a precedence that wielding means to use, not merely to hold.
So, in the case of two-weapon defense, it's not too much of a stretch to say that you have to TWF (meaning, make the extra attack with your off hand) to get the shield bonus which would last until the start of your next turn.
|
|
You can't use a double weapon sized for you in one hand.
Also, to get good use out of it, you need to burn feats on TWF on top of the EWP. If you've spent all these feats on it, no wonder it has advantages. So would any weapon with so many feats devoted to its use.
If you don't believe me, put a two bladed sword in the hands of an otherwise capable melee warrior who doesn't have all these feats, and see how 'versatile' it is then!
The rules say that a double weapon wielded in one hand, but only one end may be used in one round. Where does it say that I can't use a medium quarterstaff in one hand?
The "defending" ability that is added to weapons requires you to attack with the weapon in order receive the AC benefits. There does seem to be a precedence that wielding means to use, not merely to hold.
So, in the case of two-weapon defense, it's not too much of a stretch to say that you have to TWF (meaning, make the extra attack with your off hand) to get the shield bonus which would last until the start of your next turn.
The defending property makes no such claim. Let's look at the RAW text again:
A defending weapon allows the wielder to transfer
some or all of the weapon’s enhancement bonus to his AC as a
bonus that stacks with all others. As a free action, the wielder
chooses how to allocate the weapon’s enhancement bonus at
the start of his turn before using the weapon, and the bonus
to AC lasts until his next turn.
The RAW text says that this "AC transference" ability is a free action done at the start of the done before using the weapon.
There is no indication that using the weapon means to "attack with" or "use SLA/SU ability" or anything. This is no different than me saying that a Double Weapon can only be used as Two Weapons or as a Two-Handed weapon, not both, meaning they don't get 1.5X strength. Honestly, "using" could be done for deflecting attacks or other actions (AKA Fighting Defensively and Total Defense actions).
|
|
The "defending" ability that is added to weapons requires you to attack with the weapon in order receive the AC benefits. There does seem to be a precedence that wielding means to use, not merely to hold.
So, in the case of two-weapon defense, it's not too much of a stretch to say that you have to TWF (meaning, make the extra attack with your off hand) to get the shield bonus which would last until the start of your next turn.
Although that reading is not unreasonable, I still think it is incorrect.
Similar rules cover Defending weapons and fighting defensively (you have to attack to get the AC benefit).
But I think Two-Weapon Defence is trying to simulate a shield. CRB wrote:-
'Benefit: When wielding a double weapon or two weapons (not including natural weapons or unarmed strikes), you gain a +1 shield bonus to your AC.
When you are fighting defensively or using the total defense action, this shield bonus increases to +2.'
It's seems clear that the intent is that having the weapons just 'threatening' gives you a shield bonus in the same way that having a 'ready' shield does. Thus, attacking with TWF in the previous round is irrelevant.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The "defending" ability that is added to weapons requires you to attack with the weapon in order receive the AC benefits. There does seem to be a precedence that wielding means to use, not merely to hold.
So, in the case of two-weapon defense, it's not too much of a stretch to say that you have to TWF (meaning, make the extra attack with your off hand) to get the shield bonus which would last until the start of your next turn.
The defending property makes no such claim. Let's look at the RAW text again:
A defending weapon allows the wielder to transfer
some or all of the weapon’s enhancement bonus to his AC as a
bonus that stacks with all others. As a free action, the wielder
chooses how to allocate the weapon’s enhancement bonus at
the start of his turn before using the weapon, and the bonus
to AC lasts until his next turn.The RAW text says that this "AC transference" ability is a free action done at the start of the done before using the weapon.
There is no indication that using the weapon means to "attack with" or "use SLA/SU ability" or anything. This is no different than me saying that a Double Weapon can only be used as Two Weapons or as a Two-Handed weapon, not both, meaning they don't get 1.5X strength. Honestly, "using" could be done for deflecting attacks or other actions (AKA Fighting Defensively and Total Defense actions).
You have to make an attack with a defending weapon in order to receive the AC bonus.
|
|
The rules say that a double weapon wielded in one hand, but only one end may be used in one round. Where does it say that I can't use a medium quarterstaff in one hand?You can't use a double weapon sized for you in one hand.
Also, to get good use out of it, you need to burn feats on TWF on top of the EWP. If you've spent all these feats on it, no wonder it has advantages. So would any weapon with so many feats devoted to its use.
If you don't believe me, put a two bladed sword in the hands of an otherwise capable melee warrior who doesn't have all these feats, and see how 'versatile' it is then!
It's here:-
'Two-Handed: Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively. Apply 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon.'
A double weapon is a two-handed weapon.
Of course, if you're a medium creature using a small double-weapon, or a large creature using a medium double-weapon, then that double weapon is a one-handed weapon for you. If that is the case, then:-
'A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can't use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.'
|
|
The "defending" ability that is added to weapons requires you to attack with the weapon in order receive the AC benefits. There does seem to be a precedence that wielding means to use, not merely to hold.
So, in the case of two-weapon defense, it's not too much of a stretch to say that you have to TWF (meaning, make the extra attack with your off hand) to get the shield bonus which would last until the start of your next turn.
Although that reading is not unreasonable, I still think it is incorrect.
Similar rules cover Defending weapons and fighting defensively (you have to attack to get the AC benefit).
But I think Two-Weapon Defence is trying to simulate a shield. CRB wrote:-
'Benefit: When wielding a double weapon or two weapons (not including natural weapons or unarmed strikes), you gain a +1 shield bonus to your AC.
When you are fighting defensively or using the total defense action, this shield bonus increases to +2.'It's seems clear that the intent is that having the weapons just 'threatening' gives you a shield bonus in the same way that having a 'ready' shield does. Thus, attacking with TWF in the previous round is irrelevant.
I understand your point of view too, though I think you are incorrect. ;)
|
|
FAQYou have to make an attack with a defending weapon in order to receive the AC bonus.
Where do you find the word 'wield' being defined in this FAQ btw?
Wield can easy mean 'able to be used' can it not?
So a character could be 'wielding' say 4 weapons at the same time:
A longsword in one hand.
A dagger in the other hand.
Armor spikes on the body armor.
Improved unarmed strike.Said character would threaten adjacent squares with all 4 potential attacks.
It would not matter if the character had double moved, fought electing to use TWF, fought without TWF, made attacks with several weapons, etc.
All 4 weapons would be wielded.
Now, for the purpose of a defending enchantment it would matter if the weapon had been used, but it would not alter the fact that all four are currently wielded.
-James
Well, considering that the second sentence of the FAQ respons says "merely holding a defending weapon is not sufficient" makes it pretty clear that if you are "wielding" the weapon, you are attacking with it. "Able to be used", as you put it, is merely holding the weapon.
I'm sure you will still find a way to disagree with me.
|
|
Under the same place where you can't use a great sword that's sized for you in one hand. Meanwhile if you wished to use a great sword sized for someone smaller, you could use it in one hand. In the case of a double weapon you could not use it for it's special optional use (TWF).
It is interesting that you say this, because the greatsword does not have the "double weapon" special feature. The quarterstaff, a two-handed weapon, does have the "double weapon" special feature. The "double weapon" quality allows a double weapon to be wielded one-handed. This would be an example of a "specific" rule overriding a "general" rule.
It's still a stretch... and as it happens a wrong one. You may wish to examine your motivations that lead you to such.
Read the last line of the feat and notice how you get MORE bonus from this feat when using the total defense action. From your reading this should not even apply the NORMAL bonus, let alone more.
So directly we have a case where the weapon is not being used to attack at all during the FULL ROUND (during the turn to the start of the next turn) and yet the bonus directly applies.
You may want to re-read the last part of the feat.
The extra benefit is provided when fighting defensively, not using the total defense action. There IS a difference.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
CRB wrote:-
'When you are fighting defensively or using the total defense action, this shield bonus increases to +2.'
James is correct.
Also, the double weapon quality does not allow you to use a double weapon (sized for you) one-handed! Where did you get that idea?
FAQYou have to make an attack with a defending weapon in order to receive the AC bonus.
Where do you find the word 'wield' being defined in this FAQ btw?
Wield can easy mean 'able to be used' can it not?
So a character could be 'wielding' say 4 weapons at the same time:
A longsword in one hand.
A dagger in the other hand.
Armor spikes on the body armor.
Improved unarmed strike.Said character would threaten adjacent squares with all 4 potential attacks.
It would not matter if the character had double moved, fought electing to use TWF, fought without TWF, made attacks with several weapons, etc.
All 4 weapons would be wielded.
Now, for the purpose of a defending enchantment it would matter if the weapon had been used, but it would not alter the fact that all four are currently wielded.
-James
Well, considering that the second sentence of the FAQ respons says "merely holding a defending weapon is not sufficient" makes it pretty clear that if you are "wielding" the weapon, you are attacking with it. "Able to be used", as you put it, is merely holding the weapon.
I'm sure you will still find a way to disagree with me.
It should be reworded then; I can use a weapon to help deflect attacks, and that is what the Two Weapon Defense feat symbolizes. Saying that you must "attack" with the weapon is much different than saying you must "use" the weapon, especially when you "use" a weapon, that "usage" can be applied to so many different things, on so many different levels.
On the other hand, an Attack requirement severely limits the levels of which you can apply the Defending property to, which the RAW does not state. I will not argue and say that the FAQ is wrong, because not only is that childish and silly, but it's also the intent of the weapon and the way the designers have it set up, so there is no argument to be had.
I will say though, that it is equally viable to use a weapon for things other than attacking, which is what the RAW text suggests (and states "using," which, while it includes "attacking," does not limit it to just "attacking," meaning it would also make sense for it to be "used" in other manners while still fulfilling the RAW requirements).
CRB wrote:-
'When you are fighting defensively or using the total defense action, this shield bonus increases to +2.'
James is correct.
Also, the double weapon quality does not allow you to use a double weapon (sized for you) one-handed! Where did you get that idea?
And yes, he is correct, because similar text is listed in the Crane Style, stating that a character using the Fighting Defensively or Total Defense options gain a +1 Dodge Bonus to AC. This isn't much different.
As for the other; well...You would think that a weapon that allows you to use it as if it were two one-handed weapons could also be used as a single one-handed weapon, especially since you can use it as two of them. It isn't as big of a stretch as you might think.
While again, I am personally against this, there is nothing to suggest that you can't, especially when RAW allows you to have two one-handed, meaning that it would also make sense to allow it to work as a single one-handed. But it would suffer the same restriction, in that you only use one end in any round, period.
|
|
Doh! That's what I get for fixating. Missed the second part of the sentence. Ok, so we can hold two weapons or a double weapon and make use of the feat. Fair enough.
I will not yield on using an undersized double weapon thing, though. The "double weapon" feature is specific language that allows it to be used one-handed. Furthermore, you are restricted to using only one head for that entire round; you can't even alternate between iterative attacks. My argument being that the double weapon is an exception to the rule.
|
|
Doh! That's what I get for fixating. Missed the second part of the sentence. Ok, so we can hold two weapons or a double weapon and make use of the feat. Fair enough.
I will not yield on using an undersized double weapon thing, though. The "double weapon" feature is specific language that allows it to be used one-handed. Furthermore, you are restricted to using only one head for that entire round; you can't even alternate between iterative attacks. My argument being that the double weapon is an exception to the rule.
Double Weapon wrote:-
'A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons, but he incurs all the normal attack penalties associated with two-weapon combat, just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon.'
During the entire TWF routine with a double weapon, it remains a two-handed weapon, and you have both hands on this one object for every attack you make with it wether or not you are using it two-handed or 'as if' it were a one-handed and a light weapon.
This does not allow you to attack with it using only one hand, unless made for a creature one or two size categories smaller then you.