|
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!
Sure. But it must come into play the round you don't use it at all?
By that logic a wizard can use a staff as his bonded object , hold it with one hand and cast spell without problems, then re grip it at the end of the round to use it and claim the AC bonus if he has the appropriate feat.As I see it, you should have used the weapon the last round to benefit for the AC.
Let's make a more absurd example. I run at x4 speed, I lose my dexterity bonus, I can't attack. I still get the AC bonus because I have a staff in my hands?
If wielding = holding for this feat, I will get it.
|
|
...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.
...
-James
A valid point, for me using the weapon actively to defend yourself is wielding it, but this argument has a valid foundation.
|
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!
Sure. But it must come into play the round you don't use it at all?
By that logic a wizard can use a staff as his bonded object , hold it with one hand and cast spell without problems, then re grip it at the end of the round to use it and claim the AC bonus if he has the appropriate feat.As I see it, you should have used the weapon the last round to benefit for the AC.
Let's make a more absurd example. I run at x4 speed, I lose my dexterity bonus, I can't attack. I still get the AC bonus because I have a staff in my hands?
If wielding = holding for this feat, I will get it.
When you run you lose your Dex bonus to AC. You don't lose your shield bonus to AC, and Two-Weapon Defence provides a shield bonus.
Yes, a wizard can have a staff as a bonded object. As long as he is holding it in at least one hand, and at the moment he wants to use it (to attack or gain the shield bonus) neither hand is occupied holding anything except the staff, then he's golden. He counts as 'wielding' it for the purposes of Bonded Object. He doesn't need to have used it to attack, or TWF or anything in the previous round. Typically, he will have held it in one hand while he uses the other to cast a spell. As long as the other hand is free to take hold of the staff when he needs to, then he's golden.
So, wielding means holding for this feat. So now you get it. : )
|
|
Malachi:
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.
...
Question tough, what does that mean for wizards that chose to a weapon or two handed weapon even, as their arcane bound item?It means "obviously you can't wield the weapon and cast a spell in the same round, so we'll change the text in the arcane bond section so it says 'held in hand' rather than 'wielded.'" :)
But the text hasn't been changed so far.
So a wizard with a staff as bonded object will have to grip it in his 2 hands or have to risk failing the spell.|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Malachi:
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.
...
Question tough, what does that mean for wizards that chose to a weapon or two handed weapon even, as their arcane bound item?It means "obviously you can't wield the weapon and cast a spell in the same round, so we'll change the text in the arcane bond section so it says 'held in hand' rather than 'wielded.'" :)But the text hasn't been changed so far.
So a wizard with a staff as bonded object will have to grip it in his 2 hands or have to risk failing the spell.
Really! SKR himself comes on to these threads to answer a question, gives a clear answer, says that the text will be changed so that there's no ambiguity, and you would still rule the other way?
DMs are expected to use their judgement, not look for excuses not to!
Except in society play where the books supersedes judgement calls.
|
|
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.This would be an example of reading what you want to be there rather than what is there.
Just like the other confused poster, you always use a double weapon in two-hands (assuming that it is sized properly).
There is text to handle those trying to use inappropriately sized double weapons to make sure that they can not make use of the special feature. In fact the very line has been quoted for you.
Please take a few steps back, jettison whatever preconceptions and the like that you will want to read into things, and approach this fresh. Read the relevant sections and it should become clearer.
-James
You're standing tall and proud on your mountaintop, but haven't considered the possibility that you're standing on the wrong mountain.
Could those stating that Double Weapons are "Broken" please provide a list of reasons why.
I would really like to understand this opinion.
It's pretty obvious that you're trying to bait, but I'll humor you anyway. So let's begin...
1. Incredible flexibility: Functions as Two Weapons, a Two-Handed Weapon, and a One-Handed weapon all on a PC's whim, which has been deemed by the other forum posters that they can change how they use this weapon at any point in the round they so solemnly wish; that AOO the idiot was going to make? I now change my weapon to using it one-handed after the attack roll is resolved, and since Crane Style was active and I have the entire line of feats, the AOO becomes futile. If that's not broken, I don't know what is.
2. "The Ultimate Weapon": A Greatsword? Who needs that piece of junk when this weapon has the same elements of it? A Comp Bow? Hah, I can throw just as far with this weapon, and Enchantments will only make it all the more superior. Different Damage types for overcoming DR? I can just apply Enchantment X (where X allows the weapon to overcome DR 5/ B/P/S) and this factor becomes null and void.
See the pattern? As a base weapon, even with the same exact properties applied to any Double Weapon compared to a weapon of some other type, it becomes obsolete. Why even have the other weapons when Double Weapons are superior to the others in practically every way possible? Again, game-breaking.
3. Overall Balance: Surely, this sort of thing stretches way beyond how it relates to other weapons, it relates to PCs and NPCs too. It not only makes weapons useless, but most melee classes and/or archetypes as well. Why would you go an Archetype that specializes in 1-handed weapons when you can get an Archetype that will help you better use a Double Weapon? Sure, it's with all this "flavor" stuff, but what grounds is that going to hold when you got 6 (or more) super powerful Double Weaponing Lizardmen slaughtering your party like a lion eating a zebra? Not much, I'm afraid.
That's about all I can come up with that might actually mean something. The rest is most likely unimportant.
So, according to you, a double-weapon, which requires a feat to use properly, is stronger than TWF with a greatsword for x1.5 Str modifier on damage rolls while using armor spikes as your off-hand weapon (no exotic weapon pro. required). Interesting...
|
|
Malachi:
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.
...
Question tough, what does that mean for wizards that chose to a weapon or two handed weapon even, as their arcane bound item?It means "obviously you can't wield the weapon and cast a spell in the same round, so we'll change the text in the arcane bond section so it says 'held in hand' rather than 'wielded.'" :)But the text hasn't been changed so far.
So a wizard with a staff as bonded object will have to grip it in his 2 hands or have to risk failing the spell.Really! SKR himself comes on to these threads to answer a question, gives a clear answer, says that the text will be changed so that there's no ambiguity, and you would still rule the other way?
DMs are expected to use their judgement, not look for excuses not to!
"Rule forum", not "homebred forum". What we do in our games don't matter. The rule is:
1) Wielding is actively use2) The text hasn't been changed so SKR ruling about wielding apply and, as you can read, it say "you can't wield the weapon and cast a spell in the same round" (unless you are a magus).
3) it is fun that you will take as already done the change in text that SKR said will be done but refuse SKR ruling that wielding is actively using, not simply holding in a hand.
Except in society play where the books supersedes judgement calls.Isn't there also a Society rule saying that if the DM is aware of an official FAQ answer, their ruling must take it into consideration even if an errata hasn't been made yet?
This is true but until it's either official FAQ or Errata then it's not official. Unless you expect every DM to stay on top of every post every member of the rules team makes.
So, according to you, a double-weapon, which requires a feat to use properly, is stronger than TWF with a greatsword for x1.5 Str modifier on damage rolls while using armor spikes as your off-hand weapon (no exotic weapon pro. required). Interesting...
You can't use a Greatsword, nor Armor Spikes in that manner. Attacking with Armor Spikes counts as using a Light Weapon, which you cannot do with a Greatsword, as that is a two-handed weapon in its own right. You can't TWF with them (since in order to TWF, you must have two weapons, as either one-handed weapons, light weapons, or a combination of both), and you sure as heck can't use them in conjunction with your iterative attacks. Heck, you could actually do that with a Double Weapon, and even then, what's the point when your Double Weapon can stack with Armor Spikes on a level that the Greatsword can't?
Its only benefit for a Greatsword wielder is that it deals spike damage upon a successful grapple check. But that doesn't really work outside TWF, and if you grapple, you need 2 hands free for no penalties, and while grappled you can only use one hand/limb in a given attack action, something you can't do with a Greatsword. But you can use a Double Weapon one-handed, meaning you can make an Attack with a Double Weapon while grappled. Quite ironic if you ask me.
|
You can most certainly two weapon fight with a Greatsword and Armor Spikes. You don't get x1.5 to the Greatsword attacks when you do this, but the bonus damage from Power Attack still applies.
It is an old school tactic going back to 3.5, and it is still quite doable in Pathfinder.
You could also do the same thing with Unarmed Strikes, Boot Blades, and any other weapon that is not wielded in your hands.
the loss of 1.5 STR to 'mainhand' isn't really held up by RAW,
2WF in no way 'penalizes' mainhand damage, it doesn't mention it at all in fact.
that said, i would agree that RAI is for it to work that way,
and archetypes like 2WF fighter and mobile fighter are in fact balanced around that RAI functionality.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
on topic, wielding a weapon means you are threatening with it, i.e. can make an AoO with it.
holding a Greatsword with one hand doesn't usually mean you are threatening with it (unless it's too small for you),
thus you aren't wielding it unless you are holding it with two hands
(and not just holding it, e.g. somebody lays it's blade atop your outstretched hands, but holding it as intended to be wielded e.g. by the handle)
if you are wielding a weapon you are ready at any moment to make an attack with it with no other action (to regrip, etc)
You can most certainly two weapon fight with a Greatsword and Armor Spikes. You don't get x1.5 to the Greatsword attacks when you do this, but the bonus damage from Power Attack still applies.
It is an old school tactic going back to 3.5, and it is still quite doable in Pathfinder.
You could also do the same thing with Unarmed Strikes, Boot Blades, and any other weapon that is not wielded in your hands.
But you can't TWF when you use the Greatsword with 2 hands. The weapons must be light or one-handed. They can't be two-handed, and if they are they have to be a Double Weapon in order to do so. A Greatsword is not a Double Weapon.
@ Quandary: I would fully agree, but there is one thing that I have a discrepency with, and while I have expressed it multiple times, I will do so again; yes, this is conditional, but no, I would otherwise generally agree with you. So here it is:
By RAW, is it legal that I have a two-handed weapon, use it to make a full attack option (or standard attack option) while fighting defensively, and hold it in one hand at the end of my turn, then when a creature swings and would normally hit me (and provoke the AOO upon deflection), would I then not be able to deflect that attack with my open hand, then when the AOO occurs, I can then re-grip my two-handed weapon and make the attack?
And here's why I ask the question. Here's the Base Crane Style quoting:
You take only a –2 penalty on attack rolls for fighting defensively. While using this style and fighting defensively or using the total defense action, you gain an additional +1dodge bonus to your Armor Class.The Base Style is an effect that amplifies your Fighting Defensively and Total Defense actions when you use them. A Style is maintained for as long as combat lasts, and can hold out indefinitely (or in other words, when the character changes/combines it, or dies).
There is nothing that says you must have an Open Hand Free to use the Base Style; meaning I can have a two-handed weapon and utilize the Crane Style, and not invalidate any requirements.
Here's the Crane Wing quoting:
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.This is the part that states you must have an open hand free; it actually lists it as a benefit to fighting defensively or using total defense, and again, does not have any effect to the Base Style. However, if I am to deflect an attack, I must have the open hand free by the end of my turn, or if I provoke an AOO with movement, at the point in time before the AOO is provoked.
Here's the Crane Riposte quoting:
You take only a –1 penalty on attack rolls for fighting defensively. Whenever you use Crane Wing to deflect an opponent’s attack, you can make an attack of opportunity against that opponent after the attack is deflected.This part further strengthens your fighting defensively option (reducing it to -1); it then says that when you use Crane Wing to deflect the attack, (AKA, the point in time you are required to have an open hand free,) you are allowed an attack of opportunity after deflecting it. This means that in order to deflect the attack, the criteria for Crane Wing must be fulfilled; there is nothing said about maintaining the open hand after deflecting the attack for the attack of opportunity, meaning that you can use a weapon in two hands again, since according to the forum posters, changing how you wield a weapon consumes no action and can be done outside your turn.
With this interpretation, I should be able to use a two-handed weapon with the full line of Crane Style feats and not be hindered by its requirements.
Darksol nothing says that both weapons have to be light or 1h. Retread the TWF section the only time weapon size comes up is in reference to your offhand.
You can most certainly two weapon fight with a Greatsword and Armor Spikes. You don't get x1.5 to the Greatsword attacks when you do this, but the bonus damage from Power Attack still applies.
It is an old school tactic going back to 3.5, and it is still quite doable in Pathfinder.
You could also do the same thing with Unarmed Strikes, Boot Blades, and any other weapon that is not wielded in your hands.
Can you explain this to me? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't understand how it works. Because it seems counter intuitive that you can use a two-handed weapon and TWF. As far as I understand it, using your armour spikes counts as using a weapon in your off-hand. Which seems to suggest that you can't use a T-H weapon.
I often use two-handed characters, so this tactic is of interest to me :) But I want to be able to back it up by citing the right RAW, obviously.
exactamundo Talonhawke, and that fits exactly with the RAW with why damage isn't modified for the mainhand (which is still 2handed if wielded that way). people EXPECT 2WF to be '1 handed and light', but it never cares about 1 handed weapons in the mainhand, the penalties are based on what is in the off-hand, so whether your mainhand is a 2hander or a 1hander is never considered, much less 'over-written' to always be '1handed'.
How the rules work DO mean that if you have 4 arms and are dual-wielding (2WF) two Greatswords, the 'mainhand' one will get 1.5STR but the offhand gets 0.5 STR since offhand attacks always use 'only 0.5 STR' per their definition. One could try to multiply 1.5 and 0.5, but I read the 'only' bit there as being exclusive over other modifications to STR.
2Handed and 2WF: Bash you with big hammer, kick you in the shins. What's more intuitive than that?
.
2Handed and 2WF: Bash you with big hammer, kick you in the shins. What's more intuitive than that?
Yeah, I get that one, it's just that armour spikes requires the use of your arm. I'm not arguing, mind, just seeking enlightenment :)
Darksol nothing says that both weapons have to be light or 1h. Retread the TWF section the only time weapon size comes up is in reference to your offhand.
Alright, let us retread them again. I look at the first sentence of the TWF section, and what do I see? This:
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.
Unless that Greatsword is small-sized, you're not using it in one hand, so that your Armor Spikes would be used in the off-hand. A Medium Greatsword wielded by a Medium-sized character is treated as if it were a Two-handed weapon, taking up both the Main Hand and the Off Hand. You would have to use the Greatsword in one hand, and the Armor Spikes in the other in order to TWF with them. And this can only happen in one of two ways:
1. Greatsword is small, while you are medium.
2. Greatsword is medium, while you are large.
Either way, you still incur a -2 penalty to hit anyway due to inappropriate size. It's mutually exclusive. It's either you use the Greatsword to attack, or the Armor Spikes. The Armor Spikes are classified as using an off-hand weapon, which would mean that it must be used as a second weapon, which cannot be done with a Greatsword, which takes up both the main and off hands.
|
|
I apologise in advance for this, Darksol. I'm going to reply to your points by inserting my answers in brackets. I'm afraid I lack the skill to take my comments out of the 'greyness'. Please note that I am in no way attempting to 'fix' your post; just trying to answer in the most efficient way. : )
Could those stating that Double Weapons are "Broken" please provide a list of reasons why.
I would really like to understand this opinion.
It's pretty obvious that you're trying to bait, but I'll humor you anyway. So let's begin...
1. Incredible flexibility: Functions as Two Weapons, a Two-Handed Weapon, and a One-Handed weapon all on a PC's whim, which has been deemed by the other forum posters that they can change how they use this weapon at any point in the round they so solemnly wish; that AOO the idiot was going to make? I now change my weapon to using it one-handed after the attack roll is resolved, and since Crane Style was active and I have the entire line of feats, the AOO becomes futile. If that's not broken, I don't know what is. (Why is the AoO futile? Anyway, you can hold, but cannot use, a two-handed weapon in one hand. A double weapon is a two-handed weapon if it is sized for you, and it still requires two hands when using it to TWF 'as if' it were a light and one-handed weapon. You cannot use it in only one hand any more than you can a greatsword. If the double weapon is sized for a creature one or two size categories smaller than you, then it counts as a one-handed or light weapon respectively. However, if you can and do use it in one hand, you cannot use it as a double weapon. So, it's not quite as flexible as that. It does function as either a two-handed weapon, or as if it were a one-handed and a light weapon for purposes of TWF)
2. "The Ultimate Weapon": A Greatsword? Who needs that piece of junk when this weapon has the same elements of it? A Comp Bow? Hah, I can throw just as far with this weapon, and Enchantments will only make it all the more superior. Different Damage types for overcoming DR? I can just apply Enchantment X (where X allows the weapon to overcome DR 5/ B/P/S) and this factor becomes null and void. (let's compare a double weapon to the ones you mention. Greatsword: does more damage, as does nearly every other two-handed weapon that isn't also a double weapon. Bow: the enchantments needed to let a double weapon be thrown would work the same on a greatsword or other melee weapon, so this is not a property of double weapons at all. Damage Reduction: yes, you can have each end of a double weapon made from different materials and enchanted differently. Just as if you had two weapons. It's no cheaper to do this with double weapons, although it is more convenient; that's why you've paid the EWP)
See the pattern? As a base weapon, even with the same exact properties applied to any Double Weapon compared to a weapon of some other type, it becomes obsolete. Why even have the other weapons when Double Weapons are superior to the others in practically every way possible? Again, game-breaking. (you've paid for the flexibility that it does have with feats! At least two: EWP & TWF, probably more like ImpTWF, GreaterTWF, TWDefence, Double Slice etc. If you use a greatsword by itself those feat slots go to other feats which make that style better. You can use a greatsword in two hands with 1.5 x Str bonus, in TWF with armour spikes. There is no limit in the two-weapon fighting rules about how many hands are using each weapon, it just makes you designate one weapon as your off-hand weapon for the round, and the off-hand weapon cannot take any iterative attacks in that round, and the off-hand weapon is the weapon that takes the extra attack(s) granted by TWF. As the rules for armour spikes state, if you use them in this fashion you cannot use another off-hand weapon in the same round. No EWP feats are needed to do this, so the combination of greatsword and armour spikes has a flexibility of it's own, does more damage from Str bonuses and you have an extra feat)
3. Overall Balance: Surely, this sort of thing stretches way beyond how it relates to other weapons, it relates to PCs and NPCs too. It not only makes weapons useless, but most melee classes and/or archetypes as well. Why would you go an Archetype that specializes in 1-handed weapons when you can get an Archetype that will help you better use a Double Weapon? Sure, it's with all this "flavor" stuff, but what grounds is that going to hold when you got 6 (or more) super powerful Double Weaponing Lizardmen slaughtering your party like a lion...
If you want a broken combination, try dual wielding two large +5 adamantine shields with TWF and the Shield Master feat. No attack penalties from TWF despite large shields counting as one-handed weapons, a free bull rush for every hit, they cost half as much to enchant as do weapons. In a world where everyone uses the 'best' style, you won't be surrounded by double weapons, you'll be surrounded with pairs of shields!
Check out the Shield Master feat if you dint believe me:-
'Benefit: You do not suffer any penalties on attack rolls made with a shield while you are wielding another weapon. Add your shield's enhancement bonus to attacks and damage rolls made with the shield as if it was a weapon enhancement bonus.'
Now that's broken!
If you want a broken combination, try dual wielding two large +5 adamantine shields with TWF and the Shield Master feat. No attack penalties from TWF despite large shields counting as one-handed weapons, a free bull rush for every hit, they cost half as much to enchant as do weapons. In a world where everyone uses the 'best' style, you won't be surrounded by double weapons, you'll be surrounded with pairs of shields!
Check out the Shield Master feat if you dint believe me:-
'Benefit: You do not suffer any penalties on attack rolls made with a shield while you are wielding another weapon. Add your shield's enhancement bonus to attacks and damage rolls made with the shield as if it was a weapon enhancement bonus.'
Now that's broken!
I wanna live in Shieldworld!
(I don't really...)
Not really. Getting that benefit (and those shields) takes much time and effort, as well as plenty of feats and pre-reqs to get those benefits.
For all the benefits that I listed? All it takes is a EWP feat, and a +2/+2 Base Price Double Weapon. That's about 20,000 gold and a single feat that you can take at any appropriate time, mind you. You'd still have to fulfill the pre-reqs for Shield Master, and by then you'd need that feat in order to stay on par with Mister Double Weapon who defies the laws of physics. Shields don't have the insane flexibility, "Ultimate Weapon" complex that would severely affect the overall balance of the game to a level that is ridiculous.
main and offhands are abstract terms only relevant to 2WF, they don't correspond to real hands...
which makes sense given that you can 2WF without using hands at all. (feet, headbash, etc)
the armor spike case... i don't know, at one point somebody at Paizo ruled that armor spikes occupy your limb, and thus you can't use that limb for other things (like greatswords), and then that was apparently backtracked on (leaving what part of your body is doing the armor spiking to be undetermined). the safest thing is to ignore armor spikes, and just use UAS.
...actually, the whole 'can't attack with weapon using X limb if that limb is already used' is just a rule re: weapons and Natural Weapons, so I don't think that's even relevant... you should be able to wield a Greatsword and Armor Spikes even if those Spikes ARE on the very arm(s) wielding the Greatsword... Or make a Punch with your Right hand and a Elbow Slam with your Right Elbow. I don't even think the 2WF rules say that you must be able to simultaneously wield (read: threaten with) both weapons, although that seems the ultimate intent... Obviously that would mean you can't hold two distinct weapons with the exact same hand, but your elbow having a poky thing on it doesn't impact what you can hold in your hand.
|
|
Darksol nothing says that both weapons have to be light or 1h. Retread the TWF section the only time weapon size comes up is in reference to your offhand.Alright, let us retread them again. I look at the first sentence of the TWF section, and what do I see? This:
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.Unless that Greatsword is small-sized, you're not using it in one hand, so that your Armor Spikes would be used in the off-hand. A Medium Greatsword wielded by a Medium-sized character is treated as if it were a Two-handed weapon, taking up both the Main Hand and the Off Hand. You would have to use the Greatsword in one hand, and the Armor Spikes in the other in order to TWF with them. And this can only happen in one of two ways:
1. Greatsword is small, while you are medium.
2. Greatsword is medium, while you are large.Either way, you still incur a -2 penalty to hit anyway due to inappropriate size. It's mutually exclusive. It's either you use the Greatsword to attack, or the Armor Spikes. The Armor Spikes are classified as using an off-hand weapon, which would mean that it must be used as a second weapon, which cannot be done with a Greatsword, which takes up both the main and off hands.
First, the greatsword isn't the off-hand weapon. Second, armour spikes do not require any hands at all! You can knee the opponent in the groin with the spikes on your armour.
There are other weapons that do not require hands to use; boot blade, spiked helm, barbezu beard to name three. All of these leave both your hands free to wield a two-handed weapon if you want.
You can even use a greatsword and a spiked gauntlet in TWF. The gauntlet allows you to hold and use anything in that hand, or use it as a weapon in it's own right. So primary greatsword, off-hand spiked gauntlet. You need both hands free to use the greatsword at the moment you attack with it, and can hold it in one hand while you use the other to punch with the spiked gauntlet. Using your hands like this takes no action, not even a free action, it is simply part of the action used to attack.
This may blow your mind, and you may not like it, but like it or not it's allowed in the rules.
Still think double weapons are broken?
@ Quandary: I'm not going to sit here and argue realistics; if we were (all) arguing that (like I have been before for the most part), then this thread would have most likely taken a much more positive road (and perhaps a more focused one).
However, the RAW is the LAW. What it says goes in a subforum like this, and it says for a weapon to qualify for TWF (regardless of the weapon, mind you), that each "weapon" (a Double Weapon is an exception to this rule, since it says you can wield it as Two Single-Hand Weapons, One Single-Hand Weapon, or a Single Two-Handed Weapon) takes up one hand.
Armor Spikes are a Weapon that can be used in either Main or Off attacks. Regardless of this, in order to TWF with the Armor Spikes, RAW says they must occupy a hand, whether it be Main or Off, while the other weapon goes in the opposite hand, otherwise you cannot attack with it.
So let's go back to the Armor Spike + Greatsword combo, shall we? Greatsword is a Two Handed Weapon for a creature of equal size. Therefore, in order for a creature to use the Greatsword to attack, they must use both hands to attack with it. Since TWF RAW says that Armor Spikes must take up the off-hand in order to TWF with it (or the main hand, and some other weapon that takes up one hand in the off hand), the Greatsword would thusly not be wieldable (as defined as being able to attack), meaning that you cannot TWF with the Armor Spikes and the Greatsword.
As I've said in my previous post, they are mutually exclusive. 3.5 and/or predecessor D&D books might have allowed this rule as an exception, since the rules for such actions were different, but it appears to have changed; while I will not say "I told you so," or "You were wrong all this time," I will say that this interpretation is what the RAW supports, and not the other one.
Darksol nothing says that both weapons have to be light or 1h. Retread the TWF section the only time weapon size comes up is in reference to your offhand.Alright, let us retread them again. I look at the first sentence of the TWF section, and what do I see? This:
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.Unless that Greatsword is small-sized, you're not using it in one hand, so that your Armor Spikes would be used in the off-hand. A Medium Greatsword wielded by a Medium-sized character is treated as if it were a Two-handed weapon, taking up both the Main Hand and the Off Hand. You would have to use the Greatsword in one hand, and the Armor Spikes in the other in order to TWF with them. And this can only happen in one of two ways:
1. Greatsword is small, while you are medium.
2. Greatsword is medium, while you are large.Either way, you still incur a -2 penalty to hit anyway due to inappropriate size. It's mutually exclusive. It's either you use the Greatsword to attack, or the Armor Spikes. The Armor Spikes are classified as using an off-hand weapon, which would mean that it must be used as a second weapon, which cannot be done with a Greatsword, which takes up both the main and off hands.
First, the greatsword isn't the off-hand weapon. Second, armour spikes do not require any hands at all! You can knee the opponent in the groin with the spikes on your armour.
There are other weapons that do not require hands to use; boot blade, spiked helm, barbezu beard to name three. All of these leave both your hands free to wield a two-handed weapon if you want.
You can even use a greatsword and a spiked gauntlet in TWF. The gauntlet allows you to hold and use anything in that hand, or use it as a weapon in it's own right. So primary greatsword, off-hand spiked gauntlet. You need both hands free to...
It doesn't matter if the Greatsword was the Main or the Off. It takes up two hands, and it's not a Double Weapon. It cannot be used in TWF in this manner. I will not get into the clusterf*** that is Unarmed Strikes, but even using Flurry Rules as the Devs RAI, you can only use 2 limbs of your body for a Flurry/TWF attack action, not 3, not 4, not 6; 2.
I want RAW that says Armor Spikes does not require Hands to use for attacks (including TWF, which I cited that you must wield in your second hand to attack with a second weapon in order to use TWF, which only further proves my point, since you cannot wield Armor Spikes in a hand, and while the gauntlets themselves occupy hands, those hands occupy the Greatsword, meaning you can't use the Gauntlet to attack), and I want RAW that says you can TWF with more than 2 limbs to attack with for iterative attacks, as well as proof that you can attack with a Gauntlet while the hand using the Gauntlet is using a different, one-handed (or two-handed) weapon.
Until this proof is provided, the combo does not work in terms of RAW. (And yes, I am arguing RAW, because this is what matters in the general Rules; the flavor means nothing to the rules outside Rule 0 of the game, which I will go ahead and state is a subject that is not the RAW, which is what we are arguing.)
With that last part, I will bold the or, further proving its mutual exclusiveness in using it to attack, especially considering that both of your hands which have gauntlets are being used, meaning you can't use the gauntlets to attack when wielding a Greatsword of equal size to the PC.
Checkmate.
If the weapon must be as you say in hand then how can one use any of the following weapons to TWF.
Boulder helmet
Boot blade
Unarmed strike
Barbeauzu beard
Armor spikes
None if these are wielded in your hand heck technically neither is a gauntlet but that works out just fine. The in hand line is confusing at first but being in hand isn't a real requirement.
Also since as you put it RAW is LAW do you allow players killed by things that don't put you in another state continue to act since being dead actuallly does nothing by RAW.
That restriction to one-handed and light weapon does not exist.
Hell, a four armed Alchemist can two weapon fight with two Greatswords.
Well, it's all a matter of technicalities.
TWF would state that you must use a single hand (that is, the off hand with the second weapon for the most precise RAW) to hold a single weapon, something the Alchemist cannot do with the Greatsword of equal size, since it is classified as a two-handed weapon, which takes up two hands, invalidating this requirement.
At the same time, if a weapon held in two hands is still a single weapon and the other two hands have the same weapon type, it would also make sense since it is still two weapons, and only takes up 2 hands due to the type of weapon it is.
Personally, I would FAQ that due to the conflicting technicalities.
i have only given RAW justifications here, any 'realistic' descriptions have been fluff on the side.
your statement "it says for a weapon to qualify for TWF (regardless of the weapon, mind you), that each "weapon"... takes up one hand." is straight-up NOT TRUE. for a guy so enamored with RAW, it kind of comes off bad when you misrepresent the RAW.
what does the RAW say:
"If you wield a second weapon in your off hand..."
that's the only relevant part. note again that the weapon in the main hand is JUST NOT DISCUSSED. you can be wielding it with 999 tentacles, the rules don't care.
again, we come to the point I've already made, and you don't seem to want to understand.
i am not diverging from RAW in any way, i am saying that the phrases 'main hand' 'off hand' are distinct to 2WF and aren't indicative or requiring of any usage of real hands. sure, probably a bad choice of terminology (primary and secondary weapon would be better, if toe-ing in on Natural Weapon terminology that works differently), but that doesn't mean that we can't recognize that these are in fact 2WF distinct terms that are being used, and not allow our selves to be confused over their similarity to real english terms (which is used when weapons need 2 hands to hold them, for example). that is the basis on which i am reading the RAW, not diverging from it, and if you DON'T read it that way you will just have MANY MANY more problems playing the RAW than if you accept that reading... other posters have enumerated a few...
If the weapon must be as you say in hand then how can one use any of the following weapons to TWF.
Boulder helmet
Boot blade
Unarmed strike
Barbeauzu beard
Armor spikesNone if these are wielded in your hand heck technically neither is a gauntlet but that works out just fine. The in hand line is confusing at first but being in hand isn't a real requirement.
Also since as you put it RAW is LAW do you allow players killed by things that don't put you in another state continue to act since being dead actuallly does nothing by RAW.
How is it not a requirement? It says that in order to get the extra attack with it as an off weapon, it must be in hand (hence the term off-hand in TWF). While I will not argue the flavor, that is what the RAW states, and is the same reasoning as to why the Devs say that a Monk using Flurry can only use 2 limbs of his body for Unarmed Strikes in a given Flurry within a given Round (which you can now limit to just his Hands for Unarmed Strikes in a given Flurry).
You also need to look as to how this stuff factors for other TWF subjects, like Two Weapon Defense. Just because I have Armor Spikes equipped to my armor, and I use a Greatsword to attack, means I have a +1 Shield bonus to AC? Assuming that even if what you say is true, it's a major loophole in the feat's intent to function. I might as well just get Armor Spikes and get that feat for a +1 Shield Bonus while using my Greatsword to attack, if what you say is true.
Also, if I go from stable and fighting to dead, it doesn't really matter how the change occurs. The conditions within the CRB Glossary will still tell you how a character can receive the "dead" condition and what it does, which says the character's soul leaves the body and the body decays unless preserved and/or brought back to life with the appropriate spell. So nice try on that.
technically, i think the 2WF rules SHOULD be amended to make clear that you must be able to SIMULTANEOUSLY wield the off-hand weapon along with the main-hand one... that isn't actually stated, and given 'free action' weapon swapping (etc), it isn't clear that you couldn't QUickdraw Greatswords and get extra attacks from doing so. Paizo's statement about ARmor Spikes 'using a limb' and thus (possibly) not working as an off-hand with a 2-hander weapon (using both limbs) seems to be predicated on the idea (from Nat Weapon) that one limb can't be used for 2 different attacks, but that also doesn't actually appear to be in the RAW (for normal weapons), albeit the simple idea of simultaneously threatening with 'main' and 'off' hand weapons precludes the necessity of depending on that type of thing (you can't SIMULTANEOUSLY wield two different Greatswords in the same sets of hands, to cover the gonzo scenario)
First off your admiring that that list if light off hand weapons can't even be used for TWF?
Because if they can't then why even list them as offhand weapons?
Second show me in raw where it says a soulless decaying body can't move or attack.
You also need to look as to how this stuff factors for other TWF subjects, like Two Weapon Defense. Just because I have Armor Spikes equipped to my armor, and I use a Greatsword to attack, means I have a +1 Shield bonus to AC? Assuming that even if what you say is true, it's a major loophole in the feat's intent to function. I might as well just get Armor Spikes and get that feat for a +1 Shield Bonus while using my Greatsword to attack, if what you say is true.
f*#~ attacking with your greatsword. you don't have to.
the feat just says 'wield' two weapons. that means 'threaten with', i.e. not just holding a sword from your pinky finger by it's lanyard, but actually wielding it how it's meant to be used.are you wielding with both weapons? ok, then the feat works. if you were wielding a reach weapon, you would know you were threatening with both because you would be threatening both ajacent squares and at reach.
again, you don't even have to attack to use that feat, just simultaneously threaten with 2 weapons.
you can use a Su ability or whatever else you want to do, the feat still works.
and no i have absolutely no problem with it working that way,
qualifying for (15 dex) 2wf as the pre-req and taking another feat for a total of 2 feats to gain 1 shield AC is just not that big of a deal.
i have only given RAW justifications here, any 'realistic' descriptions have been fluff on the side.
your statement "it says for a weapon to qualify for TWF (regardless of the weapon, mind you), that each "weapon"... takes up one hand." is straight-up NOT TRUE. for a guy so enamored with RAW, it kind of comes off bad when you misrepresent the RAW.what does the RAW say:
"If you wield a second weapon in your off hand..."
that's the only relevant part. note again that the weapon in the main hand is JUST NOT DISCUSSED. you can be wielding it with 999 tentacles, the rules don't care.
It's not discussed because the main hand does not change; it only includes the rules for the off hand weapon, which I will note again that it say off hand; if the Devs were not specific about a weapon occupying hands, then there would be no reason to make any distinction from two-hand and one-hand weapons, and all the size stuff wouldn't matter either. But it makes a difference. Terminology is important, especially considering not too long ago there was (and probably still is) discussion about the difference between "using" a weapon and "wielding" a weapon, and is something that the Devs have had to clarify before.
If the intent was to include the other weapons that do not occupy hands, then they could have just as easily taken the phrase "in your off hand..." out. Even with future books implementing weapons outside your hands, that quick errata would avoid all the "confusion" we're having.
Even so, the RAW would still suggest that the weapon would have to be in one of your two hands, at the very least.
again, straight up NOT TRUE, the 2WF rules include rules that affect the 'main hand' weapon, namely attack penalty.
You also need to look as to how this stuff factors for other TWF subjects, like Two Weapon Defense. Just because I have Armor Spikes equipped to my armor, and I use a Greatsword to attack, means I have a +1 Shield bonus to AC? Assuming that even if what you say is true, it's a major loophole in the feat's intent to function. I might as well just get Armor Spikes and get that feat for a +1 Shield Bonus while using my Greatsword to attack, if what you say is true.f!~# attacking with your greatsword. you don't have to.
the feat just says 'wield' two weapons. that means 'threaten with', i.e. not just holding a sword from your pinky finger by it's lanyard, but actually wielding it how it's meant to be used.
are you wielding with both weapons? ok, then the feat works. if you were wielding a reach weapon, you would know you were threatening with both because you would be threatening both ajacent squares and at reach.
again, you don't even have to attack to use that feat, just simultaneously threaten with 2 weapons.
you can use a Su ability or whatever else you want to do, the feat still works.and no i have absolutely no problem with it working that way,
qualifying for (15 dex) 2wf as the pre-req and taking another feat for a total of 2 feats to gain 1 shield AC is just not that big of a deal.
And yet when the Defending property stated the PC allocating the benefit from the turn having to do so before they "use" the weapon, the Devs came in and said that the PC has to attack within the same round in order to benefit from its effects. Who is to say that the same concept does not apply?
@ Talonhawke: This little tidbit might help...
If more than one condition affects a character, apply them all. If effects can’t combine, apply the most severe effect.
By the whole "RAW" thing, if a creature is Dead, and not Dying, and the Dying condition is more severe (since a dying creature would go to Dead, not from Dead to Dying), you would apply that condition; though a character going from taking no action to being able to take action as a soul (and not the body, since the soul is not in the body). At any rate, we are arguing pointless semantics.
I'd really appreciate someone succinctly clarifying exactly how to justify using a two-handed weapon and armour spikes to TWF, so that I can repeat it when I attempt to do it and probably get told "No."
(Maybe I will get a direct response if I start being argumentative and antagonistic - that seems to work ;-) )
again, straight up NOT TRUE, the 2WF rules include rules that affect the 'main hand' weapon, namely attack penalty.
Fine, you are right; but this is semantics. Main Hand attack penalties have no impact as to how a character can wield a two-handed weapon and a weapon that does not occupy a slot simultaneously when the rules suggest that it calls for a weapon in each hand specifically.
@ BBT: The RAW there, at best, would contradict with the RAW given for the rules regarding TWF. It's otherwise one subject's word against another, resulting in a FAQ that would require the Devs to Errata out one or the other.