I'm sure the helpful Devs were going off the top of their head when they wrote that...
That reading would conflict with multiple other rules sections, some of which they have commented on.
For example, one case is the Wizard Bonded Item ability, which says:
'staves, wands, and weapons must be wielded.'
...A line which they have acknowledged to mean that 2-Handed Weapons would prevent Casting of most spells (unless Stilled/Eschewed) since you must wield a 2-Handed weapon with 2 hands. If 'wield' meant 'attack' with, it would not just be a problem for 2-Handed weapons, but for every single item, since the wording would be requiring you to attack (per your reading... and the dev quote you found), which would leave you no actions to Cast with.
The definition 'hold an object in the manner as it's designed to be used in' is the only one that makes sense, and conveniently corresponds to 'threaten with' (at least when discussing most melee weapons, excluding whip, etc).
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?
The weapon says it is a Light Weapon, and can function as both Main Hand or Off Hand.
Never did I say that the Armor Spikes cannot be used in TWF. What I said was that in order to TWF with Armor Spikes, the Armor Spikes would have to take up one hand to attack with; just like how a Double Weapon being used to TWF is treated as Two Weapons, one main one-handed weapon, and one light off-hand weapon. Since the Double Weapon is treated as two weapons, and each hand is demonstrated to have the following effect, this proves it can be used to TWF as a two handed weapon; also notice that with a Double Weapon, you cannot TWF with any other weapon unless you are using both Double Weapons as one-handed weapons, using only a single end per Double Weapon in a given round, since a Double Weapon would otherwise take up 2 hands.
Since a Greatsword takes up 2 hands, the Greatsword and the Armor Spikes would be mutually exclusive. It's either the Greatsword (without Armor Spikes) or the Armor Spikes (without the Greatsword). It can't be both because Greatsword takes up 2 hands, with the Armor Spikes not having a hand to work with, and the Armor Spikes take up 1 hand, with the Greatsword lacking a hand to utilize (unless it were of a size category smaller).
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.
NO, they couldn't have, because having a distinction between off-hand and main-hand is crucial in saying that STR bonus is applied differently to one, and in Feats like Double Slice which depend on main- and off-hand weapons both hitting. They definitely need a term to refer to each weapon (in 2 Weapon Warrior Archetype, the terminology gets shifted, out of the blue, to 'primary weapon' and 'secondary weapon'). As I said, OBVIOUSLY, main-hand and off-hand are pretty confusing in terms of 'suggesting' they correspond to actual hands. I'm sure Paizo did this because that's how 3.5 did it. I don't know how much problems people have to point out to you in your reading, or conflicts with either published material or Paizo Dev posts (that demonstrate non-congruence of main/off-hand weapons with actual hands), before you consider that maybe, just maybe, that even though your reading has it's internal logic and is pretty similar to normal English, in a structured game-system, the possibility that 'main/off-hand' are merely abstract game terms NOT to be confused with actual hands (which ARE relevant in-game in terms of wielding weapons per their size category, etc), and the game actually works well when one can realize that distinction and apply it properly.
Never did I say that the Armor Spikes cannot be used in TWF. What I said was that in order to TWF with Armor Spikes, the Armor Spikes would have to take up one hand
well, you would be diverging from RAW then, because unless you are holding a set of spiked armor in hand (not worn on you), then the armor spikes CAN'T be 'in' your off(or main)hand (per literal definition of hand, as you insist on). Off and Main-Hands as abstract signifiers CAN 'contain' a weapon, in the abstract sense of 'slots', but your literal/english-definition reading would definitely mean that Armor Spikes (on the armor you are wearing) can't be used via 2WF (at least for the off-hand attack), perhaps only if you have spikes directly in your gauntlet palm, but then you can't actually hold anything else in that hand ever.
I'm sure the helpful Devs were going off the top of their head when they wrote that...
That reading would conflict with multiple other rules sections, some of which they have commented on.
For example, one case is the Wizard Bonded Item ability, which says:
'staves, wands, and weapons must be wielded.'
...A line which they have acknowledged to mean that 2-Handed Weapons would prevent Casting of most spells (unless Stilled/Eschewed) since you must wield a 2-Handed weapon with 2 hands. If 'wield' meant 'attack' with, it would not just be a problem for 2-Handed weapons, but for every single item, since the wording would be requiring you to attack (per your reading... and the dev quote you found), which would leave you no actions to Cast with.
The definition 'hold an object in the manner as it's designed to be used in' is the only one that makes sense, and conveniently corresponds to 'threaten with' (at least when discussing most melee weapons).
And it has. The thing is, the terminology with "use" for that was apparently meant to say "attack with," which is just one level of "using" a weapon. A character would also "use" a weapon to defend and protect themselves, or traverse other obstacles (if possible), meaning that limiting "use" to just one level, when its "use" is applied to so many other levels, it really bogs down the purpose.
And see, that would make sense. A character only merely has to designate which weapon is the Primary, and which one is the Secondary and apply the proper attributes; just like they do with a Double Weapon when they TWF with it. It's not that difficult, really. The problem is as I've said before; the terminology. I am not saying that what I say is 100% right, but I have said that with the RAW as it is, it would at least suggest such a notion, especially considering that multiple other subjects use specifics to describe it, because using another terminology would completely alter how it functions overall as a term in a rulebook.
Never did I say that the Armor Spikes cannot be used in TWF. What I said was that in order to TWF with Armor Spikes, the Armor Spikes would have to take up one hand in the TWF actionwell, you would be diverging from RAW then, because unless you are holding a set of spiked armor in hand (not worn on you), then the armor spikes CAN'T be 'in' your off(or main)hand (per literal definition of hand, as you insist on). Off and Main-Hands as abstract signifiers CAN 'contain' a weapon, in the abstract sense of 'slots', but your literal/english-definition reading would definitely...
Added the bolded part for more clarity. Obviously, Armor Spikes are applied to an armor, not the hands, but for attacking purposes, they would be treated as if they were being used in a hand. Just like how a Double Weapon is treated as Two Weapons for the TWF action, an Armor Spike would be treated as occupying a single hand for a TWF action.
So, you are saying, if I am wearing two Blade Boots, I can't two weapon fight with them?
Why such obsession with the "hand" portion?
I think you have your nose to the map, and cannot see where you are.
If by nose you mean keyboard, then perhaps, since it is getting late and sleep is good.
I already stated my "hand obsession" in one of my previous posts. The term "hand" is used multiple times, in how a character wields a weapon, in requirements for wielding a weapon, and other factors that require open hands, such as Feats, Spells and Spell Completion, Class Features, the list goes on.
Using a term that can be confused or misconstrued as being a requirement to would result in cases like this, where a player (me) would treat and interpret the rule as one way, whereas the other players/GM at the table (you guys) would interpret the rule in another way. As I've said before, even if I am to be wrong when (and if) the Devs come in to Errata this stuff, the RAW text would still suggest that my interpretation of the rule would not be incorrect, so until such an event happens, we can agree to disagree and move on?
Obviously, Armor Spikes are applied to an armor, not the hands, but for attacking purposes, they would be treated as if they were being used in a hand. Just like how a Double Weapon is treated as Two Weapons for the TWF action, an Armor Spike would be treated as occupying a single hand for a TWF action.
THen you are diverging from your fundamentalist/literalist interpretation of 'hand', when 2WF clearly speaks of the 2nd weapon 'must be in the off hand'. You can't 'convert' that to 'as if' 'for attacking purposes' but then stick to some literalist interpretation in other cases 'because the book uses the word [off] hand'. Anyhow, I'm done with this.
|
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 ;-) )
Spikes on the knee, greatsword in the hands.
Or boot spikes, or another of a countless list of weapons.I have reconciled myself with them, but if I could burn the Barbazu beard out of the game I would be happy as, for a human, attacking with your chin is extremely stupid and a good way to be killed, but it exist and it is RAW. Sigh.
The whole explanation about off hand not being necessarily an hand at all is in one of the monk threads, I think. Monks can attack with any part of the body and flurry of blows is a form of two weapon combat.
Okay, Darksol, how do you explain the linked weapon?
How do you explain not being able to two weapon fight with weapons not used with hands?
I think you just won the thread BBT. Congratulations! :)
I've won nothing.
In my heart, you did.
Darksol if I'm hit with an coup de grace and don't go to negitives from the damage but do fail the fort save I'm dead but have never been dying. You don't suddenly gain the effects of dying simply because your dead.
I would now be soulless and decaying but still by raw capable of most of my former actions as I am not paralyzed unconscious or any other condition which affects the majority if actions. Technically I'm not even prone.
By the same token nothing in RAW prohibits my off hand attacks coming from my foot or my head both of which clearly are going to be in my hand when I make said attacks.
|
|
So, you are saying, if I am wearing two Blade Boots, I can't two weapon fight with them?
Why such obsession with the "hand" portion?
Well, considering the boot blade is an off-hand attack, I'd say no. Although, as a house rule, I'd have no problem allowing it as long as both are considered off-hand attacks.
|
|
As far as the greatsword/armor spike combo for TWF, I don't think this is a legal combination.
The armor spike description states that they can't be used if you've made an attack with an off-hand weapon. Whiile the greatsword is not an off-hand weapon, per se, the off-hand is being used to attack with the greatsword (hence, the 1.5 STR bonus to damage).
Conversely, if the armor spikes were used as the primary attack, the greatsword could not be used because you can't make an attack with an off-hand weapon if armor spikes are used.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alright, a few of you need to stop being obtuse and realize that your wrong.
It is known that you can Two-Weapon Fight with a Great Sword and Armor Spikes. BBT even linked a couple of weapons that help establish that.
Look at the damn Barbazu Beard and don't ignore it. They went out of ther way to note how you can use it since it's a strange weapon.
"A barbazu beard can be used as an off-hand weapon that requires no hands to use; thus, a warrior could combine use of a barbazu beared with a two-handed weapon."
Look. Be amazed. It requires no hands and yet can be used with a two-handed weapon. Shock. Gasp.
Now here comes the part where your ignorance shines through and you muck this up as well.
Hmmm...when a description states that it allows an off-hand attack, how can you argue that it can be made as a main hand attack?There are no "off-hand only" weapons.
It is not a weapon property that exists, like double, or fragile.
I will agree with BBT on this one, since the Armor Spikes specifically state within their description that they can be made as both a primary attack or a secondary attack. However, the Armor Spikes would still not be usable because as I have said, that its attacks cannot be made with a weapon in the off-hand, which is being used to swing the Greatsword.
@ Brain: I already acknowledged this, and I stated that at best one of the two rules is wrong, and we can't say for sure which one because both are equally plausible, given the terminology that is placed, meaning until a Dev comes in to Errata this stuff out, we'll have to just agree to disagree.
There are such things as inconsistencies, and it has occurred in multiple scenarios; casting spells, weapon wielding (Double weapons especially), and even a feat or two that requires multiple standard actions to use, making the feat nigh-useless. Who is to say that both the RAW line I mentioned is right and the Beard is actually not viable? Who is to say that the Beard is right and the RAW line I mentioned is incorrect? We can't say what is what when the terminology is as it is. Again, until Devs come in to clarify this, then its a stalemate and the ruling can go either way.
@ Talonhawke: Yet "Dead" is a condition that is technically above "Dying," and since "Dying" is the more severe condition, you apply that condition. Of course, this does mean that Resurrection type spells would practically be futile, it also makes sense since your character is bleeding out; God knows if he is "Dying" for over a Day it'd take months to heal him back to positive HP. But again, semantics.
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?
This is a good point, particularly the bolded section, but it was largely ignored. It does make sense realistically, and seems pretty solid by RAW as far as I can see.
The only thing that makes me question it is the potential for abuse. If I had QuickDraw and a belt full of daggers, I could attack with Greatsword (with TWF penalties), QuickDraw a dagger, attack with the dagger, then drop the dagger to grip my sword with two hands again. Every round.
Or am I missing something?
|
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?
This is a good point, particularly the bolded section, but it was largely ignored. It does make sense realistically, and seems pretty solid by RAW as far as I can see.
The only thing that makes me question it is the potential for abuse. If I had QuickDraw and a belt full of daggers, I could attack with Greatsword (with TWF penalties), QuickDraw a dagger, attack with the dagger, then drop the dagger to grip my sword with two hands again. Every round.
Or am I missing something?
I get ignored a lot. I get used to it... :(
You can do the dagger trick, but there are better ways to do this, without making yourself so easily tracked. :)
It's more likely that you'd quickdraw those daggers to throw them, in which case darts are better, and shuriken are even better.
I'm truly bemused on Darksol's continuing belief that kneeing someone in the groin with your armour spikes renders you incapable of using your left hand!
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Interestingly enough, the term "off-hand" does not actually refer to one hand or the other. It refers to the extra attack gained by employing the TWF rules, regardless of whether that attack uses a physical hand or not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However, the Armor Spikes would still not be usable because as I have said, that its attacks cannot be made with a weapon in the off-hand, which is being used to swing the Greatsword.
No. The greatsword is being used as a primary weapon, not an offhand weapon.
You do not need a free hand to use armor spikes, barbazu beard, boot knife, kick, etc.
I'm sorry, but just give it up.
The rules aren't as you want them to be. Make your own up, but not in the rules forum... try in homebrew or the like.
-James
The greatsword is a primary weapon that uses both the main hand and the off hand to use it. No additional off hand attack is allowed EXCEPT for those few weapons that allow it per the individual weapon description. Unfortunately, armor spikes isn't one of them.
You are not as awesome as you think you are, knock off the attitude.
Alright since your ignorantly stuck upon Two-Weapon Fighting requires hands then explain:
Blade boots come with a spring-mounted knife that pops out when triggered with the right combination of toe presses.
Benefit: You can use a blade boot as an off-hand weapon.
Action: Releasing the knife is a swift action; rearming it is a full-round action.
Drawback: When the blade is extended, you treat normal terrain as difficult and difficult terrain as impassable.
I thought the off hand had to be a hand? Seems like the term doesn't quite mean what you think it means.
Okay, okay, perhaps that was a fluke. Oh wait...
A kobold with the Tail Terror feat can slip this device over the tip of his tail to augment his natural attack. Each tail attachment provides just enough weight, balance, and striking power to increase the damage of his tail slap. While a kobold is wearing a kobold tail attachment, its tail attack deals the tail attachment damage, and some attachments gain a special feature. Tail attachments are light weapons and can be improved by feats that can improve weapon attacks (such as Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization).
There are five types of common tail attachments. Long Lash: This slender cord has tiny bits of glass and stone embedded in its length. All kobold tail attachments make up a kobold tail attachment weapon group that can be improved by the fighter's weapon training class ability. Tail attachments can be constructed of special material and made into masterwork or magic items.
Pounder: This squat ball is made from some sort of dull metal.
Razored: This metal wedge has a prickly edge on one of its sides.
Spiked: This narrow spike tapers to a sharp point.
Sweeper: When properly used, this sharply curved piece of metal can knock opponents off their feet. Unlike most trip weapons, you cannot drop it if you are tripped during your own trip attempt.
It takes a full-round action to slip on a kobold tail attachment, and the kobold gains a +4 bonus against disarm attempts made to remove his tail attachment.
Wow. Yet another weapon that doesn't require a "hand".
Race Gillmen
A sea-knife is a long-handled weapon with a short blade. It is designed to be strapped to the ankle or foot of the wielder, pointing downward and jutting out beyond the wearer's leg.
Benefit: A sea-knife can be used as a light melee weapon when the wielder is swimming, flying, or prone. This allows the wielder to use a two-handed weapon, or wield a weapon with one hand and carry a shield, and still make off-hand attacks with the sea-knife. Attacks made with a sea-knife take a –2 circumstance penalty on attack rolls in addition to all other attack penalties.
Donning or removing a sea-knife is a full-round action.
Note: The wearer cannot use a leg with a sea-knife strapped to it for walking or running.
Wow. This one even uses a Great Sword as an example, yet still uses off-hand to describe the attack. I mean how can they use an off-hand when both of there hands are holding the Great Sword....oh wait.
A barbazu beard is an intimidating helm with a full facemask wrought to look like a snarling barbazu's head. Extending from the chin area of the face guard is a razor-sharp blade much like an actual barbazu's beard, usually 8 inches long but sometimes longer.
Description: A barbazu beard can be used as an off-hand weapon that requires no hands to use; thus, a warrior could combine use of a barbazu beared with a two-handed weapon.
Attacking with a barbazu beard provokes an attack of opportunity. Because it is so close to the wearer's face, using a barbazu beard against creatures harmful to touch (such as fire elementals and acidic oozes) has the same risks as using a natural weapon or unarmed strike against these creatures.
Once you realize that the term "off-hand" doesn't mean a literal hand when it's used with Two-Weapon Fighting, you can then understand how those weapons function.
Oh yeah i almost forgot.
Armor spikes deal extra piercing damage (see “spiked armor” on Table: Weapons) on a successful grapple attack. The spikes count as a martial weapon. If you are not proficient with them, you take a –4 penalty on grapple checks when you try to use them. You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case. (You can't also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.) An enhancement bonus to a suit of armor does not improve the spikes' effectiveness, but the spikes can be made into magic weapons in their own right.
How strange again with the off-hand terminology. So i guess either you "hand" guys must be wrong. That or none of those weapons work at all and all need to be fixed.
I wonder which is more likely?
Are you expecting a FAQ/errata that says 'Dear Darksol...'?
Otherwise simply look at what has been said. You have devs posting that you don't need a hand free to use armor spikes (Jason), you have devs that answered FAQs discussing wielding a longspear and armor spikes (3rd ed, WotC, but I think that was SKR).
These rules haven't changed since the change from 3e to 3.5 where they removed handedness and the ambidexterity feat.
-James
It's not looking for attention from the Devs; they got enough stuff to work with.
If you can link me the Dev FAQ post by Jason for Pathfinder that says Armor Spikes can be used in TWF while not taking up a "hand," then I would have been proven wrong, and I will concede, and this can finally be..."laid to rest," so to speak.