|
Big long FAQ here in response to the previous post, but:
"Multiple Weapons, Iterative Attacks, and Two-Weapon Fighting (page 202): If I have iterative attacks from a high BAB, can I make attacks with different weapons and not incur a two-weapon fighting penalty?
Yes. Basically, you only incur TWF penalties if you are trying to get an extra attack per round.
Let's assume you're a 6th-level fighter (BAB +6/+1) holding a longsword in one hand and a light mace in the other. Your possible full attack combinations without using two-weapon fighting are:
(A) longsword at +6, longsword +1
(B) mace +6, mace +1
(C) longsword +6, mace +1
(D) mace +6, longsword +1
All of these combinations result in you making exactly two attacks, one at +6 and one at +1. You're not getting any extra attacks, therefore you're not using the two-weapon fighting rule, and therefore you're not taking any two-weapon fighting penalties.
If you have Quick Draw, you could even start the round wielding only one weapon, make your main attack with it, draw the second weapon as a free action after your first attack, and use that second weapon to make your iterative attack. As long as you're properly using the BAB values for your iterative attacks, and as long as you're not exceeding the number of attacks per round granted by your BAB, you are not considered to be using two-weapon fighting, and therefore do not take any of the penalties for two-weapon fighting.
The two-weapon fighting option in the Core Rulebook specifically refers to getting an extra attack for using a second weapon in your offhand. In the above four examples, there is no extra attack, therefore you're not using two-weapon fighting.
Using the longsword/mace example, if you use two-weapon fighting you actually have fewer options than if you aren't. Your options are (ignoring the primary/off hand penalties):
(A') primary longsword at +6, primary longsword at +1, off hand mace at +6
(B') primary mace at +6, primary mace at +1, off hand longsword at +6
In other words, once you decide you're using two-weapon fighting to get that extra attack on your turn (which you have to decide before you take any attacks on your turn), that decision locks you in to the format of "my primary weapon gets my main attack and my iterative attack, and my off hand weapon only gets the extra attack, and I apply two-weapon fighting penalties."
—Sean K Reynolds, 11/04/11 Back to Top"
So the precedent in place is actually that you make all of your attacks with your main hand, and then your off-hand.
Oh, okay then.
It still gets very fiddly to use a greatsword/longsword combo even if you rule that switching grip is a free action
Lamashtu worshiping Druids?
Nah. Lamashtu wasn't involved. Let's just say the druid's bond was extra close. XD
It's been a while since I've played around with a greatsword armor spikes build and I haven't looked at all possible builds across all levels but what I've generally found is that thf and armor spikes gives additional flexibility especially when goon sweeping butthe main thing to rremember is that if you can get twf without a major investment it can be worthwhile butiit's generally not worth getting itwf
|
Well, you would get the weapon training bonuses for one thing. And the advantages for being limited to unarmed weapons go out the window.** spoiler omitted **
EDIT: Added OT spoiler tag - this isn't part of this thread really, as Grick said.
I am not the one who is saying it is a free action, am I?
SKR FAQ QUOTE DELETED FOR BREVITY So the precedent in place is actually that you make all of your attacks with your main hand, and then your off-hand.
Huh. That's interesting. Even though Chapter 8 specifically lists making all your attacks in BAB highest to lowest order when fighting with two weapons, it contradicts itself when it comes to incorporating the TWF feat. This is why I was so confused, I think.
SKR still follows the highest to lowest formula, but goes highest to lowest mainhand, then highest to lowest on the offhand. Instead of alternating main-off-main-off as the text suggests.
Let's see if I get this right...
Normal: +15/+10/+5 mainhand, one weapon (no penalties)
Dual: +15/+10/+5, you decide which one is primary (no penalties)
Dual (Extra): +15/+10/+5 mainhand, +15 offhand (add full penalties)
with TWF: +15/+10/+5 mainhand, you decide which, then +15 offhand (reduced penalties due to feat)
with ITWF: +15/+10/+5 mainhand, you decide, then +15/+10 offhand (penalties as TWF, second additional attack)
with GTWF: +15/+10/+5 mainhand, you decide, then +15/+10/+5 offhand (penalties as TWF, third additional attack)
Is that accurate?
I am not the one who is saying it is a free action, am I?Well, you would get the weapon training bonuses for one thing. And the advantages for being limited to unarmed weapons go out the window.** spoiler omitted **
EDIT: Added OT spoiler tag - this isn't part of this thread really, as Grick said.
Neither am I, in this thread (or rather, I've never said it is a free action - I've said it's up to the DM and that free action makes sense as a ruling, but whatever).
It's kind of vague and depends on interpretation, whether "the attacks" refer to "the attacks you make" or "the attacks you get because base attack bonus is high", and the intent of the rule seems unclear (at least as unclear as this issue).
I don't think "the attacks" can refer to "(all) your attacks". By using "the" it's referring specifically to the attacks referenced earlier (ones granted by high BAB).
If there's a grammatical twist where "the attacks" can refer to all attacks you make, I'm not aware of it, so I could be wrong, but I don't see how it can work that way.
In the latter interpretation, if you had for example BAB +16/+11/+6/+1 you could make the attacks in order +11/+6/+1/+16 since the first attack isn't because of high BAB.
That's a really good point.
Even though Chapter 8 specifically lists making all your attacks in BAB highest to lowest order when fighting with two weapons, it contradicts itself when it comes to incorporating the TWF feat.
Can you cite what you're talking about?
There are seven instances of "highest" in the Combat chapter. The first six refer to initiative, the last is in Full Attack (quoted above).
The line in Full Attack just means attacks granted by a high BAB. It even says if you have two weapons you can use either one first. So if you have iterative attacks at +11/+6/+1, those are granted by high BAB and must be made in order. (Except the first one, using the loophole above, heh) All the other attacks (off-hand, haste, rapid shot, etc.) can be made before, after, or in between those iterative attacks.
It almost never matters at all. I find it easier to make all the attacks with one weapon, then switch, since two weapons often have different damage dice and bonus damage. Lots of people love to interlace them and MH/OH/MH/OH/MH/Haste or whatever, and it's not really a problem. The only time it would really matter is using a low-bonus attack first so it benefits more from something like Furious Focus. (Which you can still do if you get multiple off-hand attacks)
I'd like to the the numbers on a elven curve blade/ Armor spikes finesse build.
Most likely inferior in DPS to the strength focused builds but why not.
What I'd me asking with that is if you could use power attack with the curved blade and piranha strikes with the armor spikes. And if you can do that, would you get the penalties of both feats for all attacks or only the penaties from that feat you benefit from.
I guess the answer is: You can and get both penalties on all attacks.
You'd get the penalties of both on both attacks, the benefit of both on armor spikes, and the benefit of power attack only on the curve blade.
EDIT: wrote completely wrong
After rereading it I noticed that piranha strikes not only states that it doesn't stack with power attack but that both can't be used together.
This feat cannot be used in conjunction with the Power Attack feat.
|
|
Let's see if I get this right...
Normal: +15/+10/+5 mainhand, one weapon (no penalties)
Dual: +15/+10/+5, you decide which one is primary (no penalties)
Dual (Extra): +15/+10/+5 mainhand, +15 offhand (add full penalties)
with TWF: +15/+10/+5 mainhand, you decide which, then +15 offhand (reduced penalties due to feat)
with ITWF: +15/+10/+5 mainhand, you decide, then +15/+10 offhand (penalties as TWF, second additional attack)
with GTWF: +15/+10/+5 mainhand, you decide, then +15/+10/+5 offhand (penalties as TWF, third additional attack)
Is that accurate?
It looks like Grick already covered this, but yeah, you've got the sequences correct as the available information seems to indicate. I actually preferred the original interpretation which I had shared with you of attacks needing to be taken from highest to lowest that would have you alternating hands, as I think it makes more sense and avoids cheese, but it is what it is. My only problem with SKR's clarification is the ridiculousness it opens up with Gunslingers two weapon fighting by starting the round with a pistol in each hand, dropping the off-hand weapon either attached to a weapon cord or similar contrivance, taking all of their main hand iteratives while reloading with their now-free hand, and then switching to the other hand to complete their off-hand attacks.
For those curious, Jason touched the order issue for TWF during the beta. There's a post of his above that too.
Page 139 of the Beta, first paragraph. It states that you must take your attacks in order from highest to lowest, and that if you are wielding two weapons, you can choose which ones to attack with first. That makes it seem to me like you cannot swap back and forth between hands, and must choose one to attack with first, going from highest to lowest, before repeating this with the other hand.
That said, I am not really sure this is absolutely necessary.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Granted, I'm not sure if that's any help.
|
|
I must admit that we have been playing TWF since 3.0 debuted as pairs of attacks from highest to lowest. Never even occurred to do anything else.
Bonus from haste main +16
Main +16
Off +16
Main +11
Off +11
Main +6
Off +6
Main +1That satisfies 'highest to lowest'.
This was how we had always done it as well, until we saw multiple developer statements and FAQs indicating that it was actually supposed to be Main hand + iteratives, then Off-hand + any iteratives granted by feats/abilities. I think a lot of the shenanigans that so many people get up in arms about are actually avoided by the alternating weapon sequence, since it doesn't allow you to essentially TWF with only one weapon in your hand at any given time (other than the start of the turn), something I've seen many argue is supported. That being said, I'm still behind being able to TWF with a THW and a non-hand off-hand weapon. My buddies Stonelord going off with a DWA in both hands and a Boulder Helmet is something I'm just not interested in seeing go away.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
For those curious, Jason touched the order issue for TWF during the beta. There's a post of his above that too.
Granted, I'm not sure if that's any help.Page 139 of the Beta, first paragraph. It states that you must take your attacks in order from highest to lowest, and that if you are wielding two weapons, you can choose which ones to attack with first. That makes it seem to me like you cannot swap back and forth between hands, and must choose one to attack with first, going from highest to lowest, before repeating this with the other hand.
That said, I am not really sure this is absolutely necessary.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
This gets interesting to ponder when you think about double weapons.
|
|
This gets interesting to ponder when you think about double weapons.For those curious, Jason touched the order issue for TWF during the beta. There's a post of his above that too.
Granted, I'm not sure if that's any help.Page 139 of the Beta, first paragraph. It states that you must take your attacks in order from highest to lowest, and that if you are wielding two weapons, you can choose which ones to attack with first. That makes it seem to me like you cannot swap back and forth between hands, and must choose one to attack with first, going from highest to lowest, before repeating this with the other hand.
That said, I am not really sure this is absolutely necessary.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
If you can swap as a free action, what is the point of a double weapon?
If you can swap as a free action, what is the point of a double weapon?
Having weapon specialization apply to all your attacks?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone who read the Thunderstriker archetype and didn't think it was about two-weapon fighting with a two-handed weapon and a buckler, clearly didn't read that 13th level ability.
Hammer and Anvil (Ex)
At 13th level, a thunderstriker suffers only half the normal penalties for two-weapon fighting when using a buckler as his off-hand weapon.
And what's that other weapon they're using? Oh yeah, it's a giant two-hander.
unless you really think they're switching weapons, or kicking someone when they want to use that ability.
If you can swap as a free action, what is the point of a double weapon?
Because most people use TWF "locking in" your main hand/off hand to work the same as using both manufactured and natural weapons: If you use your hand to wield your main-hand weapon, you can't also use that hand to wield your off-hand weapon (barring double weapons, which are treated as two separate weapons).
This is why using two hands on the greatsword as your main hand, then swapping and using two hands on the greatsword for your off-hand doesn't work.
This has nothing to do with using two hands on the greatsword (main) and zero hands on the armor spikes (off-hand).
It also has nothing to do with swapping weapons in any situation other than TWF.
Everyone who read the Thunderstriker archetype and didn't think it was about two-weapon fighting with a two-handed weapon and a buckler, clearly didn't read that 13th level ability.
And yet, at 15, they retain partial use of the buckler when using a weapon in that hand. And that partial use doesn't include magical properties. Which means a +1 bashing buckler doesn't function as a +1 weapon, the dice don't get bigger, etc. Which wouldn't make sense if he was doing the same thing two levels earlier and getting all those bonuses.
And what's that other weapon they're using? Oh yeah, it's a giant two-hander.
Assuming "giant" was hyperbole, there's still nothing that says "a heavy weapon" is referring to a two-handed weapon instead of a one-handed weapon (which can be used with two hands, and would benefit from all the Thunderstriker's abilities).
What it comes down to is that it's impossible to bash with a buckler if you're using the buckler hand to wield another weapon, and nothing in Thunderstriker changes that. Hammer and Anvil just reduces penalties, it doesn't give you the ability to do something you couldn't do anyway.
When the author said "Thunderstriker is "two-handed/buckler switch guy"" it's pretty clearly referring to using two hands on a one-handed weapon, because if it was a two-handed weapon, there wouldn't be any "switch" involved.
The "switch" is using both hands on the weapon, or two-weapon fighting.
|
|
In real life terms, you could imagine being able to use armour spikes and a weapon in each hand in much the same way you could imagine using armour spikes with a two handed weapon. As you can't use them if you attack with another off hand weapon I would imagine you can't use them with a two handed weapon.The only restriction on armor spikes is that you can't use them as your main-hand attack while TWF.
"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."
Since off-hand only exists while TWF, that sentence only applies while TWF.
If you made an attack with another off-hand weapon, you can't also make an attack with armor spikes. Since you're "locked in" to a main and off-hand weapon with TWF, that means armor spikes cannot be a main-hand weapon. This means the only way to use armor spikes with TWF is by using them as an off-hand weapon.
It's worded very poorly, and it's probably a leftover from when they changed the wording in errata to specifically allow normal weapon attacks.
So you can't Two-Weapon fight with armor spikes (main) and blade boot (off-hand), but you can two-weapon fight with blade boot (main) and armor spikes (off-hand). Both combination uses zero actual hands.
I believe your reading of the Armored Spikes description is wrong.
There is nothing in the Armored Spikes description that prevents you from using them as a main hand weapon. So I don't see why you couldn't do a MH: Armored Spikes, OH: longsword (dagger, shortsword, whatever) combo.
On the other hand, the Armored Spikes description specifically states that you may not combine Armored Spikes with off-hand weapons in the same round. This applies to both TWF combinations as well as iterative (BAB) attack combinations. Your assertion that you may boot blade (main) and armor spikes (off-hand) is incorrect.
There is nothing in the Armored Spikes description that prevents you from using them as a main hand weapon. So I don't see why you couldn't do a MH: Armored Spikes, OH: longsword (dagger, shortsword, whatever) combo.
Armor Spikes: "You can have spikes added to your armor, which allow you to 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."
Specifically: "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."
If you attack with another off-hand weapon (say, your dagger), then you can't also make an attack with armor spikes.
Vice versa: If you attack with armor spikes, you can't also make an attack with another off-hand weapon.
It's leftover text from when Armor Spikes was originally written with only TWF in mind, but the end result is you can use Armor Spikes like a normal weapon outside of TWF, and you can use them as an off-hand weapon while TWF, but you can't use them as main-hand while TWF. (More specifically, you can, but then you either don't attack with them, or you don't attack with the off-hand, which negates the whole point)
On the other hand, the Armored Spikes description specifically states that you may not combine Armored Spikes with off-hand weapons in the same round.
That's completely opposite of what you just said. If you main-hand the armor spikes, then you're combining armor spikes with off-hand weapons.
Your assertion that you may boot blade (main) and armor spikes (off-hand) is incorrect.
If you're reading "You can use a blade boot as an off-hand weapon." to mean you can only use a blade boot as an off-hand weapon, then replace blade boot with boulder helmet or something.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Barbazu Beard: "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."
So there's your precedent for two-weapon fighting using a two-handed weapon and a weapon that does not require hands.
As long as you do the SA attacks first there should be no issue doing them as main attacks. Notice that it says "if you have already made", not "if you're going to make".
As long as you do the SA attacks first there should be no issue doing them as main attacks. Notice that it says "if you have already made", not "if you're going to make".
"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."
It also says "and vice versa" which means "the other way around".
This means You can't also make an attack with another off-hand weapon if you have already made an attack with armor spikes.
Or are you reading "another" to apply only to making off-hand attacks using two different off-hand weapons? Which you can't do anyway, since TWF locks your weapon choices.
Ah now I get the issue. The reason the line is there is to clarify that you can't use it on top of regular TWF, IIRC. I think that was mentioned in the 3.5 FAQ, but can't swear on it. But by RAW, I agree, you can't use it as a main weapon.
|
|
There is nothing in the Armored Spikes description that prevents you from using them as a main hand weapon. So I don't see why you couldn't do a MH: Armored Spikes, OH: longsword (dagger, shortsword, whatever) combo.Armor Spikes: "You can have spikes added to your armor, which allow you to 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."
Specifically: "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."
If you attack with another off-hand weapon (say, your dagger), then you can't also make an attack with armor spikes.
Vice versa: If you attack with armor spikes, you can't also make an attack with another off-hand weapon.
It's leftover text from when Armor Spikes was originally written with only TWF in mind, but the end result is you can use Armor Spikes like a normal weapon outside of TWF, and you can use them as an off-hand weapon while TWF, but you can't use them as main-hand while TWF. (More specifically, you can, but then you either don't attack with them, or you don't attack with the off-hand, which negates the whole point)
On the other hand, the Armored Spikes description specifically states that you may not combine Armored Spikes with off-hand weapons in the same round.That's...
Well, perhaps I am reading things too literally (a result of my job, in which I have to read things at their literal word), but the way I read the description for the boot blade (or barbezu beard, or other such "0-hand weapons") is that they are "off-hand weapons". They may never get more than 1/2 STR added to damage, even if that is the only attack made with them that round.
Again, the armored spikes description states "off-hand weapon". Boot Blade, et al. descriptions mention they are "off-hand weapons".
The Two-Weapon Fighting rules refer to "off-hand attacks" or at least, making attacks with the off-hand.
There is nothing in the dagger description that states that it is an "off-hand weapon".
So, from my point of view, mixing armor spikes with daggers isn't a problem, whereas mixing armor spikes with boot blades is.
Again, I am coming from a background in which every word has a specific meaning: "You may do this", "You shall not do that", etc. Maybe I'm looking at things too deeply, and I've got it all wrong and the editors just need to do a better job on policing and tightening up the language used. Maybe I'm right. At least the devs are starting to post FAQs again.
Does that at least clarify why I posted what I did, even if you may not agree with it?
|
|
Barbazu Beard: "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."
So there's your precedent for two-weapon fighting using a two-handed weapon and a weapon that does not require hands.
Or it could be an exception to the rule.
Or it could be an exception to the rule.Barbazu Beard: "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."
So there's your precedent for two-weapon fighting using a two-handed weapon and a weapon that does not require hands.
The way it's written, it sounds like it's the common rule, though. I never mentions or implies anything about it being an exception.
|
The way it's written, it sounds like it's the common rule, though. I never mentions or implies anything about it being an exception.Or it could be an exception to the rule.Barbazu Beard: "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."
So there's your precedent for two-weapon fighting using a two-handed weapon and a weapon that does not require hands.
In fact, the ability to use both the barbazu beard and a two-handed weapon is very specifically framed as being the logical result of it requiring no hands to use.
the way I read the description for the boot blade (or barbezu beard, or other such "0-hand weapons") is that they are "off-hand weapons". They may never get more than 1/2 STR added to damage, even if that is the only attack made with them that round.
Off-hand only has relevance when two-weapon fighting. That means if you don't take a full-attack action and use the two-weapon fighting rules to gain an extra attack, you don't have an off-hand.
So if those weapons can only be used as off-hand weapons, they can only ever be used when taking a full-attack action using two-weapon fighting.
That's explicitly not true of armor spikes, since they specify they can be used as a regular weapon.
There is nothing in the dagger description that states that it is an "off-hand weapon".
It's an off-hand weapon if you're using it to make your off-hand attacks while two-weapon fighting.
Does that at least clarify why I posted what I did, even if you may not agree with it?
Not really, since you used the example of MH armor spikes and OH longsword. If armor spikes are off-hand only, then that couldn't work. And if they're not off-hand only, it still can't work, due to the weird leftover text in the description.
If the other two weapons I mentioned are restricted to off-hand only, then my example (MH Boot blade, OH Armor Spikes) is incorrect.
Barbazu Beard: "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."
So there's your precedent for two-weapon fighting using a two-handed weapon and a weapon that does not require hands.
Gratulations! you, sir, won this thread.
As I see every one who now keeps on arguing does that just because (s)he likes to argue.|
|
When the author said "Thunderstriker is "two-handed/buckler switch guy"" it's pretty clearly referring to using two hands on a one-handed weapon, because if it was a two-handed weapon, there wouldn't be any "switch" involved.
Come on.
If he meant two-handed and buckler, he wouldn't have needed to use the word switch.
You are really, really reaching.
|
|
The way it's written, it sounds like it's the common rule, though. I never mentions or implies anything about it being an exception.Or it could be an exception to the rule.Barbazu Beard: "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."
So there's your precedent for two-weapon fighting using a two-handed weapon and a weapon that does not require hands.
You say potato, I say potato...
C'mon Devs...
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Barbazu Beard: "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."
So there's your precedent for two-weapon fighting using a two-handed weapon and a weapon that does not require hands.
Gratulations! you, sir, won this thread.
As I see every one who now keeps on arguing does that just because (s)he likes to argue.
Or because they honestly believe that the intent behind "combine the use of it with a two-handed weapon" is something other than "combine the use of it with a two-handed weapon".
|
|
Barbazu Beard: "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."
So there's your precedent for two-weapon fighting using a two-handed weapon and a weapon that does not require hands.
If that were the rule, as commonly understood, why do they have to spell it out as if it were an exception to the rule as commonly understood.
Reading this as evidence this is the norm would require adding "Since the creature is humanoid and has two armed, he can wield the weapon two-handed" to every racial entry.
EDIT: Misread it, my bad. Still waiting for a Dev ruling, still think that since it had to be explained as an exception, it is an exception, but I did mis-read it so mea culpa on that part.
When the author said "Thunderstriker is "two-handed/buckler switch guy"" it's pretty clearly referring to using two hands on a one-handed weapon, because if it was a two-handed weapon, there wouldn't be any "switch" involved.
Come on.
If he meant two-handed and buckler, he wouldn't have needed to use the word switch.
You are really, really reaching.
I assume you're speaking to Doomed Hero?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
If that were the rule, as commonly understood, why do they have to spell it outBarbazu Beard: "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."
So there's your precedent for two-weapon fighting using a two-handed weapon and a weapon that does not require hands.
Because it's "commonly understood" and not "universally understood".
What else is apparently "commonly" rather than "universally" understood is that when a sentence says "X; thus, Y" (or replace "thus" with "therefore", etc), Y is the natural result of X, not a special exception.
Proficiency in english sentence structure shows that the line in question is NOT intended to be read as a special exception.
@Umbranus - Told ya.
|
|
When the author said "Thunderstriker is "two-handed/buckler switch guy"" it's pretty clearly referring to using two hands on a one-handed weapon, because if it was a two-handed weapon, there wouldn't be any "switch" involved.
Come on.
If he meant two-handed and buckler, he wouldn't have needed to use the word switch.
You are really, really reaching.
I assume you're speaking to Doomed Hero?
That is your quote from your reply to doomed hero.
|
|
If that were the rule, as commonly understood, why do they have to spell it outBarbazu Beard: "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."
So there's your precedent for two-weapon fighting using a two-handed weapon and a weapon that does not require hands.
Because it's "commonly understood" and not "universally understood".
What else is apparently "commonly" rather than "universally" understood is that when a sentence says "X; thus, Y" (or replace "thus" with "therefore", etc), Y is the natural result of X, not a special exception.
Proficiency in english sentence structure shows that the line in question is NOT intended to be read as a special exception.
A few things.
1. Why would they add it to the description if it were common use? Why not just say "requires no hands" or some such if that is the understood working.
2. Player companions are notoriously less screened than full rulebooks, and that book was the first one in the line put that was not 3.5.
If an item from the first player companion released under pathfinder contains an extended line that indicates it acts differently than other items...
I can't pull the SRD at work (part of why I misread it) so I'll look at it more when I get home. It looks like it came up on the messageboards, and the FAQ is marked staff response with no actual response in the thread.
We are all trying to descipher the Talmud at this point, which is silly since the Devs will literally tell us what they meant.
But since the Vital Strike confusion, they generally like to pow wow about it first :)
|
|
Barbazu Beard: "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."
So there's your precedent for two-weapon fighting using a two-handed weapon and a weapon that does not require hands.
Gratulations! you, sir, won this thread.
As I see every one who now keeps on arguing does that just because (s)he likes to argue.
Or because a single line in the first player companion that came out after the release of the core rule book having writing that makes it seems like this is the exception not the rule isn't the same as on of the three Devs going "It works like this."
Pathfinder has never released an item written by a freelancer that was later errataed...says no one who used brass knuckles.
That is your quote from your reply to doomed hero.
I know. I thought you might have made a mistake in your quoting, rather than just not making any sense.
Since it's the latter, I'll explain.
Doomed Hero was saying that it's clear the Thunderstriker archetype is supposed to use a two-handed weapon while also bashing with a buckler, using two-weapon fighting.
Jason Nelson said "Thunderstriker is "two-handed/buckler switch guy""
I said it's clear that Jason was referring to switching between using both hands on a one-handed weapon (like a longsword) and using that weapon one-handed while two-weapon fighting with the buckler. Hence, the "switch" means switching from using his weapon two-handed, to attacking with both his weapon and buckler.
If the Thunderstriker is supposed to use a greatsword and also still TWF with the buckler, there's no switch. There's also nothing in the archetype that says he can do this.
In your quote, your second sentence seems like you're agreeing with me, that the Thunderstriker was not built around using a two-handed weapon.
So either you didn't understand what I was saying (likely), you were unable to say whatever it is you mean (also likely), or you just screwed up the quote and were talking to the guy I was replying to (even more likely, but apparently not the case).
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. Why would they add it to the description if it were common use?
The same reason the Core Rulebook repeats some of the lighting rules in the darkness spell, or any number of other cases where a relevant rule gets repeated in a related spell/item/feat description: convenience. It happens all the time, including within the CRB and other hardcovers.
So no, the presence of that line does not indicate "exception" status in any way - neither by precedent, nor by plain english. The only thing pointing to exception status is your desire for it to be so.
|
|
@Grick - I think that is only because you seem quite skilled at reading thing in ways that agree with you.
I said "If he meant two-handed and buckler, he wouldn't have needed to use the word switch."
In other words, if the author meant it the way you were saying he meant it, he wouldn't need to use the word "switch".
He would simply say thunderstriker can use both "Two-handed and bucker" at the same time.
The word "switch" means he can switch between fighting two handed or two weapon, depending and always keep his bonus from his buckler.
If the thunderstriker could do both, they wouldn't need to use the word "switch". Particularly since bucklers don't require a free hand.
We can personal message the author to find out for certain, which is why the messageboards are wonderful.