I said "If he meant two-handed and buckler, he wouldn't have needed to use the word switch."
Are you talking about using both hands on a one-handed weapon, or are you talking about using a two-handed weapon?
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".
Yes, he would.
Fighting Style A) Both hands on longsword. Can't bash with buckler, since buckler hand is wielding the longsword.
Fighting Style B) Two-weapon fighting, using one hand on the longsword, and the other hand to bash with the buckler.
He switches between the two. He cannot do both 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.
Isn't that what I said? (Except "always" would mean after level 19, and that may not include magical bonuses that don't involve shield bonus to AC)
If the thunderstriker could do both, they wouldn't need to use the word "switch". Particularly since bucklers don't require a free hand.
So you agree with Doomed Hero, that the Thunderstriker can use both hands on a greatsword and also, in the same full-attack action, use two-weapon fighting to bash with his buckler?
|
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.
You know very well the reference back to darkness is intended to save words.
This is the opposite. This extends the number of words. You got past the first round of RPG superstar, so you understand better than most.
If this were a reference, you would say "requires no arms" or at most add "acts like armor spikes" if you want to be referential as you say.
That it is spelled out says that this is an exception, rather than a rule reference.
Why would you put the rule reference in the 36 page book written in large part by those not on the Dev team rather than, I don't know the 500 page core rulebook?
I am not saying it doesn't help your case, but as all of us who used brass knuckles before the nerf know, there is a different level of oversight with dev books and splat books.
And the fact who ever wrote that felt the need to take up precious word count to explain the use tells me it was use out of the norm.
Again, reading tea leaves waiting for the devs to just tell us.
You know very well the reference back to darkness is intended to save words.
If you read what Jiggy actually wrote, you'll see he was talking about how they added extra redundant words to Darkness. Setting an example of how they occasionally repeat rules in various places.
I am not saying it doesn't help your case
It certainly does more than help.
Your argument was "Fighting two handed and two weapon fighting are mutually exclusive."
This proves that they are not mutually exclusive.
And the fact who ever wrote that felt the need to take up precious word count to explain the use tells me it was use out of the norm.
If they hadn't specified, there might still be people (like you) who would argue that you can't use it the way it was intended.
|
|
@Jiggu - Apparently it was
@Grick - You just shot down what I thought was one of your arguments.
The buckler, like an unarmed attack or a gauntlet, requires no hands to use. If you can attack unarmed or with a gauntlet by releasing the two handed weapon as a free action, you could do the same with the buckler.
If one of your arguments was correct.
Armor spikes are somewhat different, I still think it wasn't Dev intend, but a much better case can be made for them than for an item like a gauntlet or unarmed. I still don't think that was intended, but I can see how a decent case could be made for it as an attack that would be simlar to the beard (although again, the fact that there was that much explanation leads me to think the item was intended to have an exceptional use)
I suspect the intent (and the wording for the clarification "fix") will be that they say THF will require the off-hand, which fixes everything.
But we won't know until they tell us.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
You know very well the reference back to darkness is intended to save words.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.
What reference back to darkness? Did you even read my post? I'm not talking about any "reference".
This is the opposite. This extends the number of words.
That's exactly what I'm talking about: adding more words, repeating existing rules instead of just referencing them or assuming the reader already knows them.
Look:
In an area of dim light, a character can see somewhat. Creatures within this area have concealment (20% miss chance in combat) from those without darkvision or the ability to see in darkness.
...
In areas of darkness, creatures without darkvision are effectively blinded. In addition to the obvious effects, a blinded creature has a 50% miss chance in combat (all opponents have total concealment)...
So the CRB's lighting rules cover the miss chances associated with insufficient lighting.
All creatures gain concealment (20% miss chance) in dim light. All creatures gain total concealment (50% miss chance) in darkness.
Look at that, it's been repeated. Additional words, stating what's already commonly understood. I don't know what "reference" you thought (pretended?) I was talking about, but I'm talking about actual repetition. The exact kind of word-count-eating repetition that you're saying the barbazu beard wouldn't employ.
And there are LOTS of other instances of repetition (not reference) of rules in multiple parts of the CRB, so don't pretend that the line in the barbazu beard is something unique or different.
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.
You know very well the reference back to darkness is intended to save words.
This is the opposite. This extends the number of words. You got past the first round of RPG superstar, so you understand better than most.
Look at the feat dodge.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/feats.html#_dodgeDodge (Combat)
Your training and reflexes allow you to react swiftly to avoid an opponents' attacks.
Prerequisite: Dex 13.
Benefit: You gain a +1 dodge bonus to your AC. A condition that makes you lose your Dex bonus to AC also makes you lose the benefits of this feat.
Does the bolded line indicate you don't normally lose dodge bonuses to AC when you lose your dex bonus to AC? No, it doesn't. It's there to make it even clearer to those who might not be sure.
If the barbazu beard just said "you may use it blabla" I might have agreed with you. But the word "thus" indicates this isn't an exception but a general effect of the earlier part of the sentence.
|
|
You know very well the reference back to darkness is intended to save words.If you read what Jiggy actually wrote, you'll see he was talking about how they added extra redundant words to Darkness. Setting an example of how they occasionally repeat rules in various places.
I am not saying it doesn't help your caseIt certainly does more than help.
Your argument was "Fighting two handed and two weapon fighting are mutually exclusive."
This proves that they are not mutually exclusive.
And the fact who ever wrote that felt the need to take up precious word count to explain the use tells me it was use out of the norm.If they hadn't specified, there might still be people (like you) who would argue that you can't use it the way it was intended.
Then why not reference back to unarmed spikes? Or add the wording there? Or under unarmed?
As to Darkness, here is the spell
"This spell causes an object to radiate darkness out to a 20-foot radius. This darkness causes the illumination level in the area to drop one step, from bright light to normal light, from normal light to dim light, or from dim light to darkness. This spell has no effect in an area that is already dark. Creatures with light vulnerability or sensitivity take no penalties in normal light. All creatures gain concealment (20% miss chance) in dim light. All creatures gain total concealment (50% miss chance) in darkness. Creatures with darkvision can see in an area of dim light or darkness without penalty. Nonmagical sources of light, such as torches and lanterns, do not increase the light level in an area of darkness. Magical light sources only increase the light level in an area if they are of a higher spell level than darkness.
If darkness is cast on a small object that is then placed inside or under a lightproof covering, the spell's effect is blocked until the covering is removed.
This spell does not stack with itself. Darkness can be used to counter or dispel any light spell of equal or lower spell level. "
The "redundant" words are 3 each, put in (). A total of 6 words, which frankly are very helpful is specific application of the spell.
6 words.
Everything is needed for the spell.
Compare that to "thus, a warrior could combine use of a barbazu beared with a two-handed weapon."
14 not needed words.
If it were the norm, the decription would have been
"A barbazu beard can be used as an off-hand weapon that requires no hands to use" Full stop.
16 words. Almost as many words at the 14 not needed if this was the norm. If the rule so obviously acts as you say, there is no reason for the extra 14 words.
None.
At worst they would have added "similar to armor spikes" if it was a clear comparison to how something else already works.
4 words, tops.
What it proves is they are not mutally exclusive with a specific weapon that nearly half of the description is saying it acts differently.
If it didn't act differently, you wouldn't need the description.
Back to work.
|
|
@Ilja - You need that wording for dodge because that is different than other types of armor bonuses. It didn't include that dodge bonuses stack with each other (which is in the rule) or that wearing armor doesn't limit it as it does to AC, or that it works against touch AC.
When we are extrapoliting from a single item in a splat book...someone e-mail me when the Devs rule, the thread is getting silly at this point.
The buckler, like an unarmed attack or a gauntlet, requires no hands to use.
How in the world does a gauntlet not require a hand to use?
If you can attack unarmed or with a gauntlet by releasing the two handed weapon as a free action, you could do the same with the buckler.
If you're not using two-weapon fighting, sure.
Once you decide you're using two-weapon fighting to get that extra attack on your turn, that decision locks you in to the format of "my primary weapon gets my main attack and my iterative attacks, and my off hand weapon only gets the extra attack."
Which, like I said upthread, is generally treated 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.
If one of your arguments was correct.
Is this a question or a statement?
Armor spikes are somewhat different, I still think it wasn't Dev intend, but a much better case can be made for them than for an item like a gauntlet or unarmed.
Why do you keep lumping gauntlets in with unarmed strikes? Why would you have to let go of a greatsword in order to kick someone?
I suspect the intent (and the wording for the clarification "fix") will be that they say THF will require the off-hand, which fixes everything.
Are you talking about actual hands, or attacks? If two-weapon fighting requires your off-hand weapon in your actual hand, then are you going to grab your shoe in order to attack with a boot blade?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The "XX% miss chance" clauses are not the only redundant wording. This entire section is redundant:
"All creatures gain concealment (20% miss chance) in dim light. All creatures gain total concealment (50% miss chance) in darkness. Creatures with darkvision can see in an area of dim light or darkness without penalty."
The spell already tells you how to figure what light level you end up in, and the lighting rules already tell you what happens in each light level. "All creatures gain concealment" is redundant, not just the parenthetical note on miss chances. Additionally, the statement about darkvision is already covered in the lighting rules and is therefore redundant.
That's three whole sentences, for a total of 35 words. Not six. Thirty-five.
Which you'd have known had you actually read and compared the two sections of text I cited.
The darkness spell contains more redundant words than the barbazu beard.
@Ilja - You need that wording for dodge because that is different than other types of armor bonuses. It didn't include that dodge bonuses stack with each other (which is in the rule) or that wearing armor doesn't limit it as it does to AC, or that it works against touch AC.
When we are extrapoliting from a single item in a splat book...someone e-mail me when the Devs rule, the thread is getting silly at this point.
No, you don't need that line in the Dodge feat as it's a dodge bonus and dodge bonus are described in the combat and glossary chapters stating the same thing.
The combat chapter:
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/combat.html
Dodge Bonuses: Dodge bonuses represent actively avoiding blows. Any situation that denies you your Dexterity bonus also denies you dodge bonuses. (Wearing armor, however, does not limit these bonuses the way it limits a Dexterity bonus to AC.) Unlike most sorts of bonuses, dodge bonuses stack with each other.
So why did they have to have it in the feat when that's the rule already? Because the writer felt it had to be extra clear. Perhaps like the writer of the barbazu beard thought, after seeing the 3.5 debates about whether it was possible or not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then why not reference back to unarmed spikes? Or add the wording there? Or under unarmed?
Why doesn't darkness reference back to the lighting rules? Because, as you said, it makes it easier to understand the spell.
Why doesn't barbazu beard reference back to U-something S-something? Because, as you can see, it makes it easier to understand the weapon.
If it were the norm, the decription would have been
"A barbazu beard can be used as an off-hand weapon that requires no hands to use" Full stop.
If it was written that way, wouldn't you still be arguing that Fighting two handed and two weapon fighting are mutually exclusive?
|
As to armour spikes:-
• They may be used as a weapon
• They may be used as the off-hand weapon when TWFing
• They are a light weapon (as opposed to one or two-handed)
• They may be used as the 'main' weapon when TWFing
• If you are able to take more than one 'off-hand' attack when TWFing, if the first off-hand attack was made with armour spikes then no other weapon may be used to take any other off-hand attack you make in that full attack; if you use any other weapon to take the first off-hand attack, then you may not use armour spikes to take any other off-hand attack in that full attack
This is how we've always understood how armour spikes and TWF interact, and nothing posted in this thread has convinced me otherwise.
I'm batting 100% at the moment, so if and when the devs venture an opinion on this I'll stake my record on the devs agreeing with each of my bullet points above.
I'm not certain if armour spikes can be both 'main' and 'off-hand' in the same TWF full attack. On the one hand (no pun intended!) they effectively cover enough of your body to resemble unarmed strikes that may be used for both in TWF, on the other hand (heh!) it seems unbalancing to be able to save money by using a single set of +5 armour spikes as two weapons.
BTW, in TWF the 'off-hand' weapon may be locked in, but the 'main' hand simply uses your normal iterative attacks, and as always you may mix and match which weapon you use for each of these attacks; the only exeption being that you cannot use the same weapon you chose as your off-hand weapon this round to take any of those 'main' hand attacks. You still have to be able to get those weapons in hand, of course.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
BTW, in TWF the 'off-hand' weapon may be locked in, but the 'main' hand simply uses your normal iterative attacks, and as always you may mix and match which weapon you use for each of these attacks;
Incorrect. Check out the TWF FAQ:
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."
Bolding mine. Once you elect to two-weapon fight, there are only two weapons involved: one of them is used for all of your main-hand attacks, the other for all of your off-hand attacks.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, Mr. Byers! Do you ever feel like contributing to these often fractious debates? You must read them, and you probably have an opinion.
Do you feel tempted? Are you allowed? : )
I wouldn't do that.
That's like a football player asking the Referee if he would like to get in the game and show him the right way to tackle someone, after being flagged for unnecessary roughness.
|
|
The "XX% miss chance" clauses are not the only redundant wording. This entire section is redundant:
"All creatures gain concealment (20% miss chance) in dim light. All creatures gain total concealment (50% miss chance) in darkness. Creatures with darkvision can see in an area of dim light or darkness without penalty."The spell already tells you how to figure what light level you end up in, and the lighting rules already tell you what happens in each light level. "All creatures gain concealment" is redundant, not just the parenthetical note on miss chances. Additionally, the statement about darkvision is already covered in the lighting rules and is therefore redundant.
That's three whole sentences, for a total of 35 words. Not six. Thirty-five.
Which you'd have known had you actually read and compared the two sections of text I cited.
The darkness spell contains more redundant words than the barbazu beard.
I should have just stayed out until the ruling...
And if you are at a table, adjudicating the spell, you need all of those words at the time you are using the spell. That is why they are included, and I think you know that.
There is no reason to have a full description of how items that don't take a hand slot works unless the feat is an exception to the general rule.
Why I should have stayed out of the thread) no one on either side is being moved without a dev ruling at this point. I think the fact that in 5 + years with two adventures (a module and an AP) coming out each month, and tons and tons of NPC's in between, there has never been a character who fought both two handed and twf is more telling.
But both are irrelevant until we get a dev ruling.
@ Grick - If the wording for the beard were in core under either TWF or THF I would not be arguing. If it were under unarmed or items that don't require hands, I wouldn't be arguing. I read that and I think "Some freelancer though it would be cool to have an item that you could also THF with because such a thing didn't exist so he wrote an item that did that."
My reading of the intent is that it is supposed to act like a bite attack, which of course can be combined with any attack, as it is a special ability. Which is why it has
"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."
Associated with it, presumably for balance against the advantage of being able to THF with it.
Now that I am in a place I can access the SRD, let us really look at the Barbazu Beard.
It is exotic, meaning you have to spend a feat to use it without penalty.
It does 1d4 X2 damage, which is less than most simple weapons, despite being exotic.
AND you provoke an AoO when you use it, even when you are proficient.
For what benefit? I argue because you can THF with it.
And how would that be a benefit if you could THF with any weapon that didn't occupy a hand slot? That is the only "special" ability it has.
Out of curiosity, why did you omit that the beard provoke AoO on use? Seems relevant to if it is an "exception" or "norm" item, doesn't it?
Now that I can actually see the item, I actually think it helps my case more than hurts it. Why have an item that weak with that many penalties if you can do the same thing with armor spikes or any unarmed attack?
|
|
Reading the beard, I think I may better understand Jason's position on the monk now (It will make sense)
I could now see the devs ruling you can unarmed strike while THF, as that would require a feat to do so without provoking, and unarmed strikes, well, kind of suck. They don't do much damage and you can't enhance them to do much more. So that wouldn't add much damage (1d4 + 1/2 strength as a cap), and considering the trade off in attack bonus it would be basically a wash.
That would be better than the beard, which requires a feat and still provokes, unless you spend on enhancements in which case it comes out about the same because it provokes AoO. And the beard may have been written to allow you to add enhancements to that type of attack.
Or it could have also been just someone going "it would be cool if you could attack THF style and still TWF", meaning they thought that you can't do that otherwise...hence the item needed so much description and a penalty to boot.
So when Jason looks at the monk, he is thinking that this extra attack with any part is already a huge advantage that needs to be handled carefully.
So my position now is I could see them saying unarmed is ok, because that generally going to be a bad trade.
I doubt any items that either do more damage or that enhancements can be added to will be ok unless they are exotic with special restrictions like the beard.
So that is my new, modified position.
But we won't know until the Devs rule in, and I've been sucked into reading the tea leaves...damn you all...
|
|
And if you are at a table, adjudicating the spell, you need all of those words at the time you are using the spell. That is why they are included, and I think you know that.There is no reason to have a full description of how items that don't take a hand slot works unless the feat is an exception to the general ...
Ciretose, sometimes the text is giving you exceptions and sometimes it is reminding you of the rules.
In this case it is spelling it out so there can be no misunderstanding.
The current devs may elect to change the rules, but as they stand it's perfectly legal. You have a Paizo product spelling it out AND you have a 3rd Ed FAQ directly using it if I recall correctly.
Now this might not fit your desire or viewpoint, but such happens. I happen not to like Paizo's change to QuickDraw, but I can't ignore what the RAW clearly are. I shouldn't need a dev to tell me that, nor should you in this case.
James
Read the item.
There is a reason Grick only posted a partial description. Then tell me if you still feel the same way, and let me know why you think they made provoke an AoO while only doing 1d4 x2 damage as an exotic if all items of that type act that way.
|
|
Say each letter out loud.I do not understand.Wait, so Pirates can't two-weapon fight with Hook Hands, because they don't require a hand to use?RDRRWho says I'm joking here?
As far as some opinions here go, I need two free hands to two-weapon fight with two Boot Blades.
Riverdance style?
Hook hands would occupy the hand slot, since...well...they occupy the hand slot. And presumably your hook hands are light weapons...and can someone link me to boot blades, I know they exist but I can't find them in the SRD and I'd like to actually read the wording, since what was omitted from the beard wording was so enlightening when I could actually read it.
There seems to be a lot of parsing going on, so why don't we break it down and see where the disagreement comes in.
1. We know that even though you have two hands, two feat and 6 seconds, you can only make two attacks (unless you have extra feats, etc...)
2. We know two-handed fighting takes at minimum, well...two-hands.
The debate is if those two hands being occupied were intended to prevent you from two weapon fighting. We know you get a bonus from fighting two handed, the question is what is the trade off for that bonus.
I've moved slightly from my original position, but here are the positions where I think flags have been planted, from most open to least. People can add or correct.
1. THF is just a type of attack, you can actually release as a free action to draw and attack with 2nd weapon (or even some types of shield) in the same round you attack.
2. THF is just a type of attack, and while you can't release as a free action, if you are using a weapon that doesn't require your hand, you can use TWF with that weapon.
3. THF requires use of both hands, but you can make another attack unarmed (with a kick), with armor spikes, or with any weapon that specifically says it occupies no hands.
4. THF requires use of both hands, but you could make an unarmed attack or use items that specifically allow it like the beard.
5. THF requires use of both hands, but there is one item that allows you to TWF with it, at the cost of the item really sucking at damage and provoking and AoO.
I don't think anyone could argue less than #5 and I don't think anyone would argue more than #1.
I am around 4 at this point, a bit on the fence about armor strikes, definately do not believe release as a free action was intended.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Boot Blades are from the Adventurer's Armory.
Find them here.
By the way, "hands slot" only exist for magic items. Nothing exists for weapons.
|
|
You can also use Kobold Tail Attachments, Ratfolk tailblade, Barbazu beard, or the Dwarven Boulder Helmet without hands.
You can also use a combination of them, and two weapon fight.
Using no hands at all.
|
|
Boot Blades are from the Adventurer's Armory.
Find them here.
By the way, "hands slot" only exist for magic items. Nothing exists for weapons.
So it can only be used as an off-hand weapon, restricts movement when, for lack of a better word, "wielded", requires a full round to return it to a non-movement stated, and does significantly less damage than the other martial weapons (even before the fact that it is specifically an off-hand weapon, meaning it is 1/2 strength).
As to hands, when you are holding something two-handed, and you only have two hands, you would agree both of your hands are occupied, correct?
So more parsing of words on the "slot" comment.
I think the description is perfect.
Benefit: You can use a blade boot as an off-hand weapon.
Drawback: When the blade is extended, you treat normal terrain as difficult and difficult terrain as impassable.
This is an item that has a benefit and a drawback. Most everything in the game that is a choice has a benefit and a drawback.
My issue is if you want the 1 1/2 times strength, what is the drawback for receiving it? Loss of use of one of your hands seems the logical conclusion.
This item being used TWF wouldn't bother me, as they clearly wrote in drawbacks for the fact it isn't in your hands.
The fact you can be immobilized for a full-round by a decent mud-puddle.
The beard has the same kind of penalty for the benefit. You can use it without a hand slot, but you will provoke an AoO.
Why would they put so many restrictions on these kinds of items, do you think?
|
|
You can also use Kobold Tail Attachments, Ratfolk tailblade, Barbazu beard, or the Dwarven Boulder Helmet without hands.
You can also use a combination of them, and two weapon fight.
Using no hands at all.
One at a time, both tail attachments require...well...a tail. And more importantly, a natural attack. Natural attacks are different, as I said above with regards to bite attacks. This part of why I have softened my stance on unarmed attacks. Natural attacks are themselves bonus attacks, so I have no issue with them mixing with TWF or THF. You can TWF and still get your bite attack, why would THF be any different.
The boulder helmet is interesting, because it is an exotic weapon that does crappy damage like the beard, but doesn't provoke like the beard. It also doesn't have the wording from the beard, so I don't suspect it was the intent it act like the beard. I suspect the reason it is exotic is the bonus to resisting criticals and the fact that while it could be a used as a weapon if needed, it doesn't occupy any slots.
|
|
Read the item.There is a reason Grick only posted a partial description. Then tell me if you still feel the same way, and let me know why you think they made provoke an AoO while only doing 1d4 x2 damage as an exotic if all items of that type act that way.
I have read the item.
It clearly has 'requiring no hands to use' stated, and then lists as a consequence that it can be used alongside a two-handed weapon.
Likewise (iirc) there is a 3rd ed FAQ where an example is wielding a longspear in two hands while using armor spikes.
This is not new. It is not unknown. It is not surprising at this point.
To answer your inquiry: I feel the same way. I see nothing there that makes it an exception, but rather it seems clearly to be a reminder. If it was meant to be an exception to an unstated rule, then it is in need of errata... but then again so would TWFing.
Do you somehow think that because the weapon provokes (like say an unarmed strike) that somehow this makes a conclusion an exception??
-James
What is the benefit of the item that counters all of the drawbacks of the item?
If you use the beard you provoke an AoO, which is a huge penalty for a manufactured item. It does very little damage, considering it is an exotic weapon. Unlike the tails it isn't a natural attack, unlike the dwarven helmet listed (which doesn't provoke) it doesn't provide any secondary benefit.
I can't think of any other manufactured item that provoked an AoO when used. Armor spikes certainly don't, and they basically have all the same benefits as the beard, if all such items can be used with THF. The only thing listed that the beard does is allow you to also fight two handed.
Unarmed strike can be prevented from provoking with the same number of feats you would need to even use this weapon properly.
The boulder helmet is interesting, because it is an exotic weapon that does crappy damage like the beard, but doesn't provoke like the beard. It also doesn't have the wording from the beard, so I don't suspect it was the intent it act like the beard. I suspect the reason it is exotic is the bonus to resisting criticals and the fact that while it could be a used as a weapon if needed, it doesn't occupy any slots.
The helm does occupy a slot, the head slot.
And if it only was for the additional protection that fact, that it is exotic doesn't matter because you don't suffer any penalties if you don't use it as a weapon proficient or not.I guess the main problem is that the armor spikes are too good and versatile for just being martial. But that is not the topic of this thread.
|
|
There are no "off hand only" weapons.
I can use any weapon, including improvised weapons, as my main weapon.
No weapon is as such, that it can only be used during two-weapon fighting, as an off-hand attack.
No weapon, when used alone, used to attack, as a standard action, is considered "off hand".
"Blade Boot
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."
How is it a benefit if you can use any weapon (and this is listed as a light weapon) as an off-hand weapon?
What "benefit" do you think the devs were giving by saying "You can use a boot blade as an off-hand weapon."
Benefit implied this is something you can't normally do, correct?
What do you think the devs intent was for this item? I think they thought it would be cool to have a boot blade, but they wanted to nerf the movement and damage to avoid it being abused.
This is why I get so frustrated in these debated by the way. It bothers me that cool ideas like boot blades, have to be evaluated by developers with the understanding that if you give something cool like that, people will try to find ways to use it game the system.
I think they were looking at an item that would be great for rogues, and thematically cool. Not as something you could combine with a greatsword, or use to get around restrictions.
Which is what I think the entire thread is about. Getting around rules and restrictions.
|
|
The boulder helmet is interesting, because it is an exotic weapon that does crappy damage like the beard, but doesn't provoke like the beard. It also doesn't have the wording from the beard, so I don't suspect it was the intent it act like the beard. I suspect the reason it is exotic is the bonus to resisting criticals and the fact that while it could be a used as a weapon if needed, it doesn't occupy any slots.
The helm does occupy a slot, the head slot.
And if it only was for the additional protection that fact, that it is exotic doesn't matter because you don't suffer any penalties if you don't use it as a weapon proficient or not.I guess the main problem is that the armor spikes are too good and versatile for just being martial. But that is not the topic of this thread.
Even better point and even more penalty for the item in that it occupies a slot.
I could be ok with Armor Spikes being made exotic, as they don't add much damage. I actually think the beard may be too much of a penalty.
A spiked armor also occupies a slot, FYI.
Yes, they're an addon to something that requires a slot. You can't have armor spikes without an armor, so you cannot have all your slots free and still have armor spikes, just like with the boulder helmet. That was my point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As to armour spikes:-
They may be used as the 'main' weapon when TWFing
No, that's actually the only thing they can't be used for. See the Armor Spikes discussion earlier.
if the first off-hand attack was made with armour spikes then no other weapon may be used to take any other off-hand attack you make in that full attack; if you use any other weapon to take the first off-hand attack, then you may not use armour spikes to take any other off-hand attack in that full attack
You're stuck with the same off-hand weapon for the entire TWF, regardless of how many attacks you get with it. See the TWF FAQ quoted earlier.
I'm batting 100% at the moment
You keep saying that, but maybe you missed how they changed sunder and even-more-officially defined the attack action. You argued that (pre-FAQ) you could sunder with a full-attack, and that was wrong. You also argued that the attack action wasn't always a standard action, and that was also wrong.
BTW, in TWF the 'off-hand' weapon may be locked in
Which directly contradicts your 5th point about armor spikes.
My reading of the intent is that it is supposed to act like a bite attack, which of course can be combined with any attack, as it is a special ability.
It's not a natural weapon. It doesn't become secondary if you use a manufactured weapon with it. It doesn't grant you an extra attack. It's not anything like a bite attack.
Out of curiosity, why did you omit that the beard provoke AoO on use? Seems relevant to if it is an "exception" or "norm" item, doesn't it?
Not really. English, again. The beard provokes, normally weapons don't, so it's an exception. The beard uses no hands, normally weapons do, so it's an exception. Because the beard uses no hands, you can TWF with it and a 2H weapon. That's not an exception, that's a direct logical result of the weapon not requiring any hands.
This is the same problem you had understanding the attack action. JB said that Vital Strike uses the attack action, which is a specific standard action. VS not working with a full-attack is the result of it using that specific action. Case X because of Situation Y.
VS no iterative because of attack action.
Beard+2H because of no hands.
Another thing that uses the attack action can also not be iterative, because of the logic used earlier.
Another weapon that uses no hands can also be used with 2H weapon, because of the logic used earlier.
There is a reason Grick only posted a partial description.
And that reason, in case you're interested, is because that sentence was all that was needed to prove that fighting two handed and two-weapon fighting are not mutually exclusive. Which is the topic of the thread.
What "benefit" do you think the devs were giving by saying "You can use a boot blade as an off-hand weapon."Benefit implied this is something you can't normally do, correct?
They could just have added that to make clear that you can use it with TWF. Because they anticipated that someone would come along and ask: How can something be an offhand weapon if you don't hold it in your hand.
Grick, check out my link above, regarding Armor Spikes.
Why is the first sentence different from the PRD Armor Spikes?
Is that what you're pointing out?