They can be used either as a main attack, or off-hand attack, whilst two-weapon fighting.
I posted this a few pages back.
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)
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.
I see. It's not that you think "2H + TWF" doesn't work, it's just that you don't want it to. The Barbazu Beard text heavily implies that you can TWF with a 2H weapon and a no-hands weapon, but because you think that's too good you insist that it's against the rules.
Honestly is it really that bad? It's slightly better than TWF. So what? Longbows are much better than crossbows; Should we ban longbows so crossbows seem more useful? We have loads of options, core or not, that strictly better than others. Toughness x Fast Learner, for example.
I really don''t understand why someone would be against giving martial character more viable options. This os not a game-breaking tactic, no GM will suddenly have problems challenging the character because now he uses a greatsword and armor spikes instead a pair of shortswords or cestus.
Hell, the difference between 2h+0H and the conventional TWF is even that big. I really doubt this will stop anyone from using twin weapons.
Grick, you misquoted Malachi. Some of the statements you have listed as a quote from Malachi were actually said by ciretose.
Ahh crap, you're right.
In my post here, the first four quotes are correctly attributed to Malachi, but the last three ("My reading", "Out of curiosity", and "There is a reason") should have been attributed to ciretose. My apologies, Malachi (and anyone else who got confused).
|
The whip is directly in core, and any projectile weapon.
Yes, but the arguement is what the beard does is standard. The whip has a 15 foot reach, which puts it pretty close to a ranged weapon.
If armored spikes are the norm, why would it provoke? Why add such a significant penalty if it does the same as another item without any penalty at all? And don't try...
The barbazu beard can be removed from the PC (not disarmed mind you), while armor spikes are tied to the armor. This is a *huge* penalty as you cannot switch, swap out when you find another better enchanted, etc.
Because that is ridiculous.
That is like saying an enchanted sword's huge penalty is that the enchantment is on the sword, and you can't just move the enchantment around.
You can change armor. Armor can be removed.
It makes no sense to make the beard require the same penalty as a ranged weapon if the only advantage it has over spikes is...well no advantage at all, frankly.
|
|
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.
I see. It's not that you think "2H + TWF" doesn't work, it's just that you don't want it to. The Barbazu Beard text heavily implies that you can TWF with a 2H weapon and a no-hands weapon, but because you think that's too good you insist that it's against the rules.
Honestly is it really that bad? It's slightly better than TWF. So what? Longbows are much better than crossbows; Should we ban longbows so crossbows seem more useful? We have loads of options, core or not, that strictly better than others. Toughness x Fast Learner, for example.
I really don''t understand why someone would be against giving martial character more viable options. This os not a game-breaking tactic, no GM will suddenly have problems challenging the character because now he uses a greatsword and armor spikes instead a pair of shortswords or cestus.
Hell, the difference between 2h+0H and the conventional TWF is even that big. I really doubt this will stop anyone from using twin weapons.
I don't read it that way. I read it as "This is a splat book, what would be a cool item that does something no other item does?"
If all weapons you don't hold had this effect, why make the beard provoke? The beard absolutely sucks at that point, relative to any other weapons not held. Why not just say that under "unarmed attack" or even better under two handed fighting?
Do we think the devs were trying to give out secret skills that can be unlocked by the most creative readers?
As to the second part, I think it is a false argument to say "Why wouldn't you just give to martials, since they suck anyway." and I think it is that mindset that leads to the gaps in the first place in some games.
Rules, by defintion, are restrictions on what you can and cannot do. If there were no rules, there would be no restrictions.
I think some people on here honestly read the rules differently than I do (Ilja for example, and you too Lemmy...the partial wands...:) ) but I also think some people on here just try to find loopholes and exploits.
At this point, I've moved from between 4 and 5 on the chart I listed to between 3 and 4. I can see an argument for unarmed, and Ilja made a strong case for armored spike's historical precident.
But I find it hard to believe the Dev who was concerned about flurry using a single weapon meant for THF and TWF to be simultanious, and I don't find a reference to a single item in a splat book that gives the ability in exchange for provoking an AoO on every use strong evidience that the Devs intended for every weapon not in your hands could be combined with THF.
|
Because that is ridiculous.That is like saying an enchanted sword's huge penalty is that the enchantment is on the sword, and you can't just move the enchantment around.
You can change armor. Armor can be removed.
It makes no sense to make the beard require the same penalty as a ranged weapon if the only advantage it has over spikes is...well no advantage at all, frankly.
With a sword it does only one thing so swapping swords is a complete upgrade. There is no drawback from using another sword with a better enchantment and nothing to keep you from using the better weapon or even keeping both and quick drawing the one best for the situation.
If you find better armor that provides more protection but has no spikes it is a trade off. You can't just use the armor with the spikes until you need more protection in the middle of a battle and just swap out.
|
|
Because that is ridiculous.That is like saying an enchanted sword's huge penalty is that the enchantment is on the sword, and you can't just move the enchantment around.
You can change armor. Armor can be removed.
It makes no sense to make the beard require the same penalty as a ranged weapon if the only advantage it has over spikes is...well no advantage at all, frankly.
With a sword it does only one thing so swapping swords is a complete upgrade. There is no drawback from using another sword with a better enchantment and nothing to keep you from using the better weapon or even keeping both and quick drawing the one best for the situation.
If you find better armor that provides more protection but has no spikes it is a trade off. You can't just use the armor with the spikes until you need more protection in the middle of a battle and just swap out.
And conversely, you can't be disarmed of your armor spikes.
It is absurd to argue that the beard, which is already an exotic weapon that does basically the least damage on the chart, also provokes an attack of opportunity for every use because you can change it out like you would a sword as opposed to armor spikes.
Given the number of people on the board seem to argue locked gauntlets are must have items, it is no penalty. And given you still have your arms free to hold that sword or better weapon it isn't even a problem in the scenario you are describing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, but the arguement is what the beard does is standard.
That's actually not the argument.
The argument is that, when the beard says it uses no hands, and therefore can be used to TWF with a 2H weapon, the reason it can do so is because the beard uses no hands.
If armored spikes are the norm, why would it provoke?
Perhaps because you're waving around something attached to your face, instead of attached to a bit of protective armor.
"Exotic" =/= good. Just look at the siangham, kama etc. When would someone ever take EWP (Kama)? The only reason to ever use it over a sickle is if you're a character that is already proficient in the kama. And the usage of sickles are pretty marginal as is.
People get way too hung up on pedantic wording details. I have no problem with an off-hand weapon not actually involving a literal hand at all. If the longspear-wielder wants to kick the kobold adjacent to him while trying to fend off the ogre at reach, I have no problem with that at all. Nor do I think it a significant balance issue.
On the pedantic side, that armor spikes count as an off-hand weapon suggests that a little creativity can be used in interpreting that term.
|
|
I posted this a few pages back.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)
There is a flaw in this logic.
If you attack with another off-hand first, then you can't use Armor Spikes; if you attack with your Armor Spikes, then you can't attack with another off-hand. A question is raised: how does one attack with the off-hand first in a TWF sequence? Also, how is one even able to get more than one type of off-hand attack in the first place?
TWF only allows you to use two weapons: one as the primary "hand" attack, the other as the off "hand" attack. There isn't an option to have "another off-hand weapon" to make an attack with. This fact alone makes your interpretation of that paragraph completely unintelligible—even if the language is unchanged from an earlier interpretation.
I believe there is a deliberate distinction between "off-hand weapon" language in the Armored Spikes (as well as "0-hand weapon") descriptions and the "off-hand attacks" language found in the TWF rules.
The TWF rules are referring to any attacks made with the "off-hand" regardless of the weapon used, whereas Armored Spikes are referring to a specific set of weapons.
Yes, I realize there are those that would then ask what it means to be an "off-hand weapon". I think that is a very valid question and worthy of a debate, but is ultimately irrelevant to this specific point that I am making here.
I still stand by my original assertion that Armored Spikes can be used to TWF (even as a primary weapon) with "normal" weapons—but can't be used along side those weapons that have the "off-hand weapon" description (boot blade, barbezu beard, etc.).
EDIT: Furthermore, there is no mention of TWF at all in the Armored Spikes description. If you look at "off-hand weapons" as a specific set of weapons, then the limitation of not being able to use Armored Spikes with "another off-hand weapon" during iterative attacks makes complete sense.
But JB has stated that off-hand is only a relevant descriptor in TWF.
The line could also be a reminder that you can't use it together with normal TWF, just for people to be extra sure (like the dodge feat and darkness spell description reminders).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But JB has stated that off-hand is only a relevant descriptor in TWF.
The line could also be a reminder that you can't use it together with normal TWF, just for people to be extra sure (like the dodge feat and darkness spell description reminders).
My interpretaion of the "You can't also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon" was just that you couldn't, for instance, take all of your main-hand iteratives with a long sword, then make a dagger attack and two armor spike attacks with your off-hand attacks. If you attacked with a dagger first, it's not an "off-hand" weapon, it's a main hand weapon, which you could then follow up with off hand attacks from your armor spikes. "Off-hand" is just a designator for the weapon you attack with using the extra attacks provided by TWF.
I don't read it that way. I read it as "This is a splat book, what would be a cool item that does something no other item does?"
Well, it doesn't say that at all, it just says you can do it because it's a no-hands weapon. It doesn't even specify Barbazu beards as being capable of 2H+TWF, just that it can do it because it's a no-hands weapon.
If all weapons you don't hold had this effect, why make the beard provoke? The beard absolutely sucks at that point, relative to any other weapons not held. Why not just say that under "unarmed attack" or even better under two handed fighting?
Do we think the devs were trying to give out secret skills that can be unlocked by the most creative readers?
Yeah, the Beard sucks at that point. So do a lot of other items, feats, spells and archetypes in a lot of splatbooks.
As to the second part, I think it is a false argument to say "Why wouldn't you just give to martials, since they suck anyway." and I think it is that mindset that leads to the gaps in the first place in some games.
Rules, by defintion, are restrictions on what you can and cannot do. If there were no rules, there would be no restrictions.
And yet there are rules and restrictions, but it seems to em that you are trying to add more of them because you don't like this particular rule. You're removing one cool option for martial characters, one that is pretty accessible too and effective too. It's not like you have to be from an specific class, archetype or build to do it, so I don't see any real power creep going on here.
I think some people on here honestly read the rules differently than I do (Ilja for example, and you too Lemmy...the partial wands...:) ) but I also think some people on here just try to find loopholes and exploits.
Everybody reads the rules differently at one point or another. Sure, some rules are more easily interpreted than others, but it's difficult to believe that any 2 people agree a 100% about 100% of the rules.
About those wands, I'll explain it only one more time, because I think you'rea smart guy, so you won't need more than that.I don't know your house rules or gaming styles. I don't know Ashiel's house rules and gaming styles either. Or Bob's. I don't know what changes anyone in this forum uses, other than me. That's why I decided (and even said that prior to accepting being the "judge") that I'd stick to RAW as closely as I could; because RAW is our one real common ground. It's the one set of rules we all share. So when talking to people who I don't know and/or don't play with, I assume RAW is the default assumption. And by RAW you can buy partial wands (but not craft them) and they are actually pretty common, thus, I allowed it.
At this point, I've moved from between 4 and 5 on the chart I listed to between 3 and 4. I can see an argument for unarmed, and Ilja made a strong case for armored spike's historical precident.
But I find it hard to believe the Dev who was concerned about flurry using a single weapon meant for THF and TWF to be simultanious, and I don't find a reference to a single item in a splat book that gives the ability in exchange for provoking an AoO on every use strong evidience that the Devs intended for every weapon not in your hands could be combined with THF.
I didn't see said chart. Or don't remember it right now.
How strong of an evidence it is depends on who's reading/judging it. And nowhere we have a rule saying that you can't do it. Rules are mostly restrictions, to stop peoples from doing whatever they want and ruining the game. Just like laws in the real world, if something is not strictly forbidden, it's assumed to be allowed. There are no rules saying you are allowed to blink, but it we assume it's possible and allowed.Even the "there is no ruling saying you can't move while dead" argument is flawed, because nowhere in the "dead" condition it says that it removes your "dying" condition, which in turn, stops you from taking any actions.
|
|
Yes, but the arguement is what the beard does is standard.That's actually not the argument.
The argument is that, when the beard says it uses no hands, and therefore can be used to TWF with a 2H weapon, the reason it can do so is because the beard uses no hands.
If armored spikes are the norm, why would it provoke?Perhaps because you're waving around something attached to your face, instead of attached to a bit of protective armor.
Actually it is. You are saying if an item does not use hands it can be used to two weapon fight with a two handed weapon always, not just with this item.
That what this item does is the standard, rather than this item being an exception.
Adding that an exotic low damage weapon provokes an attack of opportunity doing the specific thing an item of it's type would be able to do isn't normal. Would they create a sword that acts identically to another sword with regards to damage and use that as a penalty provokes an AoO.
Because that seems to be what you are arguing is happening with this item.
|
|
"Exotic" =/= good. Just look at the siangham, kama etc. When would someone ever take EWP (Kama)? The only reason to ever use it over a sickle is if you're a character that is already proficient in the kama. And the usage of sickles are pretty marginal as is.
The siangham and kama are monk weapons, meaning you can flurry with them, which is actually pretty good now that monk went back to the old flurry rule and those are basically weapons a monk can TWF with despite only having one.
That is why they are exotic.
|
|
Because that is ridiculous.
Actually its directly on par with a judgement that you made on the 'tradeoffs' between two simple(?) weapons in the other thread.
And it is NOT ridiculous.. if you have +5 full plate with +1 flaming armor spikes you are NOT going to swap it out for a +1 frost armor spikes that you find on a +1 breast plate.
Right?
Or, since you have both hands free due to the nature of the item, you pull one of them out.
Which is why it is ridiculous. You are saying inability to swap is why it makes sense to have it provoke, when the fact you have hands free means you can swap out any weapon you want.
If you find a new set of armor, you can swap out the spikes, as "the spikes can be made into magic weapons in their own right."
As to the rest, as far as I know Jonathan H. Keith, Colin McComb, Steven E. Schend, Leandra Christine Schneider, and Amber E. Scott aren't on the Paizo Dev team, who were all scrambling to write the first AP using the new rule set when this book came out.
Otherwise if you all are correct, they would have said "Why are you making this provoke an AoO when it does the same thing as armor spikes"
My thinking is the Devs looked at this, saw it did something different and cool (allowing you to fight two handed and get and addional TWF attack) with enough of a penalty to make it a corner case item.
As written, if you all are correct about armor spikes, this item is as useless as the pre-revision old prone shooter feat.
As written, if I am correct, the item's penalty and the additional descriptive wording makes perfect sense as the exception to the rule.
|
|
@Lemmy - I didn't mean the wand thing to be a shot at you, I meant it more as a comment on you being a lot more generous person than I am with regards to intent.
I would bet I could game with you quite happily, because you strike me as a guy who wants to make the table happy. And that is nothing but a positive trait.
In meatspace rather than cyber space I game the same way. But I don't come back to tables (or invite people to tables) once they show themselves as the kind of person trying to take advantage of the rules rather than come to table consensus and play by them.
I suspect you and Ilja are the kind of people who like an open game and work with the people at the table to make the game work for everyone to do what they want. Those are the best people to game with, as even if the power level goes up, everyone is interested in making the table work.
But to me, these are the forums where decisions get made on "the" game and not my game.
When I read the Barbazu Beard description, it reads to me like a freelancer with an idea that is kind of silly that is 'devil fighting' themed for the Cheliax book. And they let the concept through with a major nerf for balance.
Reading it made me think that whoever approved is may have been trying to make it comparable to an unarmed attack with TWF (adding AoO) which made me think that might actually be allowed.
But I also remember when that book came out, as it was when the Dev team was writing the CoT Adventure Path because it was the first one with the new rule set and they were the only ones who knew it and so I don't suspect that book was a high priority for editing, and as I said above I don't think it logically follows to nerf an item that hard (AoO for using it) if it is doing the exact same thing as another item that doesn't get the nerf.
So why add the nerf if what it does was the norm, and if what it does is the norm, why is it spelled out in only that item and no where else?
|
|
So, you keep switching from what you believe is RAW, to what you would like to RAW, and at times swirling them together.
Perhaps bullet points in a clarification post?
I have been consistent that the argument is about the RAI specifically because there is no spelled out RAW that says you can both THF and TWF at the same time.
Omission is not permission. It also doesn't say dead players can't move, but it is fairly well understood.
It says two-handed fighting takes two-hands, which seems pretty clear to me. But now we are parsing if an off-hand is or is not a hand, etc....
It's like Kabbalah at this point, and pulling items from splatbooks that may or may not specifically spell out that they are exceptions to the rule.
It would not have been hard at all to just put somewhere in the THF, TWF or Unarmed attack section a single line saying that the second hand needed in THF wasn't the off-hand, etc...but they didn't and so we are trying to figure out what they intended for the rule.
I can't disprove a negative. So I have to wait for the Devs to rule. Some interesting points have been made that make me wonder if unarmed strikes were intended, but aside from that the "a ha" moment of the beard seems ridiculous now that I've read how much they felt they needed to nerf the item to allow it to have the ability your side it claiming all items of that type have.
|
|
It seems things have evolved since core rules were written. I'm still not sure about how things lie with this issue. It seems different writers have added a little cloud to the issue.
If I have a short sword and a long sword in hand and armour spikes can I attack with the armour spikes and both weapons? I believe not, but can I if I instead use a two handed weapon? From this thread I believe if I only use two weapons then the greatsword/ armour spike or unarmed strike is ok.
That doesn't seem to fit with the way things were initially set up:
Two handed weapon str 1.5, PA 3 points.
Two weapon fighting str 1 + 0.5, PA 2 + 1 points.
How many unarmed strikes could I make in a round? I have 2 arms, 2 legs and a head, plus potentially elbows and knees. I can two weapon fight with two weapons, so I assume only 2 unarmed strikes.
Could I multi weapon fight with more weapons? Is the text on the feat just descriptive, that I need three or more hands? Surely limbs would count (like tentacles). In which case could I attack with the greatsword, the armour spikes, the boulder helm and the beard?
There are obviously a lot of people passionate about getting in the extra attack. To make an extra unarmed strike was a feat in 3.5 Book of Nine Swords, which I know isn't pathfinder. The Thunderstriker can only shield bash with his buckler after 7th as I understand as a buckler isn't listed as a weapon and its only then it can be used as a light shield.
I'll probably stick to the two handed weapon or two weapon fighting for the games I GM, I can see how things might be ruled other ways and accept how they choose to run it in their games. I do not think its as clear cut as some present it here.
|
Now damage, is something different.
It is my opinion that whether the main hand weapon is wielded with two hands, or one, it only provides x1 strength, when used whilst two weapon fighting. Same with the off-hand only providing only x0.5 strength, no matter how it is wielded.
I need more RAW evidence to support this opinion, but for now, I will call it a preferred houserule, if it is indeed so.
I find all this "free hand to kick", "off hand exclusive weapon", and "Exotic Armor Spikes" business very silly, needless, and not supported by RAW.
|
|
If I have a short sword and a long sword in hand and armour spikes can I attack with the armour spikes and both weapons?If your BAB is high enough, then you certainly can.
You couldn't attack with all three weapons. "You can't also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon" is there so that you couldn't, for instance, take all of your main-hand iteratives with a long sword, then make a dagger attack and two armor spike attacks with your off-hand attacks.
Also, you'll note that in SKR's post (see the FAQ at the top of page 4) that was linked earlier in the thread, he made it clear that while you could attack with multiple weapons with your normal iteratives, once you choose to TWF you're locked into choosing one weapon as your main hand, and one weapon as your off-hand and completing your attack routine with those weapons.
|
@Grick; good job I read all the 58 posts I missed before replying to the one where you attributed Ciretose's quotes to me. : )
For my own views, I find you explanation for armour spikes being unusable as the 'main' weapon when TWFing to be flawed.
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.)
It refers to 'another' off-hand weapon. The clause in question is referring it's use as an off-hand weapon specifically. When TWFing, only one weapon may be used to take the extra attacks granted by TWFing and the extra extra attacks granted by improved and greater TWF. Honestly, what possible reason could anyone have to believe that the spikes could not be used to take the 'main', iterative attacks when TWFing when they specifically can be used to make melee attacks?
My '100% record' posts were made tongue-in-cheek, a result of euphoria after reading the latest FAQs! That said, I'm completely confident that the bullet-pointed parts of my post will stand up to any FAQ that materialises from Paizo!
As for their 'sunder' FAQ, not only did they definately rule the way I said they would, I bet a pound to a penny that they themselves never understood sunder to work any other way, despite the 'attack action' language! Yet another clue as to the evolution of that term. I can accept that 'attack action' has evolved to only refer to 'attack as a standard action', but you've seen enough evidence on these threads to know how the phrase used to be understood!
|
|
You'll note that in SKR's post (see the FAQ at the top of page 4) that was linked earlier in the thread, he made it clear that while you could attack with multiple weapons with your normal iteratives, once you choose to TWF you're locked into choosing one weapon as your main hand, and one weapon as your off-hand and completing your attack routine with those weapons.
About that: I've read SKR's post more than once, and I'm not convinced he means what you think he means! I think the 'locked in' refers to the off-hand weapon. He'd just spent several sentences saying that you definately can mix-and-match iteratives; why on earth should he, or anyone else, think that that evaporates just because you're swiping someone with a dagger?
@Lemmy - I didn't mean the wand thing to be a shot at you, I meant it more as a comment on you being a lot more generous person than I am with regards to intent.
I would bet I could game with you quite happily, because you strike me as a guy who wants to make the table happy. And that is nothing but a positive trait.
In meatspace rather than cyber space I game the same way. But I don't come back to tables (or invite people to tables) once they show themselves as the kind of person trying to take advantage of the rules rather than come to table consensus and play by them.
I suspect you and Ilja are the kind of people who like an open game and work with the people at the table to make the game work for everyone to do what they want. Those are the best people to game with, as even if the power level goes up, everyone is interested in making the table work.
But to me, these are the forums where decisions get made on "the" game and not my game.
I wasn't offended or bothered in any way by your comment, ciretose, but I decided to post my explanation about the wands one last time, because it applies here too. By RAW, there is nothing forbidding you from TWF with a 2H weapon and a "no-hands" weapon.
When I read the Barbazu Beard description, it reads to me like a freelancer with an idea that is kind of silly that is 'devil fighting' themed for the Cheliax book. And they let the concept through with a major nerf for balance.
Reading it made me think that whoever approved is may have been trying to make it comparable to an unarmed attack with TWF (adding AoO) which made me think that might actually be allowed.
But I also remember when that book came out, as it was when the Dev team was writing the CoT Adventure Path because it was the first one with the new rule set and they were the only ones who knew it and so I don't suspect that book was a high priority for editing, and as I said above I don't think it logically follows to nerf an item that hard (AoO for using it) if it is doing the exact same thing as another item that doesn't get the nerf.
So why add the nerf if what it does was the norm, and if what it does is the norm, why is it spelled out in only that item and no where else?
You know how they never spell it out that there are consequences for never sleeping, but the game implies it in other rulings? I think this is a similar issue.
The fact that the game doesn't expressely forbids something is generally enough to accept that said something is possible. They can't possibly write down everything that *is* allowed, after all.
I think the creator of the Barbazu Beard decided attacking people with your chin was impractical enough to provoke an AoO. Then, he decided to remind the reader of the 2H+0H TWF possibility to make the item seem more useful.
Basically, he made an item and decided to be realistic about it, then realized said realism made the item considerably weak and made sure to remember us why it's not completely useless.
Well, it still is, thanks to armor spikes... But who knows, maybe you can't use armor or at least, not any armor that allows armor spikes, maybe you like the idea of using your chin as an weapon.
The simple existence of TWF means not all characters are optimized. The Barbazu Bear seems more like a fluff weapon than actual crunch. It's there because someone thought it was a cool idea (or that others would find it to be cool), even if it's suboptimal.
|
|
What we really need is a clarification on Main Hand.
In TWF we all know that the off-hand gets 1/2 str mod and less with power attack. Now if we define the Main Hand in TWF as getting the straight str mod and -1/+2 from power attack we should get a balanced 2HW TWF.
A 1st level fighter with str 18 and power attack could get a Main Hand Greatsword (1d12+6), with +4 from str and +2 from PA, and also an Armor Spike (1d3+3, with +2 from 1/2 str and +1 from 1/2 PA).
I like the idea of slashing down with a greatsword than following it up with a knee spike to the groin and think the problem is not with definition of Off Hand but lack of definition of Main Hand.
Spot on!
That's why I put 'main' in quotation marks; 'main hand weapon', by RAW, is just how the rules describe whatever weapon you're using in TWF that isn't 'off-hand'!
"Exotic" =/= good. Just look at the siangham, kama etc. When would someone ever take EWP (Kama)? The only reason to ever use it over a sickle is if you're a character that is already proficient in the kama. And the usage of sickles are pretty marginal as is.The siangham and kama are monk weapons, meaning you can flurry with them, which is actually pretty good now that monk went back to the old flurry rule and those are basically weapons a monk can TWF with despite only having one.
That is why they are exotic.
... But everyone that would want to use them is proficient with them (monks). To monks, it would have made zero difference if they where martial or even simple weapons, and to everyone else the same thing since no-one would have wanted to use them except monks.
|
|
Your gymnastics to avoid this are impacting your reputation at this point.
-James
Oh no, my reputation!
Dude, you are basically arguing that the devs added an AoO to a non-ranged close combat melee weapon for "flavor" and that a description listed for a specific item in a splat book put out the busiest time in paizo's history for the dev team is incontrovertible proof that the devs fully intended for every other similar item to act in the same way, despite that style of combat having (to my knowledge) never appeared in 5 years of adventure paths, modules, NPC codexes, etc, and that makes you concerned for my reputation.
I deeply appreciate your concern for my reputation. Heaven forbid someone on the internet not think I am omnipotent.
I might faint from shame.
The beard reads to me as the exception that proves the rule, not the rule. If it were the rule, it wouldn't require the AoO or the further explanation.
There was a reason that section was omitted from the discussion when the item was first posted.
As I said, the beard makes perfect sense as the exception. It explains why they added the AoO (the penalty for the benefit) and the description.
Feel free to keep telling me my reputation is at stake. You can see how effective that line of argument has been.
Grick has actually been more effective than you at moving my position at this point, as his post got me to consider that unarmed may have been part of the equation (which would explain the AoO being added as a parallel).
|
|
... But everyone that would want to use them is proficient with them (monks). To monks, it would have made zero difference if they where martial or even simple weapons, and to everyone else the same thing since no-one would have wanted to use them except monks."Exotic" =/= good. Just look at the siangham, kama etc. When would someone ever take EWP (Kama)? The only reason to ever use it over a sickle is if you're a character that is already proficient in the kama. And the usage of sickles are pretty marginal as is.The siangham and kama are monk weapons, meaning you can flurry with them, which is actually pretty good now that monk went back to the old flurry rule and those are basically weapons a monk can TWF with despite only having one.
That is why they are exotic.
But it is still an added special ability, likely added to make it so non-monks were less likely to use them.
There is no similar benefit to anyone from the beard. To use the beard effectively you need to burn an exotic weapon feat, and then it still provokes an AoO.
I can't think of any item so crappy in the game, unless the benefit is intended to be the ability to THF.
Now it also might be that you all are correct, and the person who wrote the beard didn't realize you could do what he described with armor spikes, and so it didn't require that level of nerfing.
But I find it very hard to believe someone wrote than much of a penalty into an item without adding what they thought was a significant benefit.
I mean, it is a helm, so presumably it would even take a head slot.
EDIT: And hell, if it was a flavor intent for the AoO, why not add a bonus to intimidate since the description is "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."
It seems very, very clear the AoO was intended as a penalty to offset the THF ability. What else would it be offsetting?
Having a special ability that is useless if you have to make the investment is having no benefit for the investment. The point wasn't "this is as bad as the barbazu beard", it's "they don't put stuff into exotic because it's good, they put it because it's exotic" where "exotic" seems to mean "not from a western medieval standard" (and even that with a pound of salt).
Exotic is as much determined by flavor as balance, hence sucky weapons like the kama and barbazu beard are still called exotic.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The text for the barbazu beard says:
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.
Do you see the word THUS???
According to the McMillan Dictionary THUS means because of a fact you have just mentioned (http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/thus)
So the text could be reworded as "A barbazu beard can be used as an off-hand weapon that requires no hands to use; because of this fact a warrior could combine the use of the barbazu beard with a two-handed weapon."
If the quality of requiring no hands to use did not by default allow a weapon to be used in conjunction with a two handed weapon for TWF then it couldn't logically be the reason the barbazu beard can be used that way.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
EDIT: And hell, if it was a flavor intent for the AoO, why not add a bonus to intimidate since the description is "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."
It seems very, very clear the AoO was intended as a penalty to offset the THF ability. What else would it be offsetting?
Who says that the AoO has to be "offsetting" anything? Only you. Perhaps the writer thought that trying to rub your face against someone during combat is probably going to get you smacked upside the head so its going to to provoke an AoO. No possible way to know what he or she was thinking there.
However, in the wording for the beard the writer did use a word that indicates his or her thinking. A word that denotes a conclusion which you have ignored multiple times. The writers thinking according to the writer was that because a barbazu beard requires no hands it could be used to TWF with a two handed weapon which indicates the writer believed that weapons that require no hands can be used this way.
|
|
You could certainly elect to do the following:
Main attack: longsword
Off-hand attack: armor spikes
Iterative main attack: short sword.Just like you could, starting the round holding a longsword and mace:
Full attack action (full round action):
Main attack: longsword (+6 BAB)
Drop longsword (free action)
quickdraw short sword (free action)
Iterative attack short sword (+1 BAB)All the while having the mace in the other hand. This is not on SKR's FAQ list however.
What he is saying is that the following would not be valid:
Main attack: longsword
Off-hand attack: armor spikes
Iterative main attack: armor spikesThough honestly, I don't see the point in such a restriction.
We're on the same wavelength here, James. (I know, right?)
I think the point of the restriction is that without it you could Greater TWF and take all your (7 at BAB+16) attacks with a single weapon, which kind of goes against the grain with two-weapon fighting.
I'm playing a 3.5 campaign and my PC is a variant fighter from Drogon Magazine, the Kensai. They are only proficient with a single martial or exotic weapon, and choose their bonus feats from a restricted list and must apply them to the 'chosen weapon'. They also have two special abilities, each of which may be chosen as one of their fighter bonus feat; 'Rain of Blows' and 'Storm of Blows'.
Rain of Blows allows you to take one extra attack with your chosen weapon at your highest BAB, but all attacks in that round suffer a -3 penalty.
Storm of Blows (which has Rain of Blows as a pre-req) allows you to take two extra attacks with your chosen weapon at your highest BAB, but all attacks you make in the round suffer a -6 penalty.
It's kind of TWFing with one weapon; you get extra attacks but all attacks take a penalty.
|
|
the person who wrote the beard didn't realize you could do what he described with armor spikesNo he did understand it, you don't.
READ the actual text. Actually read it. You have yet to do so.
-James
I did read it. I read the penalty, I read the explanation of how he envisioned the item works, and I can't think of any reason the writer would a) Add a significant penalty or b) give a detailed explanation of how this item allows you to TWF with is UNLESS he thought doing so was not normal.
If he did, he wouldn't have needed the explanation or the penalty. It would have said "this item requires no hands to use" period, full stop.
Any benefit gained from that fact is more than offset by it taking a head slot, so there would be zero reason to add an AoO to it.
If it were a flavor focused concept the item uses the word "intimidating" in description but gives no bonus to intimidation.
I read it, I disagree with you. Why does this vex you?
and I can't think of any reason the writer would a) Add a significant penalty or b) give a detailed explanation of how this item allows you to TWF with is UNLESS he thought doing so was not normal.
Good luck you don't have to think of any reasons then, how lucky you are people have told you them several times over so you don't have to.
|
|
Who says that the AoO has to be "offsetting" anything? Only you. Perhaps the writer thought that trying to rub your face against someone during combat is probably going to get you smacked upside the head so its going to to provoke an AoO. No possible way to know what he or she was thinking there.
Because this is a game, and things that give benefits have offsets. Otherwise everyone would always use them.
And things that have penalties have benefits to offset them.
Otherwise no one would ever use them.
A penalty can be something as simple as "occupies a slot" or "doesn't do as much damage as a standard weapon of the same type."
This item is basically minimum damage (penalty relative to other weapons), exotic (requires a feat to use effectively), requires a slot (most items don't) AND it provokes an attack of oppotunity when you use it.
Why would anyone ever use an item like that, unless the benefit it is giving is something you don't normally get?
The item literally is worse than any other weapon in the game UNLESS you believe that it has an exceptional ability other weapons don't have.
Which is my argument.
Now it may turn out the person who wrote this was wrong, in the same way that I was wrong. And it may turn out that the Dev who checked this was wrong, in the same way.
But I don't believe for a second the person who made this item did so with the intent of making the worst weapon in game that has no benefit relative to items of its same type with a ridiculous number of penalties.
That argument is absurd.
|
|
and I can't think of any reason the writer would a) Add a significant penalty or b) give a detailed explanation of how this item allows you to TWF with is UNLESS he thought doing so was not normal.Good luck you don't have to think of any reasons then, how lucky you are people have told you them several times over so you don't have to.
What reasons? Show me any rational build that would use this item, assuming your reading was correct.
The item makes perfect sense by my reading. By my reading the item has a significant benefit (able to THF and TWF at the same time when using it) with a number of significant penalties (low damage, takes a slot, provokes AoO)
By your reading the item has a number of significant penalties for flavor.