And there's more!
Even if off hand was in fact a literal hand. Even if TWF was composed of 'right hand" and "left hand".
TWF would still NOT make you lose your shield bonus to AC, unless you use your shield as an weapon.
|
Shields give bonuses to AC when they are strapped into your shield hand.
And when they are strapped into your shield hand, they have to be released if you want to use that hand for another purpose.
You are reading the rule to say off-hand is not a hand when it suits your purposes, but that it is a literal hand at other times when it suits your purposes.
It isn't at all complicated, Lemmy.
If you are using one of your hands, and you only have a primary and an off-hand, you can't then also use that hand for another purpose.
|
|
@Nicos - If you kick with your off-hand, are you using your literal hand?
No.
Have you used your off-hand attack?
Yes.
Have you therefore used your off-hand?
Yes.
That is the ruling in a nutshell.
If you use your off-hand...you used your off-hand.
The fact that it wasn't a literal hand is as irrelevant as the fact that you can actually swing a sword more than once in 6 seconds.
If you are using one of your hands, and you only have a primary and an off-hand, you can't then also use that hand for another purpose.
off-hand is an attack! Not a literal hand! That's why you can TWF with a dagger and a strapped boot. Or armor spikes and cestus. Or a whatever beard and a whip.
TWF does not make you lose any bonus to AC. USING YOUR SHIELD AS AN WEAPON does.
Nothing in the TWF rules say you have yo use your shield to TWF. Nothing in the shield/shield bash rules say you can't TWF without using your shield.
You are making up rules that are not written or even implied anywhere in the books.
The fact that you don't like a combat style or weapon combination does't mean it's illegal!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again...
"Ready or Drop a Shield
Strapping a shield to your arm to gain its shield bonus to your AC, or unstrapping and dropping a shield so you can use your shield hand for another purpose, requires a move action. If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you can ready or drop a shield as a free action combined with a regular move."
Meaning if you cannot use that "hand" for another purpose, if you are using it to shield.
If a hand is a game mechanic, and you only have two (primary and off) and you must remove the shield to use that "hand" for other purposes...
And if a "hand" isn't a game mechanic, but is an actual hand, then you can't kick, use armor spikes, or do anything else with your off-hand that isn't literally with your hand.
But feel free to FAQ it. Clearly getting feedback from the developers will lead you to accept that your reading was incorrect and move on in a civil manner...
|
Before, off hand was just a classification of attack.
Before, the only thing that ate up an off hand attack, was an off hand attack.
Now, we want it to be more than just a classification.
Now, we want non-off hand attacks to eat up off hand attacks.
We also want to say there was never a change.
It was always this way.
It is just not true.
Hey Ciretose, can you find the SKR quote where he says the basis of his ruling is not in the rules themselves, but only Paizo's un-written meta-game design guidelines? I already quoted it once, you know... P.S. What happened to you saying the Shield thing is a "grey area"?
|
|
You merely put it in your hand.
Which was the incorrect inference that lead to you not understanding that off-hand is a game mechanic, and not a literal hand, which brought you to the place where now the developers of the game have released an FAQ correcting your misconceptions.
The hands are game mechanics, not literal hands. Frankly, pretty much everything in the game is a mechanic and not literal, which is why I gave the 10 finger, two ring example.
You have two hands, a primary and a secondary.
It is not so different from having two actions in a full round, a standard and a move action.
These are game concepts. Why can't I attack with a move action? Because that is the mechanic of the game.
Why is a kick an off-"hand" move. Those are the mechanics of the game.
If you are using one of your hands to do one thing, it can't do something else. That is the trade off and choice you make.
If you are arguing there is no trade off in a given situation, odds are you are going to have a bad time in the FAQ.
|
|
Hey Ciretose, can you find the SKR quote where he says the basis of his ruling is not in the rules themselves, but only Paizo's un-written meta-game design guidelines? I already quoted it once, you know... P.S. What happened to you saying the Shield thing is a "grey area"?
I thought about it and read what other people posted and realized I was wrong. It isn't gray at all. If I allowed it (which I still might) it would be a house rule.
Then, seeing I was wrong, I admitted it.
Strange concept for some people, I know...
Shield hand = literal hand (or at the very least, literal limb) used to hold your shield.
Off-hand = Secondary attack made with TWF. Only adds half your Str bonus to damage rolls.
They're not the same thing. They're not the same hand. One of them is not even a hand.
But I give up. You go and pretend your rules are actual rules and not stuff you made up.
I'm tired of this discussion. You go on ignoring posts that go against your opinion and blindly worshiping the devs as if they were some kind of infallible god, instead of human being who do great work but also make mistakes every now and then.
Debating with you is pointless.
Peace.
Secret Un-Written Rules Question:
We know there is a secret un-written rule saying you're not supposed to have 500hp at 1st level. OK.
But what if Paizo publishes a Feat that grants you 500hp at first level?
Or puts that in the Human Race stats. What happens?
Do the UNWRITTEN rules mean you don't actually gain what the Feat says?
Is that UNWRITTEN rule functionality considered the "Rules as WRITTEN"?
Or would Paizo want to ERRATA the Feat to conform with their own meta-game design guidelines?
Are Paizo's unwritten meta-game design guidelines something that should control what rules they publish, (which nobody else needs to worry about)
or are they something that doesn't affect what Paizo should publish, because they over-rule what Paizo actually publishes?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We all know and accept there is RAW and there is RAI.
When you ask the Devs a question about what is allowed in RAW, you're essentially asking "Is the accepted interpretation of the way this rule is written correct, or is it not as you intended for it to be interpreted?"
Then you get an answer.
In this case, what was intended as the interpretation does not match the assumed interpretation, and it's been FAQ'd.
Let's not jump in SKR's ass about it. It was asked, it got clarified.
For another fun exercise, lets re-read this thread, replacing "unwritten rule" or "secret rule" with the words "common sense". Then watch the hilarity ensue!
|
|
How are we supposed to know what eats up the "off hand attack option"?
Before, it was just an off hand attack.
Now, there is unwritten things preventing this option.
Those who say it's clear, can't even decide if it's based off of hands or not.
Is it damage?
Is it effort?
What sets the precedent?
The unstatted "standard PC"?
What is he?
What is he capable of?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You want simply wearing a shield, which takes no effort, and no action, to eat up effort, and actions.
Not supported by rules.
Maybe by these secret hidden unwritten rules.
No written rules.
If simply wearing a shield gave you a shield bonus, then having it strapped to your back would provide an AC bonus.
except the part about being strapped to your arm, not back.
but what do i know, maybe wearing a cloak slot item also prevents 2WF.
|
|
We all know and accept there is RAW and there is RAI.
When you ask the Devs a question about what is allowed in RAW, you're essentially asking "Is the accepted interpretation of the way this rule is written correct, or is it not as you intended for it to be interpreted?"
Then you get an answer.In this case, what was intended as the interpretation does not match the assumed interpretation, and it's been FAQ'd.
Let's not jump in SKR's ass about it. It was asked, it got clarified.
For another fun exercise, lets re-read this thread, replacing "unwritten rule" or "secret rule" with the words "common sense". Then watch the hilarity ensue!
You can't walk and chew gum, is what this FAQ says.
Common sense right?
When SKR jumps down someone's throat, we just join in?
except the part about being strapped to your arm, not back.
but what do i know, maybe wearing a cloak slot item also prevents 2WF.
No, bbt is claiming that there is no effort involved in using a shield, therefore it shouldn't matter where it is strapped.
|
|
except the part about being strapped to your arm, not back.
Shield "Hand" actually. As in "unstrapping and dropping a shield so you can use your shield hand for another purpose" means if you are using a shield, you have to take it off to use it for another purpose other than things you can do with a shield...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not saying you cant chew gum and walk at the same time. It's saying that you can't use your knee to chew gum whilst walking.
He didn't jump down anyone's throat.
Not even in the slightest. Most if not all of the hostility in the thread was directed at him, until he left it.
You wonder why he rarely takes the time to answer these questions.
And the shield thing was my supposition, based on the logic of the ruling given by SKR. It's not set in stone, by any means.
I may seem logical from time to time...
:P
That may be correct, and an unintended side effect of this ruling.
My interpretation of that would be "he's paid a feat to keep his AC with his shield, so yeah he can kick and keep his shield bonus."
But I'm not a dev.
You wonder why he rarely takes the time to answer these questions.
It's hardly a rare occurrence.
It is, it's just usually his are memorable :)
|
|
That may be correct, and an unintended side effect of this ruling.
My interpretation of that would be "he's paid a feat to keep his AC with his shield, so yeah he can kick and keep his shield bonus."
But I'm not a dev.
Well...if you have improved shield bash and you have a shield...why are you kicking?
|
|
Nah, you in the wrong side of the ebate this time ciretose. Nowhere in the FAq or the book is that rule about losing the ac bonus, you are the one making the inference.Inference. The same kind of inference that lead to assuming that even though you used your off-hand for something that was not actually in your off hand, that some how off-hand still meant a literal hand...Creative reading...Direct reading.
I was told the exact same thing about armor spikes, Nicos. :)
That may be correct, and an unintended side effect of this ruling.
My interpretation of that would be "he's paid a feat to keep his AC with his shield, so yeah he can kick and keep his shield bonus."
But I'm not a dev.
And my question to that interpretation would be: What logical or even meta-game/game balance sense does it make that you would need a Feat specifically designed to stop you from losing your AC bonus when making a SHIELD BASH (a specific action that specifically calls out you losing your shield AC when used) so you can swing a sword and kick in the same round by using ANOTHER FEAT you've already taken?
There is no interaction of the shield arm here at all.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*cough*why do you think bucklers exist*cough*So, the only way to retain shield ac whilst two weapon fighting, is to have Improved Shield Bash, and attack with it?
This means that even the PC with Improved Shield Bash, cannot kick twice, and maintain the shield bonus to ac.
That's ridiculous.
Why should it be different?
What about the buckler makes it easier to kick, and defend?
Well...if you have improved shield bash and you have a shield...why are you kicking?That may be correct, and an unintended side effect of this ruling.
My interpretation of that would be "he's paid a feat to keep his AC with his shield, so yeah he can kick and keep his shield bonus."
But I'm not a dev.
I dunno.
Because it's edgy and cool, and martials need all the help they can get?I kid.
|
|
This also confuses the issue when any odd style, or oddly shaped creature comes into play.
To make it meet the needs of "standard pc", we complicate it for every other creature or style.
Quite the opposite, it clarifies it. Arms and shape don't matter. What matters primary and off-hand. Period.
Other attacks tend to be natural attacks, which follow different rules.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well...if you have improved shield bash and you have a shield...why are you kicking?That may be correct, and an unintended side effect of this ruling.
My interpretation of that would be "he's paid a feat to keep his AC with his shield, so yeah he can kick and keep his shield bonus."
But I'm not a dev.
I dunno.
Because it's edgy and cool, and martials need all the help they can get?I kid.
I like it when we aren't fighting each other :)
Races with multiple arms do not automatically get extra attacks for each arm above 2 anyway, so what difference does that make?