|
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.
What are primary and off-hand now?
Before, they were only attack classifications.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The sad day for Pathfinder was when a Paizo employee answered someone's question and got his ass chewed for it. On his day off.
|
*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?
"Buckler: This small metal shield is worn strapped to your forearm. You can use a bow or crossbow without penalty while carrying it. You can also use your shield arm to wield a weapon (whether you are using an off-hand weapon or using your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon)but you take a –1 penalty on attack rolls while doing so. This penalty stacks with those that may apply for fighting with your off hand and for fighting with two weapons. In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you lose the buckler's AC bonus until your next turn. You can cast a spell with somatic components using your shield arm, but you lose the buckler's AC bonus until your next turn. You can't make a shield bash with a buckler."
Considering he CHOSE (was not forced) to come on here and give a weak non-explanation of the question asked and then ask several rhetorical questions that were only tangentially related to the topic as if they proved his point, on his day off, the disagreement is understandable.
The fact that it was his day off is pretty irrelevant. I wouldn't expect anyone to show ME sympathy if I decided to go into work on my day off and then complained it was a hard day, my customers didn't like my decisions, etc.
|
|
Perhaps because you were too busy doing it...No one has attacked a Paizo employee personally.
Many, have debated the ruling, and the vague explanations.
No one has attacked them as a person.
If they have, then that is a bad thing, and I am sorry I didn't notice it.
That is a horrendous lie.
Not liking a ruling, or reasons behind it, is not the same as not liking a person.
This is a grave accusation.
He gave very detailed explanations across multiple threads.
Then people were whining and petulant he decided to actually enjoy his day off.
Some people don't enjoy this stuff like you and I do.
No. He explained the unwritten rules part, but whenever he was asked WHY the ruling was made, his only explanation was rhetorical questions with little to do with the subject.
"Why can't a character get two attacks, one with a Greatsword, one with Armor spikes? There's no real balance reason to do so."
"Would you let a 1st level character TWF and get THREE attacks instead of TWO? Huh? See, that's why."
That's pretty much what happened. Which left both sides frustrated and annoyed with each other.
That is a horrendous lie.
...
This is a grave accusation.
That's a bit melodramatic, don'tcha think?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The sad day for Pathfinder is when they decided that it was okay to treat rules they never published as binding on weapon and unarmed strike users while allowing those with natural attacks to completely blow the guidelines away.
Still waiting on your uber tengu...
|
|
He gave very detailed explanations across multiple threads.
Then people were whining and petulant he decided to actually enjoy his day off.
Some people don't enjoy this stuff like you and I do.
No. He explained the unwritten rules part, but whenever he was asked WHY the ruling was made, his only explanation was rhetorical questions with little to do with the subject.
"Why can't a character get two attacks, one with a Greatsword, one with Armor spikes? There's no real balance reason to do so."
"Would you let a 1st level character TWF and get THREE attacks instead of TWO? Huh? See, that's why."
That's pretty much what happened. Which left both sides frustrated and annoyed with each other.
That's a bit melodramatic, don'tcha think?
That is a horrendous lie.
...
This is a grave accusation.
The "ruling" was made because that was the way most of us already thought it worked.
Including the developers of the game.
The boards create this misconception that most people are looking for exploits and loopholes, and that the game was designed for that purpose.
In fact, it is basic game theory 101 that bonuses always come with trade offs.
People made an assumption they could get around a basic mechanic of the game.
They were wrong.
That was the "ruling"
|
|
"When SKR jumps down someone's throat, we just join in?"
"Why is SKR throwing a 1 + 1 = 3 argument?"
"SKR's comment suggests otherwise, but he has been wrong before."
Who said the above? It's like Emily Post herself was here...
Now, you are on a personal attack mission.
Those are disagreements, with rulings, and reasons.
This means every time you disagree, you attack them as a person.
I will no longer respond to your attacks.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...unless you're Charlie Sheen.
|
|
Are you afraid that you're going to be wrong again?Why?
Do we need to take away more?
Maybe there are more unwritten rules to dismay us?
Is that all that matters?
Being right?
I am not trying to "win".
I have been right, and wrong.
It was never about "winning".
If this is how you truly feel, then what's your current excuse?
|
|
If it wasn't about winning, you would be trying to understand the ruling rather than spending two days looking for every possible corner case to complain about it.
This isn't opinion, this is a a rules clarification. Many of us, if not most of us, have always played this way.
And people wonder why I complain about player entitlement...this is literally coming down from the people who wrote the rule set and you all are still throwing a hissy fit...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In fact, it is basic game theory 101 that bonuses always come with trade offs.
This is only really half right but that's beside the point.
This bonus does come with a trade-off. An opportunity cost (you could just be using a Greatsword alone and be more effective), as well as a Feat and Stat tax that requires you to lower other stats and lose out on their benefits, as well as a penalty to-hit, as well as a hit to your wealth since you need to enchant two weapons instead of one to stay competitive, which brings on another opportunity cost in that you could have used that wealth for other necessary items...
There is a tradeoff, in other words.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
My Babazu Beard?!
I gives it up for extra Str damage?You take an AoO every time you use it.
Trade off.
So then I can kick when wielding a two-handed weapon for 1.5x damage. My PC doesn't have improved unarmed strike and I would take an AoO every time I use it. Trade off, right?
|
|
So then I can kick when wielding a two-handed weapon for 1.5x damage. My PC doesn't have improved unarmed strike and I would take an AoO every time I use it. Trade off, right?
My Babazu Beard?!
I gives it up for extra Str damage?You take an AoO every time you use it.
Trade off.
Is your kick an off-hand attack?
To be fair, BBT isn't often wrong on rules interpretations.
I can see why this would cause him some...heartburn.
Is your kick an off-hand attack?So then I can kick when wielding a two-handed weapon for 1.5x damage. My PC doesn't have improved unarmed strike and I would take an AoO every time I use it. Trade off, right?
My Babazu Beard?!
I gives it up for extra Str damage?You take an AoO every time you use it.
Trade off.
Neither more nor less than a barbazu beard is.
|
|
So you can then attack with two weapons and kick afterwards, because a kick isn't a hand.
Can you kick twice (two legs) then pelvic thrust?
Or will you concede that although it doesn't actually happen in your hand, that a kick as part of a TWF sequence is an off-hand attack?
If you do, you then concede that the off-hand is not actually a hand, but a game mechanic.
And so, at that point, you have to concede that since an off-hand isn't actually a hand, the fact that you may or may not have a literal hand free is irrelevant.
Which is why the ruling is what it is.
So...these "Hands" are not literal hands, a shield hand is one these "hands" that we have, that aren't tied to hands, instead of the Shield Slot it intended to use? Or does it use that slot and a hand? Could Armless Joe strap it his leg(one of his "hands") and then wield a sword with his other "hand" as a sword doesn't need to be used in an actual hand?
At what point does "hand" not mean hand?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you actually need five arms, three legs, and male sex organs in order to wield a shield and a sword while wearing pants - without written permission from your doctor, or at least a nurse practitioner. It's because your primary hand and your two off-hands that aren't hands can cause cancer if you hold things in them while wearing anything on your legs.
Otherwise, you have to be granted a plenary indulgence from the Pope or you go to Hitler Hell.
(And yes, at this point the discussion on this has devolved into so much ridiculousness that the above is really how I feel about the whole issue)
Also, the barbazu beard is an off-hand attack that provokes, but in exchange allows you to TWF.
There's no real way to infer that you get to use the barbazu beard as an off-hand weapon and TWF with a wielder using a two-handed weapon because of the AoO. The structure of the item description doesn't indicate any connection. The text of the barbazu beard states:
"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 beard with a two-handed weapon. It otherwise follows all rules for using an off-hand weapon. Attacking with a barbazu beard provokes an attack of opportunity."
In other words, a barbazu beard isn't useable in that method because using it provokes an AoO. Rather, the text makes it clear that you can use the barbazu beard in combination with a two-handed weapon because it can be used as an off-hand weapon that requires no hands to use. So, it seems clear that to the author of that item and its editors (who knows who edited that specific item, but Sean K. Reynolds was one of the editors and developers of the specific publication back in 2009) that mixing two-handed weapons and two-weapon fighting was OK as long as the off-hand weapon required no hands to use.
So then I can kick when wielding a two-handed weapon for 1.5x damage. My PC doesn't have improved unarmed strike and I would take an AoO every time I use it. Trade off, right?
My Babazu Beard?!
I gives it up for extra Str damage?You take an AoO every time you use it.
Trade off.
That fits with SKR's statements.
Since you are using unarmed strikes untrained (without improved Unarmed Strike feat) you get the trade off of provoking.There is nothing free about it.
So I say yes.
And yet if you take a Feat or a level in Monk or Unarmed Fighter, you no longer get to do it, even though you are "trading off" a Feat or class level/slowed progression in your main class.
Logic!
? Maybe I'm missing the argument, but why is a monk prevented from wielding a 2HW and still using unarmed strikes?
Ah ah ah.
Flurry is the exception, remember?
? Maybe I'm missing the argument, but why is a monk prevented from wielding a 2HW and still using unarmed strikes?Ah ah ah.
Flurry is the exception, remember?
What does Flurry have to do with it? He is allowed to make Unarmed Strikes even when his hands are full.
Except he isn't when wielding a 2H weapon, due to this new FAQ.
Where have you been?