Specific trumps general? That's still a thing, right, or does the FAQ override all specific cases?
Let's say I'm a fighter with armor spikes.
I'm in a straight jacket, or manacled or something. Both my hands are completely unusable.
Can I attack?
Now lets say I have Two Weapon Fighting and a boot blade too.
Can I attack with both?
Specific trumps general? That's still a thing, right, or does the FAQ override all specific cases?
I would tell you the secret rule that covers that, but then I would have to kill you.
Specific trumps general? That's still a thing, right, or does the FAQ override all specific cases?
There's no specific rule that says the Monk can use 2H weapons and Unarmed Strikes at the same time in contrary to this FAQ.
Anybody can make unarmed strikes as kicks, so they can make Unarmed Strikes with their hands full too.
Specific trumps general? That's still a thing, right, or does the FAQ override all specific cases?I would tell you the secret rule that covers that, but then I would have to kill you.
All right, but you have to tell my mother that I love her when I'm dead.
Specific trumps general? That's still a thing, right, or does the FAQ override all specific cases?There's no specific rule that says the Monk can use 2H weapons and Unarmed Strikes at the same time in contrary to this FAQ.
Right, Flurry is still 2WF-based, even if it the Faq-as-Rules for it lets it make all attacks with one weapon.
(if it wasn't 2wf based, you could 'stack' it with 2wf unless they made another exception)Anybody can make unarmed strikes as kicks, so they can make Unarmed Strikes with their hands full too.
Well, I thought so, and the Monk's wording on that part (which applies outside of Flurry per se, e.g. normal 2WF with a non-Monk weapon) didn't seem to change anything, but if carrying chickens does mean you can't 2WF Kick/Kick, then I would be curious what the intent for Monk is: bar 2H weapons in Flurry? add an exception to allow that in Flurry? say that the UAS wording means they (read: Monk1 dips) are also exempt in non-2WF Flurry, while other characters CANNOT make UAS strikes if their hands are full? While they're at it, they might as well clear up whether Monks can make Head-Bashes benefitting from Monk specific UAS rules, per RAW, doesn't seem like it.
All right, but you have to tell my mother that I love her when I'm dead.Specific trumps general? That's still a thing, right, or does the FAQ override all specific cases?I would tell you the secret rule that covers that, but then I would have to kill you.
It's a deal then, I'll kick you to death... as soon as I put down these car keys and pencil I'm holding. I have this nervous habit where I like to hold things in my hand. I'll let you know when my hands are free so I can kick you to death. After that, secret's all yours.
Holy crap! It's Bob Dole!
Is there a way to block people's posts on here? I honestly could have done without having to see 100 mind-numbing posts by the same person, all employing some combination of double-think, circular reasoning, or pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey logical spit-balling.
I think it should be safe to assume that:
A) the FAQ was poorly conceived
B) the FAQ creates more problems than it solves (in large part due to its being too narrow, and not providing any explanations that can be applied in a wider sense)
This isn't 4th edition, where every facet of the rules is its own little island: the reason so many people prefer 3.x/PF to 4E is that the rules of THIS system aren't so thoroughly divorced from internal consistency. This ruling IS divorced from internal consistency.
Also, most of the "unwritten rules" examples being bandied about (both my SKR and common posters) are unwritten because they don't NEED to be written. "You can't take actions when you're dead" need not be written because virtually EVERY SINGLE PERSON USING THIS GAME SYSTEM KNOWS WHAT IT MEANS TO BE DEAD and how much activity dead people exhibit (hint: NONE).
An unwritten rule that governs applications of Strength bonuses employed over a full round's worth of attacks at level 1, or the number of possible attacks a "normal" race may gain at level 1 NEED to be written out, if they are really going to be used as a basis for this sort of ruling, because NO ONE is going to look at the books and say, "Ah, yes, CLEARLY this works in this way." That's not an unwritten rule. It's a guideline for developers when making new content (feats, classes, races, etc...).
SKR's straw man of the two shortswords and the unarmed strike kick is irrelevant, because the rules DO explicitly state how many attacks you may get in a round: 1 main-hand attack + 1 off-hand attack (at huge penalties unless you have Two-Weapon Fighting) + any natural attacks that you are granted SPECIFICALLY by rules (feats, class abilities, racial abilities, magic items, spells).
UNWRITTEN RULE: You may not assume that a creature's limbs, teeth, or nails/claws may be used as natural weapons--these need to be called out explicitly.
See, that's a GOOD example of an unwritten rule. The game goes to great pains to explain, clarify, and denote when and how you gain natural weapon attacks, what form they take, and how they combine with other attacks (both manufactured and natural). There's NOTHING in the rules about being unable to make an off-hand attack with a weapon that doesn't use a hand, just because you are using both of your hands to wield a different weapon. NOTHING. NOT A THING. In fact, TWF specifically mentioned unarmed strikes, which are elsewhere explained to include things like kicks and headbutts, which would imply that you could make attacks with a 2-handed weapon and an unarmed strike. Well, if you can kick with a booted foot and swing a greatsword, why can't you kick with a booted foot with a spike on it and swing with a greatsword? Because some unwritten rule, that is broken ALL OVER THE PLACE forbids it? That can't stand as a ruling.
|
Specific trumps general? That's still a thing, right, or does the FAQ override all specific cases?There's no specific rule that says the Monk can use 2H weapons and Unarmed Strikes at the same time in contrary to this FAQ.
Anybody can make unarmed strikes as kicks, so they can make Unarmed Strikes with their hands full too.
Errr...yeah...there is...have you read the unarmed strike description in the monk class?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Holy crap! It's Bob Dole!
Bob Dole, pure energy!
This has been an interesting thread to read. But the really funny part is, I will still do it the way I want on my table regardless of how the design team answered it or how the FAQ is worded.
Once I buy the rules I don't need "offical" answers to agree with my way of doing things.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is not a FAQ, this is nailing down those you do not agree with the obvious (silent ? power-balancing ?) rule:
1 hand : 1Str (and a free hand to do/wear smth else)
2 hands : 1.5 Str
Main+Off hand = 1+0.5 Str
if your case is not a stated exception, then you should stick to the above.
anyway, you have the PDT team's opinion, they made it a FAQ, and as many have said: feel free to ignore it.
what else could we want?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
what else could we want?Consistency, non-secret rules, errata when the rules change, and math.
It is consistent for those who already played this way. The "secret-rules" were game design "meta-rules" guidelines, the rules haven't changed for Pathfinder, and I've seen quite enough math.
Ciretose: We all agree that the off-hand is not your physical hand. That is the entire point of our argument--since you have a weapon that doesn't occupy a physical hand, your off-hand is still available, even if the physical hand is otherwise occupied.
Errr...yeah...there is...have you read the unarmed strike description in the monk class?
"Can make US attacks with hands full" =/= "Can TWF with 2H weapons (which is contrary to this new FAQ".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just because it's convenient to switch between when an off hand is a hand, and when it's an attack, doesn't mean they aren't always right.
As long as the good guy group is right, you don't reasons or explanations, or consistency.
All you need is love.
And if the PDT had ruled the same as you think, would that make you part of the "good guy group," and mean that I could post hundreds of whiny complaints of "that doesn't make sense," "that isn't the way it's supposed to be," "WHY isn't it the way I run it," and on and on and on all weekend long, knowing full well that no one from Paizo is going to be back until Monday morning, and likely to ignore the nearly 700 post thread because of its length?
There have been around 400 posts since SKR said he was going home.
Are we at making distinction between physical off-hand and metaphysical off-hand yet?
How about the difference between the forehand and backhand?
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
*sigh*
I will go step by step, so those who aren't just throwing a fit because someone closed their loophole will understand the logic.
1. You have a primary "hand" and you have an off "hand"
If they were actual, literal, hands, you could not use armor spikes with your off hand, or kick with your off-hand.
So "hand" is not a literal hand. It is a game mechanic. If your off-hand were your actual, literal hand, you couldn't use armor spikes or kicks at all and this whole discussion would be moot.
2. As a game mechanic, rather than a literal hand, to doesn't matter if you have a literal hand empty, any more than it matters that since your leg is still unused, you could kick after you swung your sword twice (you can't by the way).
What matters is what you decide to do with the primary and off "hand"s you have available.
If you use both of them to make two attacks, you have used both of them. When you do you get an extra attack with .5 strength added meaning the total is 1.5.
Or you can use both of them to make a two-handed attack, in which case you get a 1.5 strength bonus.
Or you can use one to attack and one to block, in which case you get 1 str and an AC bonus.
If you use one to attack and don't use the other one, you have a free hand, which is a listed requirement for a number of things.
3. If the primary and off "hand" were literally hands, you could not use armor spikes, kick, or do any attack that didn't take up an actual hand.
People assumed that the off-hand was a literal hand, which they shouldn't have because then armor spikes wouldn't work.
People assumed that having two hands on the weapon meant you were "wielding" it two handed. They shouldn't since you hold a double weapon with two hands but don't automatically wield it two handed.
The whole thing was not as clear as it should have been. Which is why they released the FAQ.
Many of us have been saying for years this is how it works, and have been shouted down aggressively by people who said we were wrong about the Devs intent. Now the Devs have made the intent clear and the same people are shouting down the Devs who actually wrote the rules, so probably know the intent.
It makes perfect sense as soon as you stop making Primary and off-Hand literal hands. Which is what you have to do anyway to use anything that isn't actually in your literal hand.
You can't both argue it is not a literal hand so you can used things not in your hand, but that it is a literal hand so you can use it a second time.
|
|
I would like to know if this applies also to attacks of opportunity. Reach weapons, especially with their inability to function on diagonals, really need armour spikes to function well.
I think (my reading) it would not apply to attack of opportunity, but it would apply to attacks during the full attack that would require an off hand.
An AoO wouldn't require you to use your off-hand, so it wouldn't be an issue.
If you have a long spear, you can attack with the longspear, but you can't also TWF with armor spikes. If you have two attacks (+6/+1) you can make an attack with the long spear and an attack with the armor spikes.
This only prevents you from both two-weapon fighting and fighting two-handed at the same time.
|
|
Ciretose: We all agree that the off-hand is not your physical hand. That is the entire point of our argument--since you have a weapon that doesn't occupy a physical hand, your off-hand is still available, even if the physical hand is otherwise occupied.
You need both your off-hand and your primary hand to make a Two-handed attack.
"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)..."
You can't have it not be a physical hand when it helps you attack with things not in your hand, and then make it a physical hand later when you want to have the option to use it again.
That is the whole point of the FAQ. People are throwing up a lot of smoke and screaming, but it isn't going to effect much other than people needing to realize that just because the off-hand weapon isn't in your actual, physical hand, that doesn't mean you didn't use your off-hand.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's just remember what this argument is about...
The Paizo team has issued a FAQ, drawn on unwritten, unimplied design rules, that throw into confusion a number of other rules related to combat...
... all to prevent a Level 1 Fighter from taking a -2 penalty to all of his attacks to gain a potential (1d6+3/x2) damage.
As a result of this FAQ, it is no longer clear whether a "hand" is actually a hand anymore. Two hands is most assuredly two actual hands... while "off-hand" is anything but a hand, unless that hand is gripping the same weapon as another actual hand, in which case the actual hands and the lack of an actual free hand eliminates the possibility of using an "off-hand" regardless of the fact that the actual "off-hand" was a foot. "Shield hand" is apparently an actual hand, that while not actually involved in combat, qualifies as the off-hand when determining whether the off-hand is available for use, once again... even if it is a foot... and if the off-hand is used, despite the fact that is not actually any one of the actual hands, eliminates the opportunity to utilize the shield hand to do... well nothing except hold the shield. Aside from a shield or a weapon hilt that has even incidental contact with another actual hand, there is no restriction on what your actual hands can be engaged in (no juvenile jokes here, please)... meaning you can hold a bag of groceries and your infant son and the New York Times crossword puzzle and the pen you were using to fill it out and a cup of coffee and your car keys and the deposit slips from the bank and a torch and a lifesize steel statue of a greatsword (not an actual sword, mind you... just something that is the exact same size, shape, and weight as a greatsword) and you can still use Two-Weapon Fighting. Just don't let both hands touch the same weapon.
[/rant]
|
|
And if off-hand meant left hand, it couldn't be used for armor spikes or kicks.
Perhaps that is why they changed the wording for 3e to 3.5...
EDIT: And actually, read what you posted. The right hand/left hand is an example of a possible use, not a defintion of off hand...
James, you are so much better than a reach like that.
|
|
I agree, the shield portion is still up to be clarified. If I am corrected in the FAQ, I assure you I won't throw a hissy fit. I will say "Thank you for the clarification"
Because that is what you do if you ask someone a question, and they answer it...
But based on the logic given by the Devs about how the off-hand works, it makes sense that it would apply to anything that takes up the proverbial game mechanic "hand".
I actually had my mind changed on this one, remember.
The armor spike portion was clarified in the FAQ. And off-hand is not an actual hand. Never was, or you couldn't use armor spikes anyway.
And so, following that understanding the entire basis of the rest of the argument is quite simple.
Mechanically, a standard race has two "hands" worth of things you can do at a given time. A primary and an off "hand"
And if you don't have two "hands" worth of things you can do at a given time, how many "hands" do you have? Because literal, actual hands aren't relevent if you can use your off hand to do things that don't involve hands.
So if an off-hand action that doesn't actually involve your actual physical hands still removes one of your "hands" from play in one situation, why would it be different in any other situation?
You aren't just holding a shield and getting a bonus. You are using it, in your shield hand. Something in the game mechanics is occuring involving that shield, because otherwise it wouldn't worry about
"unstrapping and dropping a shield so you can use your shield hand for another purpose"
So what is your shield "hand" in game mechanics terms?
We now have confirmation that an Off-Hand is not a physical hand, but is in fact a game mechanic. The fact that you used your Off-hand in the form of a foot or a spike doesn't change the fact that you used your off hand.
If the FAQ comes back saying I'm wrong, I'm wrong. No pouting or hissy fits, no 700 post rants because my loophole got closed.
I thought it was something, the person who actually wrote it corrected me, life goes on.
I wonder if the same reaction will come from others if my (and others, remember I was convinced by others on this one) is correct.
I hope they decide to write the game for those of us who actually respect the writers of the rules and will acknowledge that the person who writes the rules probably knows what the intent was better than the reader...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, this argument is about people being ticked off that a loophole they found got closed.
I have to agree. After reading this whole thread it sure feels more like anger over the loss of a loophole then a real issue.
|
|
@Kazaan - If that were the problem people were having, people would be thanking the Devs for the clarification...
@Crash_00 - If you want to predicate your argument on 3 "hands" available, good luck to you.
What makes more sense, at least to me, is that the system is based on the mechanic of two "hands" as possible actions, unrelated to limbs (otherwise we would get 4, so we can kick as well).
Everything makes perfect sense if you start from that premise. Your classic sword and board has a weapon in a primary "hand" and a shield in his off "hand". The shield works when he wields to shield, doesn't work when he uses it to bash, because he is then using his off-hand for another purpose.
If you don't want to start from that premise...well as much as you are accusing me of reading into things, it seems as if you are making an assumption that a shield hand is a magical mystery "third hand" that just works by existing.
Seems a bit of a stretch to me, but FAQ it and we'll see.
I'll respect the Devs ruling either way. They wrote the rules, after all.
|
|
So now there is a game mechanic that is a shield arm that is complete and separate from your off hand.
And we have three "Hands/Arms"...
Or...
You have a primary "hand" and an off "Hand", as game mechanics. If you are a standard race without any special abilities or bonuses, you can do (up to) two things at the same time (Hit twice, hit and block, etc...), or you can use your off-hand with your primary hand to increase your strength bonus.
|
|
Let's say I'm a fighter with armor spikes.
I'm in a straight jacket, or manacled or something. Both my hands are completely unusable.
Can I attack?
Now lets say I have Two Weapon Fighting and a boot blade too.
Can I attack with both?
I don't see why you couldn't.
You would probably have hella penalties, but nothing is stopping you.
And if you were a monk, you could actually flurry in that circumstance.
Because Primary and off-hand are game mechanics, not actual limbs.