And as an aside... to the "why was this necessary" question.
Because you FAQ'd it. Clearly some people thought this was unclear. We decided to clear it up. That is, after all, what the FAQ system is all about.
Jason
Oh pfff. You know what I meant. =)
Why was it necessary to rue this way instead of the other way.
Rynjin, only if you are playing a game with point buy does the always behind greatsword fighters hold true. If you roll that stats for a good strength and dex, then the greatsword fighter isn't falling behind at all when using armor spikes.
Yes and if the guy who wants to play with archery rolls 10 Dex he's going to be a s#$$ty archer.
Which is why rolled stats are never used for balance discussion, because people can say "Lol but if I roll all 18's it won't suck!"
As for your TWF, you're assuming that the TWFer is wielding the same weapon in each hand. What about the traditional longsword and shortsword?
just slightly above TWFing with 2 different weapons (which is the worst combat style in the game).
As for how much extra damage it deals. You get an extra damage of 2 points (assuming a 18 strength) + an extra average of 2.5 (great sword vs. longsword) + an extra point from power attack if you use it (it's a standard of the build). That's 5.5 pts. over a standard TWFer's average.
Average TWFer's average is 1D6(3.5)+1D8(4.5)+2+4+2+1 = 17 if both weapons hit.
So, you gain nearly a third extra damage over a normal TWFer in at first level.
You forgot to factor in the lower to-hit. Higher damage doesn't mater when you miss, and if you're taking penalties from TWFing (-2) and also Power Attack (-1) you should be, I believe (I refuse to run it through the DPR formula right now) be hitting at an average of much lower than either fighting style.
There aren't ways to get 3x strength that don't come with using weapons with really low damage output in builds that have to spread points out to other areas.
Your dragon style example gets to 2.5 and requires a 15 dex and all of your first level feats in a class that also needs wisdom.
EDIT: With a 1d6, low crit weapon. At 0 BaB.
Or you can go fighter and get the +1 BaB, but have 1d4 and using another feat on double slice...
And the Greatsword + Armor spikes example needs 15 Dex and a 1st level Feat as well.
Also, 1d4 is so much smaller than 1d6. :rolleyes:
The point being that it's possible, and it's about the same power level as what was just ruled against.
Which is pretty bad since Unarmed Strikes are explicitly supposed to be the weakest fighting style in the game.
Hey, you know, while we're on that...
Why?
At least natural weapons have a larger penalty on attacks, and are limited to half strength bonus when mixed with manufactured weapons.
Very glad for this ruling. Maybe we can start reining in the natural attacks as well? (especially bite + gore at the same time?)
|
I still think that is a bad rule, it cuts a cool fighting style from the game. if the devs think it is too strong then the right call shoul be to make it at the powerlevel they envion for the game, not ban it.
It isn't removed from the game. You can still twf with a sword and an armor spike.
You just can't Two-handed fight and Two weapon fight at the same time (without special abilities at least)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It was more of a 'really, really silly' fighting style than a 'cool' one, IMO...
Thanks for the explanation, Jason, Sean, and Stephen. PCs only meaning to get a specific multiplier of your attacks makes sense as a base-line.
FWIW, a Rules Compendium style product would be pretty nice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just to chime in a bit, this was something (like all FAQ questions) that the entire Design Team has input on, deliberates on, and then makes a ruling on.
Some days I think we should make pod casts of FAQ and rules discussions. I think you would all be entertained. We argue, we laugh, we cry, we rant, we rage, we swear (okay...usually it is me swearing) and by the end we make decisions that we feel are best for the game as a whole.
We are all in total agreement when it comes this ruling.
Are you guys saving the divisive fights for when discussing Sean's views on doors and hardness?
Sure it can.
Someone hooting and hollering to make magic doesn't mean that an adventurer that fights with an ancestral ship anchor he was given by his father, whose own father scavenged it from a shipwreck that nearly took his life, is any less silly.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are you guys saving the divisive fights for when discussing Sean's views on doors and hardness?Just to chime in a bit, this was something (like all FAQ questions) that the entire Design Team has input on, deliberates on, and then makes a ruling on.
Some days I think we should make pod casts of FAQ and rules discussions. I think you would all be entertained. We argue, we laugh, we cry, we rant, we rage, we swear (okay...usually it is me swearing) and by the end we make decisions that we feel are best for the game as a whole.
We are all in total agreement when it comes this ruling.
No. We avoid that subject around the office. Sean has been a hardness denier for a long time and is really set in his ways. I think he runs and local underground radio program on the subject. He also thinks the King County Sheriff wants to take away all of his miniature supplies.
If we start talking about it I start daydreaming of shoving him into a door to make my point, but management frowns on such casual violence in office. That and I like Sean, and you just don't do that to friends without a better reason. Even if they are a little crazy. ;)
(For those of you wondering what the heck I'm talking about, Cheapy is riffing on a joke made during one of the PaizoCon seminars this year.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rynjin - Why is fighting with no weapons not as good as fighting with weapons?
Seriously :)
Seriously.
Don't give me the verisimilitude argument. At the very least, the class built around ki (aka pseudo-magic) infused unarmed blows should be good at it. And yet this same class is encouraged, almost forced to use weapons to stay competitive, because "Unarmed strikes aren't supposed to be good".
It's even worse than the crossbow thing. At least crossbows don't have an entire class built around them.
It is my opinion that when designing a game, you should never go into it with the mindset that one thing is SUPPOSED to be better than another. It is inevitable that some options will be superior, but when one option is specifically made less powerful at every turn than other options, because punches as strong as swords is silly in a game with fire breathing dragons, something is wrong.
I hesitate to impugn the design skills of the Paizo team, because despite my complaints they've done a darn good job with the game overall, but that sort of design philosophy just rubs me the wrong way.
No, and for the simple reason that there's an archetype for almost ANYTHING. =)
Especially looking at Fighter archetypes.
Because other classes don't have Ki running through their bodies to enhance their strikes.
Ninjas do, and they can get IUS as a Monk of half their level, so it works out.
As well, that works at a cursory glance, but considering the doubled cost for lesser benefit enchantments from the AoMF, the MADness, and the 3/4 BaB thing, it doesn't work that way in practice. But you know that.
Maybe in PF 2.0 or whatever they can fix that. If they don't want bigger dice, cap it at 1d8 with 2d6 at the very high levels or summat, and replace all the extra damage dice with an inherent enhancement bonus of up to +5.
Just to chime in a bit, this was something (like all FAQ questions) that the entire Design Team has input on, deliberates on, and then makes a ruling on.
Some days I think we should make pod casts of FAQ and rules discussions. I think you would all be entertained. We argue, we laugh, we cry, we rant, we rage, we swear (okay...usually it is me swearing) and by the end we make decisions that we feel are best for the game as a whole.
We are all in total agreement when it comes this ruling.
I would love to hear that podcast.
I'm on the "umm, that's the way it should be" side of this discussion (I despise people using edge-cases to define how the general rules work), so I've not felt it necessary to chime in (particularly with the weekend explosion in the thread). Part of me is wishes that natural attacks or "tertiary" attacks (by which I mean attacks with weapons that are not wielded in a character's hand) followed a simple "if you use a weapon, you forego one attack, your choice which" rule, but this is why I'm not a game designer and don't get paid the big bucks.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nobody even considered the limiting of strength to damage on the primary attack?
There is already a limit for off hand attacks.
This means players can still two weapon fight with any two weapons they can wield, without "balance" issues.
Nobody loses their favorite style, and it doesn't muck things up with other rules.
|
|
Because other classes don't have Ki running through their bodies to enhance their strikes.
Ninjas do, and they can get IUS as a Monk of half their level, so it works out.
As well, that works at a cursory glance, but considering the doubled cost for lesser benefit enchantments from the AoMF, the MADness, and the 3/4 BaB thing, it doesn't work that way in practice. But you know that.
Maybe in PF 2.0 or whatever they can fix that. If they don't want bigger dice, cap it at 1d8 with 2d6 at the very high levels or summat, and replace all the extra damage dice with an inherent enhancement bonus of up to +5.
I do know that. I also know the rules are laboring against people looking for loopholes and exploits.
Which is why halflings can't load slingstaffs as a free action. As even thought that option is fine and that would be cool, someone will find a way to exploit it elsewhere.
And so we can't have nice things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do know that. I also know the rules are laboring against people looking for loopholes and exploits.
Which is why halflings can't load slingstaffs as a free action. As even thought that option is fine and that would be cool, someone will find a way to exploit it elsewhere.
And so we can't have nice things.
Oh pff.
If that were really a concern of the Design Team spells like Simulacrum and Blood Money wouldn't exist.
Compared to that, what could allowing unarmed attacks to be good possibly do?
Also, what exploit would there be if Warslinger were allowed with slingstaffs?
3D6 + x2 STR per round is a bit much for a 1st level character.
Especially when the Devs only intended 2d6 + 1.5x STR max.
Really, BBT?
1) Normally, a character can make a number of attacks based on his BAB. These attacks may be made with different weapons.
2) A character can get one additional attack by TWFing (more with certain feats).
3) Natural attacks (if the character has them) can be tagged on the end, and are all treated as secondary natural attacks.
4) To use TWF, a character cannot be also using a two-handed weapon, or a one-handed weapon in two hands.
5) Specific effects and abilities can break these rules, as described in the effect or ability.
If those 5 points don't clarify every single question (just because you don't like the answer, doesn't mean the answer isn't clearer) I'm not sure what will.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just to chime in a bit, this was something (like all FAQ questions) that the entire Design Team has input on, deliberates on, and then makes a ruling on.
Some days I think we should make podcasts of FAQ and rules discussions. I think you would all be entertained. We argue, we laugh, we cry, we rant, we rage, we swear (okay...usually it is me swearing) and by the end we make decisions that we feel are best for the game as a whole.
We are all in total agreement when it comes this ruling.
Since you were there, I have some questions:-
• While most of us realise that the PDT didn't actually write the TWF rules, nor the rules on weapon category, actions in combat, or any of the other rules inherited from 3rd edition which have a bearing on this particular FAQ, we do realise that the PDT writes any new rules, presumably from a standpoint of familiarity with the pre-existing rules, and how those rules have worked for over a decade.
Given that, did the team discuss this FAQ which explained how using a combination of two-handed weapon and armour spikes interacts with the rules which still exist in Pathfinder:
Can you wield the weapon in two hands and still make an off-hand attack with the spikes?
When you fight with more than one weapon, you gain an extra attack. (Improved Two-Weapon Fighting and greater Two-Weapon Fighting give you more attacks with the extra weapon.) Armor spikes are a light weapon that can be used as the extra weapon.
If you attack only with your armor spikes during your turn (or use the armor spikes to make an attack of opportunity), you use them just like a regular weapon. If you use the full attack action, you can use armor spikes as either a primary light weapon or as an off-hand light weapon, even if you're using a shield or using a two-handed weapon. ****In these latter two cases, you're assumed to be kicking or kneeing your foe with your armour spikes.****
Whenever you use armor spikes as an off-hand weapon, you suffer all the penalties for attacking with two weapons (see Table 8-10 in the Player's Handbook). When using armor spikes along with a two-handed weapon, it is usually best to use the two-handed weapon as your primary attack and the spikes as the off-hand weapon. You can use the armor spikes as the primary weapon and the two-handed weapon as the off-hand attack, but when you do so, you don't get the benefit of using a light weapon in your off hand. You cannot, however, use your armor spikes to make a second off-hand attack when you're already fighting with two weapons. If you have a weapon in both hands and armor spikes, you can attack with the weapons in your hands (and not with the armor spikes) or with one of the weapons in your hands and the armor spikes.
If it was discussed, why did the team disregard its conclusions? If it wasn't, did anyone mention anything similar?
• The FAQ, and especially the way it was presented, left the community here in meltdown. Since the original FAQ was a single word, it raised more questions than it answered. Then came the information that it was based on rules that aren't written down(!). The community then did what it does, decide for itself what it really meant, and came up with a myriad of answers. Among which is that it's 'obvious' that you need a free hand to use armour spikes, 'obvious' that you need a free hand to kick, 'obvious' that if you kick you lose your shield bonus to AC, ad nauseum.
Reading just the comments from SKR and Jason, without trying to see the intellectual dominos falling, it's seems that the PDT very simply thinks that 1.5 x Str bonus is the only issue. It's not about 'hands' at all; it's just that trying to get an undeserved 2 x Str bonus in total is somehow sneaky and cheating and must be stopped.
First, stopping it involves saying that TWF is mutually exclusive with 2HW use. Fair enough, but this is definately a new rule, not a result of the rules that have existed for more than a decade. This should be stated by the PDT, along with the promise of an appropriate errata to the TWF rules.
Second, although it seems at first glance to be sneaky and cheating and a way to get more power, an analysis quickly reveals that it results in a smaller damage output than fighting with a 2H weapon only, when attack penalties are taken into account. It does less damage than using identical weapons because of the feat investment in Weapon Focus, Specialisation, weapon groups, etc. It also means having to have a higher Dex, probably resulting in a lower Str. It is more feat intensive than single weapon. It requires your WBL to be split. Armour spikes are nailed onto armour, meaning changing your armour also results in losing any armour spikes attached to the discarded armour.
In short, what appears to be a sneaky, cheaty way to do more damage....doesn't. It just doesn't.
I'd appreciate the insights from someone who was in that meeting.
|
|
Really, BBT?
1) Normally, a character can make a number of attacks based on his BAB. These attacks may be made with different weapons.
2) A character can get one additional attack by TWFing (more with certain feats).
3) Natural attacks (if the character has them) can be tagged on the end, and are all treated as secondary natural attacks.
4) To use TWF, a character cannot be also using a two-handed weapon, or a one-handed weapon in two hands.
5) Specific effects and abilities can break these rules, as described in the effect or ability.If those 5 points don't clarify every single question (just because you don't like the answer, doesn't mean the answer isn't clearer) I'm not sure what will.
I don't have to say much of anything anymore to piss people off.
#4) Is new, and has numerous questions behind how it works, and came to be.
Current written rules do not support it.
I'm not sure what "community meltdown" is happening, but from my perspective it's a bunch of armchair theorycrafters trying to win the Internet.
I have a La-Z-Boy.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure what "community meltdown" is happening, but from my perspective it's a bunch of armchair theorycrafters trying to win the Internet.
The "trying to win" thing has already been addressed.
Not everyone unhappy with the new FAQ is some armchair theorycrafter jerk trying to win something.
You cannot put this "bad guy" label on every single person who didn't know all the unwritten rules, and don't like FAQ based on them.
It is disingenuous to be so dismissive of these concerns as well.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure what "community meltdown" is happening, but from my perspective it's a bunch of armchair theorycrafters trying to win the Internet.The "trying to win" thing has already been addressed.
Not everyone unhappy with the new FAQ is some armchair theorycrafter jerk trying to win something.
You cannot put this "bad guy" label on every single person who didn't know all the unwritten rules, and don't like FAQ based on them.
It is disingenuous to be so dismissive of these concerns as well.
Man, you sure do make it sound like there was a tornado of flaming sharks rampaging across your town.
Torsharko?
Spikesharko
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Given that, did the team discuss this FAQ which explained how using a combination of two-handed weapon and armour spikes interacts with the rules which still exist in Pathfinder:
No...not really. While we have all played and worked on that game at various times during our career, and I worked at Wizards when that FAQ was released (and remember some gnashing of teeth internally and in the organized play program regarding it), the D&D FAQ does not contain Open Game Content, is the property of Wizards of the Coast, and not something we feel like we can use when making our decisions about the Pathfinder RPG.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I usually get annoyed when I find out Ive been wrong for a while too.
You get over it.
Will no one consider just putting the limit on damage of the primary attack as an alternative?
This still allows the many combinations available before, and sets the balance desired.
We did not consider making an adjustment like that to the current rules. No. That's out of the scope of a typical FAQ.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Given that, did the team discuss this FAQ which explained how using a combination of two-handed weapon and armour spikes interacts with the rules which still exist in Pathfinder:No...not really. While we have all played and worked on that game at various times during our career, and I worked at Wizards when that FAQ was released (and remember some gnashing of teeth internally and in the organized play program regarding it), the D&D FAQ does not contain Open Game Content, is the property of Wizards of the Coast, and not something we feel like we can use when making our decisions about the Pathfinder RPG.
The issue whether rules FAQ/clarifications are rules (and thus, not copyrighted) or expression of rules (and thus copyrighted) is fascinating. Of course, nobody wants to find that out the hard way by getting hit by a lawsuit over issuing a FAQ...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Almost 800 posts... Sorry, I don't get it. The FAQ came out around the100-200 mark. Devs have been on here repeatedly, very nicely explaining the rationale. Still, lots of arguing. This just doesn't feel all that deep people.
Maybe I am wrong. Like I said, don't get it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure what "community meltdown" is happening, but from my perspective it's a bunch of armchair theorycrafters trying to win the Internet.I have a La-Z-Boy.
Off topic, but in hindsight sorry I didn't mention you in another thread along with Kirth, Evil Lincoln and Treantmonk as people who should be sent to Paizo to help develop and playtest version 1.5.
It was a grave oversight :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The issue whether rules FAQ/clarifications are rules (and thus, not copyrighted) or expression of rules (and thus copyrighted) is fascinating. Of course, nobody wants to find that out the hard way by getting hit by a lawsuit over issuing a FAQ...
Right.