Any change in the future to make an errata or something?We did not consider making an adjustment like that to the current rules. No. That's out of the scope of a typical FAQ.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.
Not that I know of.
| 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 :)
Thanks! Although, I can't accept it as official until you release a FAQ or make errata.
|
They are. You remember the thread where I made this very argument and many of the people now complaining about being shouted down, shouted me down.
I do.
So, with the exception of maybe James, I have pretty much no sympathy for your side of the argument.
I kind of want to do a dance singing "I told you so!"
But it is just a game, why get hyperbolic when it will just be thrown back at me when I'm next wrong about an FAQ.
:)
|
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.
Thank you for your reply. : )
The point I was trying to make is that the 3.5 FAQ didn't contain or change any rules, it was simply the logical consequence of applying the rules as written in 3.5 to the subject of wielding a greatsword and armour spikes in TWF.
Since these particular rules didn't change between editions, those 3.5 rules which led to that conclusion, since these are also the Pathfinder rules, these rules should result in the same conclusion.
Instead, a brand new rule was created in the recent FAQ which makes TWF incompatible with using a weapon two-handed. If this was a consequence of the rules, it would have been a consequence in 3rd edition also. This is a new rule. It should be acknowledged as such, and the TWF rules should be errata'd at the first opportunity.
Does this all make sense?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Attacking with a THW and unarmed attacks (3d6 + 2x STR) is a flavorful option if allowed with TWF.
Attacking with a THW and unarmed stikes (3d6 +2x STR) with iterative attacks at 6th level is just a bad choice and a non-option.
This is attitude is why it comes off as a loophole.
If you'd normally have to wait till level 6 to do it legally for sure, it's probably a loophole to do the same damage at level one.
Tha means?Banned because you can't do it without taking two attacks...
Right.
I think he means "you can still do it with iterative attacks, so it's only banned for the first five or seven levels".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the design team has made it clear at this point that it's not a new rule, as they all saw it working that way. Instead, it's fallout of some unclear sections of the text that can be taken one way or the other. With the knowledge that the designers had, their reading read one way, which is the way they had intended. This is a similar issue to the flurry of blows kerfluffle (I love that word), and there are bound to be more instances of this.
A place where I see this happening again is with this post where Sean is explaining the tentacle discovery, which, based on everything I know, he actually wrote. In this post, it's explained why you can't use Unarmed Strike and Natural Attacks. I personally still don't see where the rules actually say that, but I do see hints and suggestive eye-wagglings towards it (see: flurry of blows). [This would be a great question for a FAQ, btw.]
There are a lot of areas of the rules that are 'hidden'. Examples include: magic items over 200k being artifacts, Improved Natural Attack being a dumb feat to give to a monster (and that you should feel bad about it), keeping filigree to a minimum for your magic items, backpacks actually contain about the same amount of stuff as a real backpack would, PCs have to urinate and defecate, you can't take actions once you're dead...as well as everything listed here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure they are! They're just horrible. In theory.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why is anything not within a certain norm, deemed a "loophole"?
This includes suboptimal choices, and decisions only for flavor.
Just because it seems better for John Smith the PC, doesn't mean it's good for the game.
I tire of the "loophole" label.
It's very misleading.
No one is really looking for extra damage, or extra attacks.
Just extra options.
I see no reason why any weapon that could be used during iterative attacks should be excluded from two weapon fighting.
This means someone at higher levels will get more attacks, just because his weapons are smaller.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Power of cheese demands one not be forced to take a crappy archetype!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Look, I don't think the original coming up with the idea is necessarily suspect. Vehemently defending it after it's been clarified by the authors/developers, does come off that way. A wee bit.
Yeah it does. At 6th level or +6 BAB.
Doesn't have any less flavor at 6th level. Or fun, probably.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Much less fun.
Replacing a crappy, yet flavorful option with an exponentially more crappy, but just as flavorful option does not improve fun. Like at all.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is the driving reason. You can have your shoulder blocking dude, he just has to use a one handed weapon until 6th level or so or be barbarian archetype and you can have your two-handed weapon and shoulder spike.
Don't blame me some options are closed because people try to take advantage of loopholes in the game to get extra attacks.
And don't pretend you don't want this because it is mechanically better.
It insults both of our intelligence.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think a large problem is that at some point hand stopped meaning an actual hand and some of us didn't get the message, which brings up some questions for me, such as what becomes of Free Hands.
1)Are Free Hands now a Free Primary or Off Hand or are they literal hands?
2)Does a person need two actual hands to shoot a bow?
3)How about holding an item?
4)Does using a two handed double weapon also eat up your offhand even if you only use one end? The Re-Gripping FAQ and this FAQ about THW and Armor Spikes would seem like it does, even if you don't get both attacks with it.
5) If I TWF with say a dagger and a blade boot can I also cast a quickened spell that requires Somatic Components?
I would like to know, as I would like to get a better knowledge of how this ruling works in case I ever get into Organized Play or something like that.
Much less fun.
Replacing a crappy, yet flavorful option with an exponentially more crappy, but just as flavorful option does not improve fun. Like at all.
For you.
If it's more important to have a character that fights with a dwarven longhammer and them headbutt with his dwarven boulder helmet, than it is to do optimal damage all the time, it would be plenty fun.
I've played battleragers in PF when it's not optimal, but it's hella fun.
I'm just sayin'.
|
|
The Dwarf, who wields his Dwarven Longhammer and Dwarven Boulder Helmet.
Built, for fun, and for flavor, no longer works, with these new rules.
But the Dwarf who wields the warhammer does and boulder helmet does. And given the warhammer is the iconic dwarf weapon, not the long hammer, that is just fine with me.
You aren't mad about losing options. You are mad you are losing advantageous mechanics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fun and balanced is always more fun than fun and underpowered.
Similarly, fun and kinda okay is always more fun than fun and horrifyingly bad.
it is not mechanically better, TWF with kukris is waaay better.
And don't pretend you don't want this because it is mechanically better.It insults both of our intelligence.
Over time, sure. But at first level?
|
|
Fun and balanced is always more fun than fun and underpowered.
Similarly, fun and kinda okay is always more fun than fun and horrifyingly bad.
You keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
That some of you people act horrified at any option that is not the absolute mechanical best is exactly why we need more of these rulings, not less.
|
|
You aren't mad about losing options. You are mad you are losing advantageous mechanics.
You don't decide what I am, and what I am not mad about.
It is not advantageous mechanically, and was never a problem with balance.
You have locked on to a false notion of exploitable loopholes, and refuse to see it any other way.
What I want to know is, with this new ruling, how the heck is the Thunderstriker supposed to work at all?
With exceptions!
You keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
One of the synonyms for horrifying is "awful".
There is no issue with my use of the word in that context.
That some of you people act horrified at any option that is not the absolute mechanical best is exactly why we need more of these rulings, not less.
Except the problem isn't that it's not "the absolute best option" it's that it is mechanically inferior to almost every other option in the game.
You shouldn't have to sacrifice all effectiveness for flavor.