|
Except that numerous people did (based on their comments in these discussions), somehow, before the FAQ, so at least some people were getting that this was an intended (if not explicit) 'rule' of the game.I've not seen a single person say they knew about the 1.5x Str cap. Would you mind pointing out one from before the post revealing that?
I've seen many say they read the rules a different way, with the off-hand limit and so on (which is intuitive and could be inferred from the rules), but never the 1.5x Str cap.
The one that comes to immediate mind is Fretgod, here.
That said, I didn't mean to imply that most people based it on the specific theory\rule that SKR presented as reasoning. Most of them either did not elaborate on their reasons for not allowing it, or offered up different reasons.
Oh look. It is many of the same people on here arguing over there for another exploit.
I am completely and totally shocked
*deadpan*
|
|
I've not seen a single person say they knew about the 1.5x Str cap. Would you mind pointing out one from before the post revealing that?I've seen many say they read the rules a different way, with the off-hand limit and so on (which is intuitive and could be inferred from the rules), but never the 1.5x Str cap.
Which is why it rings hollow how some people are asking for decorum...
The fireball issue was hyperbole, except in this one regard: The text didn't change, only the intent did.
Do I actually question whether fireball works the way I have understood it for years? No, of course not. But, then again I never questioned TWF either.
So you're deliberately overreacting in an unhelpful way.
Because the PF design team has a different interpretation of a specific chunk of text than three completely different designers from 5 or 10 years ago... for a game with many different moving parts than the game those other designers were talking about.
Not for me at least. I'm not really upset about it being nerfed. It's the reason it was nerfed that bothers me.
A) This was never the intent of the rules to allow this combination, this combination is now allowed because <explanation> and an errata will be issued in future printings.
B) NO. There are unwritten rules that prevent this.
I would have been (and was expecting something along the lines of) A. I got that on the Dhampir negative energy affinity thing, and I shrugged and house ruled it because I didn't agree with the FAQ.
However, B, I have a HUGE problem with. I cannot access unwritten rules, and by the written ones, the decision could go either way. There's nothing in the RAW that requires the ruling that was made (as you stated yourself when you gave the reason as unwritten rules). Now I can't be sure that things that are borderline aren't working the way I expected based on the RAW because of the UWR.
On a side note, your favoriting of someone's post who spews constant vile and vitriol into this thread didn't particularly help.
Except that numerous people did (based on their comments in these discussions), somehow, before the FAQ, so at least some people were getting that this was an intended (if not explicit) 'rule' of the game.I've not seen a single person say they knew about the 1.5x Str cap. Would you mind pointing out one from before the post revealing that?
I've seen many say they read the rules a different way, with the off-hand limit and so on (which is intuitive and could be inferred from the rules), but never the 1.5x Str cap.
The one that comes to immediate mind is Fretgod, here.
That said, I didn't mean to imply that most people based it on the specific theory\rule that SKR presented as reasoning. Most of them either did not elaborate on their reasons for not allowing it, or offered up different reasons.
Exactly. They had different reasons that made sense to them, for various reasons.
None of which (not even Fret's, which is the closest I saw) stated a design principle that 1.5x Str was a soft cap (hard for manufactured weapons) to damage at 1st level.
It's not an intuitive rule to being with, and the myriad exceptions (though admittedly most can be lumped under "Natural Attacks are different bro") muddy the waters a lot.
|
|
The issue isn't the soft cap on strength, the issue is that two-handed attacks take two hands.
And two weapon fighting takes two hands.
And you only have two hands.
So trying to find a way around that, people were looking for a loophole or exploit.
That doesn't make you a bad person, it doesn't mean you kick babies, or stab puppies. It means you read it and thought "Look, there is a way to both Two-weapon fight and two-hand fight!"
Only there was never an intention to allow that. It was a loophole.
Now it is closed.
That is really all this is about.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It was not nerfed.
You were incorrect in your reading.
No one took anything away from you or anyone. An unclear passage was clarified.
You can't clarify something that wasn't in the rules. See Sean's post.
Any FAQ decision that doesn't reside squarely in the RAW, is a nerf.
I don't really care it was nerfed. I do care that it was nerfed based on unwritten rules and the statement that no errata is needed, because if the decision required reliance on unwritten rules, then those rules need to be written.
I do agree that nobody took anything away from me with regards to the FAQ, because I have never used the THF/TWF combo, nor have I GM'd for anyone who did. That is, however, a rather moot point for me.
My faith in the RAW is rather shaken, so that could be considered to have been taken away. Whether I interpreted the RAW correctly or not has always been open to question. The fact the RAW isn't all the rules has not. Until now.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
An unclear passage was clarified.
This FAQ, and the way it was presented without adequate explanation, has made the game much less clear than it was before!
Even you are now wondering if this FAQ results in the loss of shield bonus to AC when you kick as the off-hand attack!
FAQs are intended to make rules clear. This FAQ has exponentially increased their murkiness.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
SKR, just write some errata so that RAI == RAW explicitly.
The FAQ is nice, but this debate has been going on for apparently 10 years, and depending on which Dev you ask there is a different interpretation of the RAW (Not in Pathfinder, but that isn't where this originated).
If you don't understand something in PF, and there's no supplementary information available to explain it, you can look to the 3.5 FAQ to see if there's anything relevant there to help you understand. But the 3.5 FAQ is not binding to PF rules questions because 3.5 is not the same game as PF
I agree that it isn't binding, but when rules text hasn't changed and there has been no PF specific FAQ, and as far as anyone knows the intent hasn't changed, there is a reasonable expectation that an FAQ from 3.5 applies. Saying that it is obvious that it should work the new way rather than the old way is insulting. The rules have changed from 3.5, that's great. Rewrite the relevant rule to reflect that please, rather than FAQ as rule change.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, everyone. I know arguing on the internet is fun and all, but this is getting a little heated and flying off into tangents. We have updated the FAQ. We have presented our methodology. You know how and why we got to this decision.
Let's talk about something a little more fun and productive, shall we?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The issue isn't the soft cap on strength, the issue is that two-handed attacks take two hands.
And two weapon fighting takes two hands.
And you only have two hands.
So trying to find a way around that, people were looking for a loophole or exploit.
That doesn't make you a bad person, it doesn't mean you kick babies, or stab puppies. It means you read it and thought "Look, there is a way to both Two-weapon fight and two-hand fight!"
Only there was never an intention to allow that. It was a loophole.
Now it is closed.
That is really all this is about.
These are two separate issues.
Yes, the "loophole" (I hesitate to call it that, since it was less a technicality and more of an alternate legitimate reading of the rules) is closed by the FAQ, and the reasoning for it seems to be two-fold.
One is intuitive and is implied in the rules, if not super clearly stated ("handedness" refers to non-literal hand "slots", and 2H weapons take both, as does TWFing, therefore they are incompatible).
One, however, is not (1.5x Str is a soft cap to damage before +6 BaB).
I take a bit of issue with people saying the second one is clear in the rules, because it's really not. Every rule has exceptions, yes, but when there are just as many exceptions as examples that DO follow the rules, the principle is not clear.
Okay, everyone. I know arguing on the internet is fun and all, but this is getting a little heated and flying off into tangents. We have updated the FAQ. We have presented our methodology. You know how and why we got to this decision.
Let's talk about something a little more fun and productive, shall we?
Alright everybody, let's talk alignment, shall we?
;)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, everyone. I know arguing on the internet is fun and all, but this is getting a little heated and flying off into tangents. We have updated the FAQ. We have presented our methodology. You know how and why we got to this decision.
Let's talk about something a little more fun and productive, shall we?
Oooh, can I suggest advanced firearms and reload times\Rapid Reload? ;)
Okay, everyone. I know arguing on the internet is fun and all, but this is getting a little heated and flying off into tangents. We have updated the FAQ. We have presented our methodology. You know how and why we got to this decision.
Let's talk about something a little more fun and productive, shall we?
This in the CRB entries?
|
|
What I think the point about the 1.5 thing was (and the devs can correct me if I am wrong) was that a standard race with no feats/options etc can expect to have a max of 1.5 Str at first level.
As in you can fight two-handed 1.5
You can primary and off-hand 1 + .5 = 1.5
You can also just that 1 and get a shield.
It isn't that the 1.5 is fixed. It is just the baseline expectation with no feats, etc. You have a primary hand valued at 1 and an off-hand valued at .5 strength (or a shield, or something else with your free hand) and that is the total of what you have.
When you start throwing in resources that don't cause you to have to trade off, that is a problem.
If you can make an off-hand attack without losing your off-hand strength bonus, that is something for nothing.
Something for nothing is bad game theory.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, everyone. I know arguing on the internet is fun and all, but this is getting a little heated and flying off into tangents. We have updated the FAQ. We have presented our methodology. You know how and why we got to this decision.
Let's talk about something a little more fun and productive, shall we?
I think perhaps 70%+ of the problem here is how you guys have handled this whole thing and similar issues. Something that has been explained in several posts on the last page or two.
I'd humbly suggest that Paizo should at least reconsider how they are handling rules issues like this where the text is clearly insufficient to support the FAQ.
I didn't think this should be flagged, but I do wish there was an unlike feature for posts like this.
Sure, I imagine at times I would be downvoted into oblivion. But it would be worth it to see post like this good down into a fiery pit.
I actually like getting input from the people who write the rules. I find it valuable.
More please.
|
|
| 8 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, everyone. I know arguing on the internet is fun and all, but this is getting a little heated and flying off into tangents. We have updated the FAQ. We have presented our methodology. You know how and why we got to this decision.
Let's talk about something a little more fun and productive, shall we?
That's very sensible.
Actually, a few questions have come up, quite recently!
Do you need a free hand to kick?
Do armour spikes require a hand in order to use?
Does using a shield use up your off-hand attack?
Do the weapons used to TWF both have to be 'wieldable' at the same time?
There are many more, but I'll make do with these for now.
I knew the answers to all of these questions, until very recently when a brief, poorly explained FAQ threw all of this knowledge into question, particularly because the FAQ relied on rules which aren't in the rules. This is definitely a problem.
It can be solved by the PDT addressing the questions thrown up by the FAQ.
It is folly to think that the community won't try to understand and apply the rules of the game.
What I think the point about the 1.5 thing was (and the devs can correct me if I am wrong) was that a standard race with no feats/options etc can expect to have a max of 1.5 Str at first level.
As in you can fight two-handed 1.5
You can primary and off-hand 1 + .5 = 1.5You can also just that 1 and get a shield.
It isn't that the 1.5 is fixed. It is just the baseline expectation with no feats, etc. You have a primary hand valued at 1 and an off-hand valued at .5 strength (or a shield, or something else with your free hand) and that is the total of what you have.
When you start throwing in resources that don't cause you to have to trade off, that is a problem.
If you can make an off-hand attack without losing your off-hand strength bonus, that is something for nothing.
Something for nothing is bad game theory.
Which would be true, if TWFing didn't have penalties. Without the Feat, it's -4 to both your attacks, with it it's -2.
I don't think that's the reason for the 1.5x Str cap.
Your explanation just doesn't make much sense to me.
Damned if I DO know why, but I don't think that's it.
Or, well, it is it but not really? I kinda agree with the one hand valued at 1 and one hand valued at .5 bit (it makes a good bit of sense), but not the "something for nothing" part.
Something for nothing is usually bad, but it really has to be something for nothing.
If there were no penalty for TWFing, this would be true. And everyone would TWF.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At first level
IF: you two-hand a weapon
OR IF: you two-weapon fight with a weapon in each hand
OR IF: you two-weapon fight with both ends of a double weapon
THEN: the maximum Str bonus to damage you can do in a round is 1.5x
It is stated not less than 3 times in the rules*. I'm not sure it's a great leap of logic to reach the conclusion that (barring specifically detailed special abilities, class features, magic, etc) the 1.5x Str "cap" is a conscious and intended consequence of the design rules regarding wielding weapons and how Str bonus interacts with that.
Anybody who goes to the trouble of coming up with combination of normal weapon features that exceed that "cap" is (to me) trying to exceed the intended consequence of the design rules. And people are surprised that the developers have come out and said "no"?
* I am aware that it is not explicitly expressed in those terms. However, if you don't read between the lines, that is clearly the expected "normal" result.
Yes, it's an "unwritten rule". It's unwritten because every example of "normal" usage somehow, miraculously, uses exactly the same limit.
I truly struggle to see how anyone can read the CRB and believe that the developers intended to allow that "cap" to be exceeded.
And when they release a clarification that explains this (even going so far as to say "well, the 1.5x Str "cap" is an unwritten rule. We thought it was pretty obvious that's what we meant") they get nerd rage.
Baffles me. Really, it does.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, everyone. I know arguing on the internet is fun and all, but this is getting a little heated and flying off into tangents. We have updated the FAQ. We have presented our methodology. You know how and why we got to this decision.
Let's talk about something a little more fun and productive, shall we?
That's very sensible.
Actually, a few questions have come up, quite recently!
Do you need a free hand to kick?
Do armour spikes require a hand in order to use?
Does using a shield use up your off-hand attack?
Do the weapons used to TWF both have to be 'wieldable' at the same time?
There are many more, but I'll make do with these for now.
I knew the answers to all of these questions, until very recently when a brief, poorly explained FAQ threw all of this knowledge into question, particularly because the FAQ relied on rules which aren't in the rules. This is definitely a problem.
It can be solved by the PDT addressing the questions thrown up by the FAQ.
It is folly to think that the community won't try to understand and apply the rules of the game.
Fair enough. I could answer these questions right now, but it is better for the whole Design Team to discuss it officially. I've flagged it for FAQ.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
SKR, just write some errata so that RAI == RAW explicitly.
The FAQ is nice, but this debate has been going on for apparently 10 years, and depending on which Dev you ask there is a different interpretation of the RAW (Not in Pathfinder, but that isn't where this originated).
If you don't understand something in PF, and there's no supplementary information available to explain it, you can look to the 3.5 FAQ to see if there's anything relevant there to help you understand. But the 3.5 FAQ is not binding to PF rules questions because 3.5 is not the same game as PFI agree that it isn't binding, but when rules text hasn't changed and there has been no PF specific FAQ, and as far as anyone knows the intent hasn't changed, there is a reasonable expectation that an FAQ from 3.5 applies. Saying that it is obvious that it should work the new way rather than the old way is insulting. The rules have changed from 3.5, that's great. Rewrite the relevant rule to reflect that please, rather than FAQ as rule change.
This^^^^^
Which would be true, if TWFing didn't have penalties. Without the Feat, it's -4 to both your attacks, with it it's -2.
I don't think that's the reason for the 1.5x Str cap.
Your explanation just doesn't make much sense to me.
Damned if I DO know why, but I don't think that's it.
Or, well, it is it but not really? I kinda agree with the one hand valued at 1 and one hand valued at .5 bit (it makes a good bit of sense), but not the "something for nothing" part.
I can answer why, ...
Happy I could help.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm especially interested in the shield one.
At first level
IF: you two-hand a weapon
OR IF: you two-weapon fight with a weapon in each hand
OR IF: you two-weapon fight with both ends of a double weapon
THEN: the maximum Str bonus to damage you can do in a round is 1.5x
Of course if you are a monk flurrying you get 2x at first level.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, everyone. I know arguing on the internet is fun and all, but this is getting a little heated and flying off into tangents. We have updated the FAQ. We have presented our methodology. You know how and why we got to this decision.
Let's talk about something a little more fun and productive, shall we?
I think perhaps 70%+ of the problem here is how you guys have handled this whole thing and similar issues. Something that has been explained in several posts on the last page or two.
I'd humbly suggest that Paizo should at least reconsider how they are handling rules issues like this where the text is clearly insufficient to support the FAQ.
Wow, just wow. All three Devs have made a concentrated effort to be open and upfront in the rationale for the FAQ. Do you think you could start a blog for Monopoly in which you and twenty other people argued that the FREE PARKING spot should give you money (which the official rule does not allow) and you would get three game Devs from Milton Bradley to come onto the website repeatedly to explain to you why they decided what they decided? I get it, the Devs get it, we al get it: there are some people who don't like the ruling. Just don't act like the Devs aren't listening to your complaints or haven't heard your criticisms. In the case of Monopoly, you would be lucky to get a form letter response once that attempts to clarify the rationale. After that, nothing. Also, I am Actually impressed that the Devs have been as gentle with their responses as they have been. I would have been incredibly rude and then had the thread locked (maybe even had some people banned) for some of the things said. Paizo is allowing you the use of their web page to make your arguments and you think it is the Devs fault that you don't agree with a very minor ruling that effects less than 1/100 th of a percent of the game?
Again, just wow.|
|
It is stated not less than 3 times in the rules*. I'm not sure it's a great leap of logic to reach the conclusion that (barring specifically detailed special abilities, class features, magic, etc) the 1.5x Str "cap" is a conscious and intended consequence of the design rules regarding wielding weapons and how Str bonus interacts with that.
So the 1.5 x Str bonus is a consequence of the rules...apart from all the exceptions...?
That is not 'obvious'.
Anybody who goes to the trouble of coming up with combination of normal weapon features that exceed that "cap" is (to me) trying to exceed the intended consequence of the design rules. And people are surprised that the developers have come out and said "no"?
All of the 'exceptions' that break this cap are things that a person 'goes to the trouble of coming up with combination of normal weapon features that exceed that "cap"'.
Every monk, every biting orc aren't trying to break the rules, just using the rules as written to make their character.
Choosing to use a weapon that doesn't require hands so that you can use a 2HW when TWFing is no different; just using the rules as written to make your character.
The monk and the orc are breaking this unwritten cap just as the GS/AS user is. How are we to know that some are okay and some are 'exploiting a loophole', when even the devs themselves can't find a rule that was broken, so have to rely on unwritten rules to prevent it?
|
|
Man, i really wound't want to be the GM for these guys. . .
Which is exactly why we need more FAQs.
If before the take 10 rule had come up you had tried to jump over a ravine that was your exact take 10 distance, I would have said no.
Now I know better, there is an FAQ, it was clarified.
If before this ruling came out, if this build had shown up it would have caused conflict.
Now, it will only cause conflict if it is probably someone you don't want to game with, since they believe they know the game better than the Devs.
Oh, by the way, still waiting for a response to any of my posts as to why, if you don't like the rule, you can't just house rule it and move on. Again, not that deep.
It was not nerfed.
You were incorrect in your reading.
No one took anything away from you or anyone. An unclear passage was clarified.
You can't clarify something that wasn't in the rules. See Sean's post.
Any FAQ decision that doesn't reside squarely in the RAW, is a nerf.
I don't really care it was nerfed. I do care that it was nerfed based on unwritten rules and the statement that no errata is needed, because if the decision required reliance on unwritten rules, then those rules need to be written.
I do agree that nobody took anything away from me with regards to the FAQ, because I have never used the THF/TWF combo, nor have I GM'd for anyone who did. That is, however, a rather moot point for me.
My faith in the RAW is rather shaken, so that could be considered to have been taken away. Whether I interpreted the RAW correctly or not has always been open to question. The fact the RAW isn't all the rules has not. Until now.
I did do Greatswords + Armor Spikes AS 3.5 Ranger.
As Ranger let me ignore Dex requirement for TWFing, I focused on Str and it did fairly well as a character.
There's nothing wrong with suggesting that the Devs consider the reasons this FAQ and some other FAQs have caused such furor.Okay, everyone. I know arguing on the internet is fun and all, but this is getting a little heated and flying off into tangents. We have updated the FAQ. We have presented our methodology. You know how and why we got to this decision.
Let's talk about something a little more fun and productive, shall we?
I think perhaps 70%+ of the problem here is how you guys have handled this whole thing and similar issues. Something that has been explained in several posts on the last page or two.
I'd humbly suggest that Paizo should at least reconsider how they are handling rules issues like this where the text is clearly insufficient to support the FAQ.
I didn't this should be flagged, but I do wish there was an unlike feature for posts like this.
Sure, I imagine at times I would be downvoted into oblivion. But it would be worth it to see post like this good down into a fiery pit.
I actually like getting input from the people who write the rules. I find it valuable.
More please.
I don't think they can alter the basic nature of the Internet.
I mean that in a kind way, even though it's sort of a flippant answer.
Sean was on here on the weekend attempting to discuss the issue, and eventually he got frustrated. I would hope that people can look back at that thread and understand why he eventually gave up? The tone of the posts - on both sides of the issue - weren't conducive to any worthwhile discussion.
I wholeheartedly agree with the suggestion one of the devs made (don't remember who it was) about perhaps releasing a podcast of their discussions on some of these issues. I'd be interested to hear it.
That said, for ill or good, I've found that the nature of the Internet tends to be combative and defensive. 'Furor' is the exception, not the rule. The designers can do their part to help fix it (like the podcast suggestion), but in the end, we all bear our own responsibility for the way this whole discussion turned out.
The unwritten rules thing clearly bothers some people. Sean did give an example of the kind of thing he meant though (CR 1 monsters don't have 500 hit points or whatever it was).
Is it surprising that they have a bunch of "rules of thumb" as to how things should be? Isn't it both inevitable and desirable?
Because the Devs have not thought about the rules as deeply or as fully as Drachasor...
Yeah, this? This is an example of "not conducive to discussion".
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fair enough. I could answer these questions right now, but it is better for the whole Design Team to discuss it officially. I've flagged it for FAQ.Okay, everyone. I know arguing on the internet is fun and all, but this is getting a little heated and flying off into tangents. We have updated the FAQ. We have presented our methodology. You know how and why we got to this decision.
Let's talk about something a little more fun and productive, shall we?
That's very sensible.
Actually, a few questions have come up, quite recently!
Do you need a free hand to kick?
Do armour spikes require a hand in order to use?
Does using a shield use up your off-hand attack?
Do the weapons used to TWF both have to be 'wieldable' at the same time?
There are many more, but I'll make do with these for now.
I knew the answers to all of these questions, until very recently when a brief, poorly explained FAQ threw all of this knowledge into question, particularly because the FAQ relied on rules which aren't in the rules. This is definitely a problem.
It can be solved by the PDT addressing the questions thrown up by the FAQ.
It is folly to think that the community won't try to understand and apply the rules of the game.
Thank you. : )
One thing for the PDT to consider: some people have understood the FAQ as meaning that the reason why armour spikes and greatswords can't be combined in TWF is because using armour spikes requires a hand, then extrapolating rules based on that understanding.
Reading the FAQ and commentary, it seems that the real reason has absolutely nothing to do with hands and only to do with a desire for a cap of 1.5 x Str bonus.
Clarifying that would help enormously!
If you think that the vast majority of the posts have been polite, then I am not sure that we are reading the same thread. Do I think that the initial FAQ was enough? Probably, cause I just didn't care. Did I think that the many times that the Devs have come on to this thread and tried to explain it was enough? Yep. Do I think that an errata is going to stop some of the vitriole over a small, fairly inconsequential rule... Nope. I really didn't believe ciretose when this started that it was about people being mad about a loophole closing, but at this point, I really can see no other point to much of the arguing. Every FAQ answers questions that people disagree with. Why is this one creating such a scene? My guess is because it clearly spelled out that something that was cheese, was cheese.
But perhaps I wasn't clear. I didn't mean not having them talk to us or not release FAQs. I meant releasing errata when a FAQ question comes up and they realize that the written rules cannot be used to answer the question. I went over this more in a previous post.
It must be a fine line to walk. No doubt they're somewhat constrained by their policy of including errata in reprints, as well. They can't just "get wordier", which is the likely temptation when clarifying a rule.
|
|
The unwritten rules thing clearly bothers some people. Sean did give an example of the kind of thing he meant though (CR 1 monsters don't have 500 hit points or whatever it was).
Is it surprising that they have a bunch of "rules of thumb" as to how things should be? Isn't it both inevitable and desirable?
The trouble is that all of SKR's examples were of game design guidelines on what would or would not be appropriate for different levels. While game designers need to know these things, players don't.
But the actual issue is not about game design but about using the already decade old published rules to play the game, not design new elements for it!
Players do need to know those rules!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's not even remotely what I am talking about. I'm talking about how they and their rulings interface with the community, the FAQs, and Errata.Because the Devs have not thought about the rules as deeply or as fully as Drachasor...Yeah, this? This is an example of "not conducive to discussion".
It is what I am talking about.
With attitudes like this, on the side of supporter or detractor, what impetus do the designers have to engage with the community?
Had the attitude of the overall discussion been civil on Saturday, then Sean might have stuck around and offered up some (more) of the logic and discussion that instead came out today. Instead, some of the attitudes presented on both sides made it not worth his while to take up time on his weekend.
Lead Designer
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alright everybody.
The productivity of this thread is quickly winding down to 0. I think both sides understand the situation here. Giving further examples, builds, power comparisons, arguments, snipes, hyperbole, and additional posts about all of the above is really starting to wander in a circle. The heated tone is not really helping either.
I know there are still some questions on this. We can look at those, but my basic understanding of this situation has not changed. Let me give you a peek inside... this is not an FAQ, nor is it a final ruling. This is my understanding of the rule in question. It might not be the same at the 3.5 ruling, and for those of you that still reference that, you have my sympathies, but this is Pathfinder not 3.5 and we are not going to see everything exactly the same way.
Each round, a generic human warrior has two possibilities for an attack when taking a full attack action. His "primary hand" and his "off hand". Setting aside for a moment whether or not these are hands at all, those are his options. If he attacks with both using more than one "weapon" he takes huge penalties (weapon being an actual weapon or an unarmed strike). TWF reduces these depending on the "weapons" used. He can, without penalty use both to make an attack with a two-handed weapon, but in doing so, he has used both and cannot make any others. The core rulebook is a little vague here, but if you look at the rules for two-handed weapons on page 141, it is clear that it uses two hands. Now this is where the confusion comes in. An attack does not have to actually be a "hand", but it does have to be assigned to your "primary" or "off". Unfortunately the two-handed weapon description does not spell that out properly. However, taken in context of the two paragraphs before it, that a light weapon and a one handed weapon both speak to the "primary" or "off" language, it can be understood that the two-handed weapon is taking up both.
I realize there are a lot of rules speaking to these systems, and lot of things that have been added later that allow you to make attacks with things other than hands, and that makes the hand language problematic and confusing. I realize some of you dont agree. Thats fine. Rule 0 is still in effect here, as it always is. This is not a matter of us banning something that we see as broken, or an inability to imagine a scene in which the described attack combination works. It IS a matter of the design team agreeing that the rules work in the basic framework noted above.
We will continue to consider this issue, as we do all rules. But as of this moment, I consider the matter closed. We have other fish to fry so to speak and I think we have said our peace on this one. I am not trying to shut down your ideas or opinions, but I think this issue has been fully explored at this time.
Thank you for your participation. Despite our (and your) occasional frustration over issues like these, we do find it productive and informative.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer