Two Handed Weapon and Armor Spikes Resolved by the Design Team?


Rules Questions

1,151 to 1,200 of 1,428 << first < prev | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | next > last >>

Here's a question: Given the way the rules stand now, if I have 4 iterative attacks and 3 off-hand attacks, and I use a Longsword and Unarmed Strikes, could I make only 2 attacks two-handed with the Longsword and eat only 2 of my 3 off-hand attacks? The result would be 2-h Longsword x2, 1-h Longsword x2, UAS x1. If so, would that UAS be the "first" off-hand (at BAB) or would it be the "third" off-hand (at BAB-10)? Or would it depend on where it is in the attack sequence; ie. if it's before the two 2-h Longsword attacks, it's at BAB, if it's between them, it's at BAB-5, and if after both, it's at BAB-10?

Paizo Employee Lead Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.

James,

This is an unfortunate corner of this ruling, and it requires a bit of parsing. When you attack with a two-handed weapon you are using up both your primary and off hand attack, but you are not actually making an off hand attack. So, at BAB +6 you can make both attacks with a two handed weapon because you are not making two off hand attacks.

Ugh.. these rules are giving me a headache. It is so terribly poorly put together. This is quickly rising to the top of the list of things I had cleaned up in Pathfinder.

Jason


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ok, I have complained several times about the tone and the pointlessness of this thread's length, and then I check back and people are playing nice and having a pretty cool conversation.
I was wrong. There is a point to the thread.
Sorry if I was a part of the nastiness.


Kazaan, you would have some choices (assuming it is allowed at all, but I believe it is). The emphasis seems to be that your attacks from BAB are paired with your TWF attacks. So if you have BAB 16 (16/11/6/1) and three off hand attacks (16/11/6), then you would just have to pair them up. You could swing two handed on sixteen, one hand and kick on 11 and 6, then two hand on 1 for instance. Or you could one hand and kick on 16, 11, and 6, then two hand on 1, letting you actually get all your off hand attacks and not waste any "effort" on 1.

Simply put, you get to choose what your are doing on each iteration, but it has to add up together. So, even if you roll all of your longsword attacks before your off hand attacks, if you two hand on your +16 bonus, you've lost your +16 off hand. A nice GM might let swap that off hand for a +1 (since you don't have one there), but that isn't really RAW.

That is my interpretation of the rules so far. They may not be 100%.

Paizo Employee Lead Designer

Kazaan, It depends entirely on the sequence.

Paizo Employee Lead Designer

Remember, when attacking with two weapons as part of a full attack action, you have to make all the attacks with one before moving on to the other. So, its a bit complicated, but you do have some flexibility.


Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Remember, when attacking with two weapons as part of a full attack action, you have to make all the attacks with one before moving on to the other. So, its a bit complicated, but you do have some flexibility.

Wait, what?

I thought you only had to go from highest to lowest but could switch weapons back and forth any way you wanted?

Paizo Employee Lead Designer

Komoda wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Remember, when attacking with two weapons as part of a full attack action, you have to make all the attacks with one before moving on to the other. So, its a bit complicated, but you do have some flexibility.

Wait, what?

I thought you only had to go from highest to lowest but could switch weapons back and forth any way you wanted?

Hmm... You are correct.. it must go highest to lowest, that seems to be the priority. I misread it.


Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Will no one consider just putting the limit on damage of the primary attack as an alternative?
We did not consider making an adjustment like that to the current rules. No. That's out of the scope of a typical FAQ.

So, per RAW, nothing about 2WF ever modifies or dictates main-hand damage? Which also includes Double Weapons which are wielded in 2 hands and have specific text allowing the extra off-hand attack (at only 1/2 STR dmg).


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quandary wrote:
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Will no one consider just putting the limit on damage of the primary attack as an alternative?
We did not consider making an adjustment like that to the current rules. No. That's out of the scope of a typical FAQ.
So, per RAW, nothing about 2WF ever modifies or dictates main-hand damage? Which also includes Double Weapons which are wielded in 2 hands and have specific text allowing the extra off-hand attack (at only 1/2 STR dmg).

Uhm...nothing ever technically dictates the off-hand attacks damage either. The double weapon isn't treated as a one handed and light weapon for everything, they just incur penalties as though the character were fighting with a one handed and light weapon. By the rules it isn't out of the question to read that both ends deal two handed weapon damage although that clearly is not the intent.


Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

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.

I and other people have posted some other questions as well, which seem to have been lost in the attacks on motivations of posters or pointless strawmen arguments about gaining more iteratives than 2WF allows. I will try to search my posts and collect them to re-post in one place here, but they are all there in the thread(s).

One off the top of my head: Are you "using" (or 'dedicating') your off-hand (or primary) in order to count as "having a free hand"?
I think I saw previous rulings (perhaps not rising to the FAQ, but in the threads) that things like Dervish Dance or Duelist were compatable with using UAS as the off-hand in 2WF, but the implications people were drawing from the FAQ seemed to go against that.

That also makes me think: if it is your choice how to use main/off-hands when Full Attacking (which apparently is the sole domain of this ruling), what does it mean to attack with ONLY the off-hand? Or is that not a choice?

I will echo what Malachi wrote, that the FAQ relying on rules that aren't in the rules tends to throw into disarray a large array of different rules situations, because it isn't clear exactly what RAW is being over-ruled/modified or how.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Remember, when attacking with two weapons as part of a full attack action, you have to make all the attacks with one before moving on to the other. So, its a bit complicated, but you do have some flexibility.

OMG, WHAT????


Crash_00 wrote:
Uhm...nothing ever technically dictates the off-hand attacks damage either.

Off-hand attacks by definition deal "only" 1/2 STR damage, so that IS covered (and I read "only" to totally over-rule any other STR modifiers, e.g. from wielding 2H, so they don't multiply to equal x.75 STR). 2WF never discusses main-hand damage, and thus there is no "penalty" to apply, never mind that the wording specifies "attack penalties".


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Remember, when attacking with two weapons as part of a full attack action, you have to make all the attacks with one before moving on to the other. So, its a bit complicated, but you do have some flexibility.
OMG, WHAT????

Jason corrected himself.

Jason Bulmahn wrote:


Komoda wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Remember, when attacking with two weapons as part of a full attack action, you have to make all the attacks with one before moving on to the other. So, its a bit complicated, but you do have some flexibility.
Wait, what?

I thought you only had to go from highest to lowest but could switch weapons back and forth any way you wanted?

Hmm... You are correct.. it must go highest to lowest, that seems to be the priority. I misread it.


Crash_00 wrote:
Quandary wrote:
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Will no one consider just putting the limit on damage of the primary attack as an alternative?
We did not consider making an adjustment like that to the current rules. No. That's out of the scope of a typical FAQ.
So, per RAW, nothing about 2WF ever modifies or dictates main-hand damage? Which also includes Double Weapons which are wielded in 2 hands and have specific text allowing the extra off-hand attack (at only 1/2 STR dmg).

Uhm...nothing ever technically dictates the off-hand attacks damage either. The double weapon isn't treated as a one handed and light weapon for everything, they just incur penalties as though the character were fighting with a one handed and light weapon. By the rules it isn't out of the question to read that both ends deal two handed weapon damage although that clearly is not the intent.

Unless we get another FAQ or errata: Double weapons exceed the 1.5 Str limit at 1st level.

They deal 3x Str (as neither side is an actual light or one handed weapon just for TWFing hit penalties)

Silver Crusade

Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Komoda wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Remember, when attacking with two weapons as part of a full attack action, you have to make all the attacks with one before moving on to the other. So, its a bit complicated, but you do have some flexibility.

Wait, what?

I thought you only had to go from highest to lowest but could switch weapons back and forth any way you wanted?

Hmm... You are correct.. it must go highest to lowest, that seems to be the priority. I misread it.

The way we thought it works is this:-

Iterative attacks (those generated by a high BAB, including the original at full BAB) must be taken in order, highest to lowest.

The extra attack from ImpTWF is described as a second off hand attack, so it must take place sometime after the first off hand attack in that full attack sequence.

The extra attack from GreaterTWF is described as a third off hand attack, so must take place sometime after the second off hand attack.

Bonus attacks from things like haste are not restricted in terms of where in the order of attacks it is taken.

These two lists of attacks are not related, just so long as the iterative attacks go in order and the off hand attacks go in order, you can take them in any order that obeys those rules.

Silver Crusade

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

James,

This is an unfortunate corner of this ruling, and it requires a bit of parsing. When you attack with a two-handed weapon you are using up both your primary and off hand attack, but you are not actually making an off hand attack. So, at BAB +6 you can make both attacks with a two handed weapon because you are not making two off hand attacks.

Ugh.. these rules are giving me a headache. It is so terribly poorly put together. This is quickly rising to the top of the list of things I had cleaned up in Pathfinder.

Jason

I have to say that when the rules worked as I thought they did (see the peek into my mind earlier) then everything else fell into place with no problems whatsoever.


I have noted that of all Devs Mr Bulhmahn have the unusual ability to cool down the most heated threads.


Starbuck_II wrote:
Crash_00 wrote:
Quandary wrote:
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Will no one consider just putting the limit on damage of the primary attack as an alternative?
We did not consider making an adjustment like that to the current rules. No. That's out of the scope of a typical FAQ.
So, per RAW, nothing about 2WF ever modifies or dictates main-hand damage? Which also includes Double Weapons which are wielded in 2 hands and have specific text allowing the extra off-hand attack (at only 1/2 STR dmg).

Uhm...nothing ever technically dictates the off-hand attacks damage either. The double weapon isn't treated as a one handed and light weapon for everything, they just incur penalties as though the character were fighting with a one handed and light weapon. By the rules it isn't out of the question to read that both ends deal two handed weapon damage although that clearly is not the intent.

Unless we get another FAQ or errata: Double weapons exceed the 1.5 Str limit at 1st level.

They deal 3x Str (as neither side is an actual light or one handed weapon just for TWFing hit penalties)

I don't think Light or One-Handed has to do with it, as the Strength(page 16 of the CRB) states that Off-hand attacks only gain half of the user's strength bonus, but it also says that two-handed attacks use 1-1/2 of the user's strength bonus.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
I have to say that when the rules worked as I thought they did (see the peek into my mind earlier) then everything else fell into place with no problems whatsoever.

Which seems like a pretty good guideline for rules interpretation, if one interpretation means a bunch of other mechanics need separate clarification that's probably not the best interpretation. Of course, if it's truly urgent for balance you have to do what you have to do, but Paizo doesn't seem to be saying that.


Nicos wrote:
I have noted that of all Devs Mr Bulhmahn have the unusual ability to cool down the most heated threads.

He has a +3 Keyboard of Diplomacy.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Nicos wrote:
I have noted that of all Devs Mr Bulhmahn have the unusual ability to cool down the most heated threads.

I think that's why he's the boss (in the design team).

Or it could be that he likes Scotch. That's always a good way to calm people down.

On the slightly sideways direction the thread has taken with respect to TWF (and the extended feat tree): do people (particularly the developers) have a "preferred" order for resolving the attacks? I know that the rules are as Malachi described above, so someone with the whole tree could go (MH = Main Hand, OH = Off Hand) MH/OH/OH/OH/MH/MH/MH. My personal preference is strict alternating: MH/OH/MH/OH/MH/OH/MH, but I'm curious as to other people's general preference.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think it's that he's more of a straight talker than SKR is. And he gets flustered/irritated less easily.

As far as I can tell, while SKR's a great guy, he has a tendency to get annoyed if people don't see what he's saying right off the bat, or do see it and disagree.


CrystalSpellblade wrote:
Starbuck_II wrote:
Crash_00 wrote:
Quandary wrote:
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Will no one consider just putting the limit on damage of the primary attack as an alternative?
We did not consider making an adjustment like that to the current rules. No. That's out of the scope of a typical FAQ.
So, per RAW, nothing about 2WF ever modifies or dictates main-hand damage? Which also includes Double Weapons which are wielded in 2 hands and have specific text allowing the extra off-hand attack (at only 1/2 STR dmg).

Uhm...nothing ever technically dictates the off-hand attacks damage either. The double weapon isn't treated as a one handed and light weapon for everything, they just incur penalties as though the character were fighting with a one handed and light weapon. By the rules it isn't out of the question to read that both ends deal two handed weapon damage although that clearly is not the intent.

Unless we get another FAQ or errata: Double weapons exceed the 1.5 Str limit at 1st level.

They deal 3x Str (as neither side is an actual light or one handed weapon just for TWFing hit penalties)
I don't think Light or One-Handed has to do with it, as the Strength(page 16 of the CRB) states that Off-hand attacks only gain half of the user's strength bonus, but it also says that two-handed attacks use 1-1/2 of the user's strength bonus.

Well, the point I was making is that it's only treated as light and one handed for the purpose of penalties. That means that both attacks would be two handed (Primary and Off Hand). Neither one is a true off hand attack by a strict reading.

We all know the intent, but the RAW needs a little cleaning.


The extra attack from 2WF is explicitly an off-hand attack. The attack penalties are for: "Primary hand / Off-hand"
If you want to use a double weapon "as if fighting with two weapons" without making an off-hand attack,
you are just allocating your normal iteratives between different weapons, not gaining an extra attack.

Liberty's Edge

Kryzbyn wrote:
ciretose wrote:

Cool. I was wrong, good to know.

Thanks!

Kryzbyn! :)

What!? The logic was sound.

I'm glad I was wrong, though. Down that path went madness...

I agree. But when you said it, it made sense.

This is why we ask the dev :)

Liberty's Edge

Rynjin wrote:

I think it's that he's more of a straight talker than SKR is. And he gets flustered/irritated less easily.

As far as I can tell, while SKR's a great guy, he has a tendency to get annoyed if people don't see what he's saying right off the bat, or do see it and disagree.

Or people have actually been polite and asked nicely...


ciretose wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

I think it's that he's more of a straight talker than SKR is. And he gets flustered/irritated less easily.

As far as I can tell, while SKR's a great guy, he has a tendency to get annoyed if people don't see what he's saying right off the bat, or do see it and disagree.

Or people have actually been polite and asked nicely...

I'm speaking from a few of my experiences with SKR on rules questions. He has an opinion, and he holds very strongly to that opinion. If others disagree with it, or don't see how that opinion makes sense, he gets a bit irritated.

Not a knock on him, a lot of us do the same thing (me included), but when one person gets irritated he irritates other people, which leads to things from a few pages back.

Mr. Buhlman is very...soothing in comparison.

Paizo Employee Lead Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Folks,

Lets not focus on us Devs too much. We work as a team and our individual personalities come through at times. Things can get a bit heated on occasion and we have to try very hard at times to keep our cool.

Keep to the topic at hand please.

Jason


So we've established that using a two-handed weapon uses both Primary and Off-Hand attacks.

So let's take a 6th level fighter (+6/+1 BaB) with a Longsword, Two-Weapon Fighting and Improved Unarmed Strike.

Let's say that with his +6 attack bonus attack he decides to Two-weapon Fight, lashing out with an unarmed strike and then with his longsword.

So then he has his attacks at +1.

Could he then decide to two-hand his longsword? Would he still take the two-weapon fighting penalties?

If yes, why? He's not able to take another attack. Would he just lose the 2nd attack in order to get the +.5 str damage? Is he still paying for fighting with two weapons earlier in the round even though he isn't fighting that way anymore?

If no, why? He definitely was two-weapon fighting earlier. Seems like this would make it easier to hit with lower-bonus attacks.

Or is it just impossible to put your off-hand back on the weapon?

Paizo Employee Lead Designer

This is not official, but for the sake of sanity, it would best if you did not constantly change "state" during your attack action. The game always seems to get into a confusing mess when this is attempted.

That said.. I need to give it some thought, but my initial gut check is that you cannot switch back to using it two-handed for that +1 attack, since you have already "used" your off hand for an entirely different attack and do not have another to dedicate. There is some real strangeness floating around in here though that I need to think about a bit.

If you could do that.. you would certainly still take the TWF penalties, since those last for the rest of the round. Otherwise this would be a real big way to have your cake and eat it too.

Jason


Jason, thank you for your continued involvement in this (frustrating) issue.

I just have one question:

The Thunderstriker archetype appears to be built around using a 2-handed weapon and TWF shield bashing with a buckler at the same time.

Will it be getting a revision or an exception to the FAQ?

- Gauss


Jason Bulmahn wrote:

This is not official, but for the sake of sanity, it would best if you did not constantly change "state" during your attack action. The game always seems to get into a confusing mess when this is attempted.

That said.. I need to give it some thought, but my initial gut check is that you cannot switch back to using it two-handed for that +1 attack, since you have already "used" your off hand for an entirely different attack and do not have another to dedicate. There is some real strangeness floating around in here though that I need to think about a bit.

If you could do that.. you would certainly still take the TWF penalties, since those last for the rest of the round. Otherwise this would be a real big way to have your cake and eat it too.

Jason

Though not official, if something like this were to happen, wouldn't this mess with how two handed weapons work and force them to take two weapon fighting feat chain to gain more off-hand attacks to use with a two handed attack?


Quandary wrote:
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Will no one consider just putting the limit on damage of the primary attack as an alternative?
We did not consider making an adjustment like that to the current rules. No. That's out of the scope of a typical FAQ.
So, per RAW, nothing about 2WF ever modifies or dictates main-hand damage? Which also includes Double Weapons which are wielded in 2 hands and have specific text allowing the extra off-hand attack (at only 1/2 STR dmg).

Or perhaps to complete my thought there, changing Double Weapons to specify that is the exact same level of change as changing 2WF itself to state that. If that isn't really imposing something unique on Double Weapons, but just making them comform with the intended general rule, it makes sense to do that in the general rule to begin with. If that is done, then that is fulfilling the "unwritten guideline" behind this FAQ, making the latest FAQ (and all it's problematic/confusing tangential effects) un-needed...

Liberty's Edge

Gauss wrote:

Jason, thank you for your continued involvement in this (frustrating) issue.

I just have one question:

The Thunderstriker archetype appears to be built around using a 2-handed weapon and TWF shield bashing with a buckler at the same time.

Will it be getting a revision or an exception to the FAQ?

- Gauss

You can't normally shield bash with a buckler, but you could always two-weapon fight with one. This is a special feature of the buckler.

The additionally special ability you gain is the ability to also shield bash with the buckler, which you could never do.

So no issues, it is a special case.

By the misunderstanding, the class sucked and made no sense. With the clarification, it doesn't suck and makes sense.


Does anyone know where Grick went? He should be all over this, but he hasn't posted in far too long.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ciretose, what I understand regarding Thunderstriker:

A) You do not take a penalty when attacking with a 2handed weapon while a buckler is strapped to your arm and eventually keep some or all of the AC bonus while using 2handed weapons.

What do we take away from this? It is intended to combine 2handed weapons with effectively using a buckler.

B) You can shield bash with a buckler as if it were a light shield and eventually you get reduced/eliminated penalties for TWFing with it.

Hmmm, now they appear to have combined the concept of 2handed weapons with twf. (Note: not absolutely directly but the implication is certainly there.)

Summary: You combine two-handed fighting with gaining the benefits of a buckler while doing so and then you tack on rules for TWF with a buckler as if it were a light shield.

Inferior or not, this appears to be an archetype that cannot be used as intended due to the FAQ.

- Gauss

Liberty's Edge

Under bucklers it specifically says you can fight two-handed with them.

What you are describing is the primary benefit of the archetype. To not be limited by the factor described in the FAQ.

At least that is how I've always understood the Archetype to work.


Cheapy wrote:
Does anyone know where Grick went? He should be all over this, but he hasn't posted in far too long.

I've wondered the same.


Ciretose, I do not see any language in the Thunderstriker archetype that gives it an exception to the FAQ.

As it stands, before the FAQ the Thunderstriker appeared to be built to Two-Weapon Fight with a Two-handed weapon AND a Buckler.

Now, the FAQ has all but eliminated what the archetype appears to have been designed to do.

- Gauss


Hopefully they could clarify that...
Although the abilities would all work reasonably well if you used a Buckler and Bastard Sword/etc, sometimes 2Handing the Bastard Sword, sometime 1Handing it to 2WF (and you could also use the Bastard Sword 2H for some iteratives and Shield Bash with other normal iteratives, adjusting grip @ free action, without using 2WF at all). If that was the focus of the Archetype, it seems like it should grant Bastard Sword proficiency, if you're giving up other class abilities for something only useful with one weapon (+dwarven waraxe).

I think the question to ask is: was that Archetype designed with the thought in mind that you COULD freely 2WF with a 2H weapon (without the Archetype giving any exception)? If so, and there isn't any other material designed on the assumption that you can't, that seems like a valid factor to determine which approach to take on the FAQ itself. (not the only factor, but still a factor)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Jason Nelson wrote that archetype, if my memory holds. As a person who isn't on the design team, there's a good chance he didn't know about this rule either. See also the Sohei and their flurry.

Really, that's a good metric for how clear a rule is. If Jason Nelson or Russ Taylor doesn't know the rule, it's not as clear as it could be.


Jason Bulmahn wrote:

James,

Ugh.. these rules are giving me a headache. It is so terribly poorly put together. This is quickly rising to the top of the list of things I had cleaned up in Pathfinder.

Jason

Jason,

First thanks for the answer to mine and a lot of other questions.

Second I think that this mess really is a nice place to have the dev team's full touch and look forward to what comes from it.

Lastly, on the order for TWF and 'descending order' for BAB.. I've often wondered if there was a real reason for this rule, if the reason is now outdated, and if it's even known at this point. I would think that letting someone take one weapon's iteratives before the other weapon's top attack would invalidate most of what I see as the potential mechanical reasons for it. Regardless, it seemed like a thing to question as rules shouldn't exist just because they 'always' have.

Best of luck with all of this, and thank you again,

James


Gauss wrote:

Ciretose, I do not see any language in the Thunderstriker archetype that gives it an exception to the FAQ.

As it stands, before the FAQ the Thunderstriker appeared to be built to Two-Weapon Fight with a Two-handed weapon AND a Buckler.

Now, the FAQ has all but eliminated what the archetype appears to have been designed to do.

- Gauss

I already went around with him on this question. He told me "look up how buckler's work".

He's either missed the point of the question or is being deliberately obtuse. I decided not to give myself a headache trying to break down the question into language he understands and just wait for a Dev comment instead.


3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cheapy wrote:
Jason Nelson wrote that archetype, if my memory holds. As a person who isn't on the design team, there's a good chance he didn't know about this rule either. See also the Sohei and their flurry.

Actually, I figured out the wiggle room that allows Sohei to flurry even while wearing armor. The prohibition against flurrying in armor isn't actually located in the Flurry of Blows ability; it's in the normal monk Weapons and Armor proficiencies. But Sohei replaces Weapon and Armor proficiency ability wholesale and the new version doesn't include the limitation. Thus, a Sohei is free to flurry in armor, though they still lose Monk AC bonus since that's repeated under the Monk AC bonus ability.


I was referring to the ability for them to flurry with any weapon, which was against what the rules were intended to say.

But about that, Jason has said he didn't intend that. It's just waiting to get into the official FAQ, or something.


fretgod99 wrote:
You can still fight with a polearm and attack with armor spikes. That's what iteratives are for. You just can't do it while you're TWF.

He twirled around his naginata in a lethal arc, and then chest-bumped the enemy.


This reminds me of some of the creative TW fighting in Dark Souls. For that you just need a really high strength. Examples: long hammer and halberd, greatsword one handed (so slow) and spiked cestus, rapier and spear.
The system we have here, it gets very picky. I much prefer longsword and armour spikes, less two hander cheese twf with something else.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
james maissen wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

James,

Ugh.. these rules are giving me a headache. It is so terribly poorly put together. This is quickly rising to the top of the list of things I had cleaned up in Pathfinder.

Jason

Jason,

First thanks for the answer to mine and a lot of other questions.

Second I think that this mess really is a nice place to have the dev team's full touch and look forward to what comes from it.

Lastly, on the order for TWF and 'descending order' for BAB.. I've often wondered if there was a real reason for this rule, if the reason is now outdated, and if it's even known at this point. I would think that letting someone take one weapon's iteratives before the other weapon's top attack would invalidate most of what I see as the potential mechanical reasons for it. Regardless, it seemed like a thing to question as rules shouldn't exist just because they 'always' have.

Best of luck with all of this, and thank you again,

James

I believe the reason for this rule is not about this rule, but about other parts of the game that this balances. For instance True Strike is the one that jumps out right away.

True Strike- You gain temporary, intuitive insight into the immediate future during your next attack. Your next single attack roll (if it is made before the end of the next round) gains a +20 insight bonus. Additionally, you are not affected by the miss chance that applies to attackers trying to strike a concealed target.

If you could choose the order in which the attacks happened you should choose your worst first since it would then get a +20 to the attack roll.

On the other hand; that would make true strike significantly more useful.

1,151 to 1,200 of 1,428 << first < prev | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Two Handed Weapon and Armor Spikes Resolved by the Design Team? All Messageboards