| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
I share these opinions.
Honestly, it always seemed clear to ME that it was entirely possible to two-hand one weapon and use TWF for that and a "handless" weapon, because I took the main- and off-hand attack language to basically mean primary and secondary attack, which doesn't cause any of the problems this FAQ ruling has.
The problem is that does cause problems, balance problems. However as a house-ruling a DM might say "Ok, but you choose STR and a half on main hand, or STR on main and half STR on off-hand," and then only because of the extra penalties involved.
Edit- That's only straight up, doesn't even think about "what happens when power attack gets involved." So on 2nd examination, the ruling for 2H plus no hand weapon does require clarification for other rules... unseen consequences perhaps... but sometimes things clear to one person might not be to another due to the differences in thinking processes.
Nope.
Just follow 3.5 rules (which before FAQ were PF rules):Main hand gets 1.5 Str, other weapon gets 0.5 Str.
No problems erupted all throughout 3.5 over this.
Still have -2 hit to both with TWFing feat.
Power attack works as written Main hand is two handed so x3 the penalty, of hand is x2 penalty (just read the feat: in 3.5, Power Attack gave no bonus damage to other weapon sadly).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.I share these opinions.
Honestly, it always seemed clear to ME that it was entirely possible to two-hand one weapon and use TWF for that and a "handless" weapon, because I took the main- and off-hand attack language to basically mean primary and secondary attack, which doesn't cause any of the problems this FAQ ruling has.
The problem is that does cause problems, balance problems. However as a house-ruling a DM might say "Ok, but you choose STR and a half on main hand, or STR on main and half STR on off-hand," and then only because of the extra penalties involved.
Edit- That's only straight up, doesn't even think about "what happens when power attack gets involved." So on 2nd examination, the ruling for 2H plus no hand weapon does require clarification for other rules... unseen consequences perhaps... but sometimes things clear to one person might not be to another due to the differences in thinking processes.
Except that it DOESN'T cause balance problems. There are so many ways in the game to get more attacks, and more than 1.5x Str in round before level 6, that this CANNOT possibly be viewed as a balance issue unless you also want to start going to change natural attacks and Flurry of Blows, and all sorts of class features, racial traits, feats and magic items to dial everything back a few notches.
Level 1 monk gets 2d6+2x Str in the round.
Several races can add a bit attack to that for another 1/2 Str +1d4 or 1d6.
A half-orc could use the greatsword and a bite for 2d6+1d4+2x Str.
A level 2 barbarian can take Lesser Beast Totem for 2d6+2x Str.
Several races can add a bit attack to that for another 1d4 or 1d6 +Str (not 1/2, because all are primary natural weapon attacks). And this version doesn't even have a penalty on any of their attacks.
A level 1 Synthesist Summoner can have 2d6+1d4+3x Str.
Then there are things like Dragon Style, Cleave, several archetype abilities... Balance is clearly NOT a problem for TWF a 2-handed attack + armor spikes.
The point about it being clear to me (us:Quandary, Malachi, et al) is that, in allowing the tactic, everything else works the way you would expect it to. There's no worrying about whether you may combine unarmed strikes with 2-handd weapons, no wondering what happens to your shield bonus to AC if you make two attacks, but don't use your shield arm for either of them, etc... By ruling the other way, doubt is cast upon a fair number of OTHER combat actions and scenarios.
The 1.5x Str "cap" establishes the baseline expectation. All of the examples you gave are class features, racial abilities, or feats, all of which are "special". I have no problem with someone who has a "special" ability breaking a baseline rule. To use a greatsword and armour spikes to get 2x Str at 1st level requires nothing (except a bit of gold). Anyone and everyone can do it. They might suck great sweaty ones if they don't invest in TWF, but if it is allowed then they can exceed the baseline expectation for Str damage bonus without needing any of the "special" abilities that let some specific races and classes (and people who choose to invest in specific feats) break the cap.
That's where the problem lies, I believe.
So if, in your own words, it "sucks great sweaty ones", why is it an issue that it can be done without a Feat or special ability?
So if, in your own words, it "sucks great sweaty ones", why is it an issue that it can be done without a Feat or special ability?
Simply put: the law of unintended consequences.
The developers know that they want the baseline to be 1.5x Str. That's why it's the maximum described for THF, TWF, double-weapons, and anywhere else the rules cover how much Str bonus you can achieve without some specific ability. The minute you allow that maximum to be exceeded by something as mundane as a weapon combination that appears in the core rules, the door opens on some future special ability exceeding its own intended design limits by synergistically combining in an unexpected way that you can bet the optimisers will spot. By making sure that you simply don't let it happen, you simplify things for future development.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The result of it breaking the rules does not matter, the fact that it breaks the rules is the key point.
What rule does it break?
Oh, wait! The unwritten rule of a 'hard cap'. Which 'clearly shows' that you can't get more than 1.5 x Str...except in all the cases when you can...
Don't have a hand available? I use two hands on my greatsword to take my iterative attacks at +11, +6 and +1. I then let go with one hand (free action) and use my spiked gauntlet to take my three off-hand attacks from TWF, ImpTWF and GreTWF.
My real, actual hands are available when they need to be. I'm entitled to all six attacks by way of my high BAB and investing in the three feats and high Dex.
If 'off hand' means 'extra attacks', I have them. If 'off hand' means 'actual, real hands' then my real hands are available to do what they need to do, all within the action economy.
The 1.5x Str "cap" establishes the baseline expectation. All of the examples you gave are class features, racial abilities, or feats, all of which are "special". I have no problem with someone who has a "special" ability breaking a baseline rule. To use a greatsword and armour spikes to get 2x Str at 1st level requires nothing (except a bit of gold). Anyone and everyone can do it. They might suck great sweaty ones if they don't invest in TWF, but if it is allowed then they can exceed the baseline expectation for Str damage bonus without needing any of the "special" abilities that let some specific races and classes (and people who choose to invest in specific feats) break the cap.
That's where the problem lies, I believe.
Uh...if there are so many exceptions, many of which are rather easy to obtain, and some of which are clearly stronger than the combination, then it really is not a balance issue. And it doesn't just require a bit of gold--doing it at such significant penalties as you would without TWF is kind of irrelevant, since almost no one would bother except in a few specific circumstances, and they would be awful at it.
And looking to your next comment...the monk's ability to exceed this cap is in the CRB and requires no decision on the player's part whatsoever after their choosing to play a monk with Flurry of Blows.
As for Power Attack, all of the versions of exceeding the Str "cap" also tie or beat the two-hander+spikes combo as well. Flurry gets +2/+2 from PA, the guy with a two-hander and a bite gets +3/+?? (I don't recall how Power Attack works for secondary natural attacks), and the guy with 3 primary natural attacks gets +2/+2/+2.
Yes, there are. The Light, One Handed, and Two Handed Melee Weapon rules are definitely in the book. You discover in them that characters have a primary hand and an off hand and that two handed weapons require both. The buckler clarifies that two handed weapons require the Off Hand. Off Hand attacks require the off hand.
The only way to THTWF is to ignore that your off hand is in both places at once, which is common sense.
The only two issues someone could possibly have is not knowing that armor spikes require the off hand to wield. However, if they didn't know this, then they should never have been giving the armor spikes a strength damage bonus anyway:
"a light weapon if it’s used in the primary hand, or half the wielder’s Strength bonus if it’s used in the off hand."There is no place where it lists damage for a non-handed off hand attack. It's either in the hand or not. Every indication is given that your Primary Hand and Off Hand are not physical hands, but are used for attacks during each iteration.
Just because you don't want it to be there doesn't make it not there. Refusing to draw these lines does not make it not there either. There is no reason for Primary Hand and Off Hand to exist if you can use them both as many times as you want.
The developers have mentioned that they acknowledge that the confusion stems from the section on two-handed fighting not mentioning handedness at all--not the main-, nor the off-hand. So, no, it isn't in the book.
The 1.5x Str "cap" establishes the baseline expectation. All of the examples you gave are class features, racial abilities, or feats, all of which are "special". I have no problem with someone who has a "special" ability breaking a baseline rule. To use a greatsword and armour spikes to get 2x Str at 1st level requires nothing (except a bit of gold). Anyone and everyone can do it. They might suck great sweaty ones if they don't invest in TWF, but if it is allowed then they can exceed the baseline expectation for Str damage bonus without needing any of the "special" abilities that let some specific races and classes (and people who choose to invest in specific feats) break the cap.
That's where the problem lies, I believe.
Uh...if there are so many exceptions, many of which are rather easy to obtain, and some of which are clearly stronger than the combination, then it really is not a balance issue. And it doesn't just require a bit of gold--doing it at such significant penalties as you would without TWF is kind of irrelevant, since almost no one would bother except in a few specific circumstances, and they would be awful at it.
And looking to your next comment...the monk's ability to exceed this cap is in the CRB and requires no decision on the player's part whatsoever after their choosing to play a monk with Flurry of Blows.
As for Power Attack, all of the versions of exceeding the Str "cap" also tie or beat the two-hander+spikes combo as well. Flurry gets +2/+2 from PA, the guy with a two-hander and a bite gets +3/+?? (I don't recall how Power Attack works for secondary natural attacks), and the guy with 3 primary natural attacks gets +2/+2/+2.
It almost feels as though you're wilfully avoiding the point I'm trying to make. Power attack isn't relevant (it's not a Str bonus to damage). Monk flurry isn't relevant (it is a specifically called out class ability which was obviously designed to "break" the "cap"). And since none of the core rules races have 3 primary natural attacks, that point is utterly irrelevant too.
So, let me try another tack. Find me a combination of melee weapons from the core rules (not including a two-handed weapon) that when used to two-weapon fight (by any and all characters that select them, regardless of class, feats, or race) grant a Str bonus to damage at 1st level in excess of 1.5x. After that, find me a combination of melee weapons from the core rules (not including two-handed weapons) that when used to two-weapon fight (by any and all characters that select them, regardless of class, feats or race) grant a Str bonus to damage of less than 1.5x.
Now tell me what you think the expected maximum Str bonus to damage at 1st level for any and all characters should be (specific class, racial or feat abilities may be ignored - I'm looking for the general rule that applies to all characters not being granted an exception by a special ability).
Now explain to me, not in terms of exceptions or verisimilitude, but in terms of expectations based solely upon the previous answers, why someone wielding a two-handed weapon and TWFing with armour spikes should get 2x Str bonus to damage.
The only place that mentions that two-handing involves the off-hand is the description of the Buckler. Which is a terrible place for that rule to be, even if it weren't worded in a way that's at least modestly ambiguous, easily mistaken as referring only to the fact that bucklers don't prevent you from using that physical hand for items and weapons.
If two-handing a weapon takes up the off-hand, and not just two physical hands, it really needs to be printed under a general description of two-handed weapons, or in the Combat chapter line about Strength bonus when wielding a weapon two-handed.
Fair point, Revan. Perhaps it needs "a character using a two-handed weapon may not make off-hand attacks" adding to the two-handed weapon description.
Fair point, Revan. Perhaps it needs "a character using a two-handed weapon may not make off-hand attacks" adding to the two-handed weapon description.
It does, if that's how the team wants to rule it. And the FAQ should have appeared under Combat with basically this answer.
It almost feels as though you're wilfully avoiding the point I'm trying to make. Power attack isn't relevant (it's not a Str bonus to damage). Monk flurry isn't relevant (it is a specifically called out class ability which was obviously designed to "break" the "cap"). And since none of the core...The 1.5x Str "cap" establishes the baseline expectation. All of the examples you gave are class features, racial abilities, or feats, all of which are "special". I have no problem with someone who has a "special" ability breaking a baseline rule. To use a greatsword and armour spikes to get 2x Str at 1st level requires nothing (except a bit of gold). Anyone and everyone can do it. They might suck great sweaty ones if they don't invest in TWF, but if it is allowed then they can exceed the baseline expectation for Str damage bonus without needing any of the "special" abilities that let some specific races and classes (and people who choose to invest in specific feats) break the cap.
That's where the problem lies, I believe.
Uh...if there are so many exceptions, many of which are rather easy to obtain, and some of which are clearly stronger than the combination, then it really is not a balance issue. And it doesn't just require a bit of gold--doing it at such significant penalties as you would without TWF is kind of irrelevant, since almost no one would bother except in a few specific circumstances, and they would be awful at it.
And looking to your next comment...the monk's ability to exceed this cap is in the CRB and requires no decision on the player's part whatsoever after their choosing to play a monk with Flurry of Blows.
As for Power Attack, all of the versions of exceeding the Str "cap" also tie or beat the two-hander+spikes combo as well. Flurry gets +2/+2 from PA, the guy with a two-hander and a bite gets +3/+?? (I don't recall how Power Attack works for secondary natural attacks), and the guy with 3 primary natural attacks gets +2/+2/+2.
I think where we differ is that you feel that there MUST be a rule governing a "cap" on this (even though there is none), while I feel that the rules that govern (in the book) what you can and cannot do with weapons and attack sequences cover that adequately. No restriction need be put in place, because the game already covers the usage of these things. We know what bonuses and penalties are attached to fighting with one weapon in one hand, one weapon in two hands, weapons wielded as an "off-hand" attack, and how TWF functions. It's the same reason that SKR's early replies asking whether someone TWFing with two shortswords should be able to make a kick was viewed as irrelevant at best and a strawman at worst: because the book already governs how that would (or wouldn't) work.
And dismissing all of the ways to break this mystical, unwritten "cap" does nothing to support a point. There are some things in the game that are clearly marked as being a general rule, and the things that are exceptions to that often call out their exceptional status. Since there is nothing written on the subject ANYWHERE specifically, nor any mention of an exception, it's irrelevant to anyone reading the books without coming on these boards and sifting through developer responses across a multitude of pages/threads.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can't use the off hand twice.
Where is this rule?
There is no such rule!
If that were true, then you couldn't use a 2HW for both your attacks at +6 and +1, because you 'already used your off hand'. This is clearly not in the rules.
If you have two attacks because your BAB is +6, and this does allow you to use your off hand twice, then if you have two attacks because of TWF then you can also use your off hand twice.
And there is nothing in the rules which says you can't. The rules you keep pointing to re: the definitions of light, one-handed and two-handed, do not prevent you from doing anything with your hands before or after the attack, only that you need that many hands to execute an attack.
...
I actually think that the point where we differ is that I think that anything that breaks a general rule has to clearly say so (such as the Monk's flurry, in this case), and that if no specific exception is listed, then the existing rules (which all point towards 1.5x Str bonus to damage, in this case) should be used to judge whether an apparent option is intended or not. That is the entirety of my point. If one of my players comes up to me and says "I've found this combination of mundane equipment that lets my 1st level human commoner make seven attacks per round, all at 1.5x Str bonus to damage" I'm going to think there's something wrong. If another player says "I've found this combination of mundane equipment that lets my 1st level commoner make two attacks per round and the combined Str bonus to damage is 2x" I will look at it askance. It's less of a problem than the hyperbolic first example, but the simple fact of the matter is that it exceeds the "normal" 1.5x Str, so I have to wonder if the devs intended to allow it or not. And I (in the past) have to make a judgement call on whether I think it was supposed to work that way. If the exception isn't clearly laid out, I'd say "no". Sometimes I might say "we'll try it and review it later". Now, though, we have a clear statement of intent, so I'm more likely to say no.
|
|
The attacks are occurring at the same time. You have to choose where your hand is.
Quite the opposite, in fact.
If you have more than one attack (for any reason) in a full attack, you completely resolve each attack individually before moving on to the next. If you attack two-handed, then let go with one hand, that hand is now free to do anything it can normally do, including use a weapon to take the attacks to which you are entitled.
TWF doesn't link attacks in 'iterative pairs'. You made that up! In fact, Jason himself yesterday (erroneously) believed that you had to take all of your iterative attacks in order, followed by all of your off hand attacks in order. How is that view compatible with 'pairs' of attacks?
This whole situation reminds me of an interview with John Cleese in which he said that the Monty Python fans knew the Parrot Sketch better than he did!
Lead Designer
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its true, that TWF does not link attacks in pairs, but what we are saying is that a two-handed weapon does, in one important respect. The rules for two-handed weapons state that they use up two hands (CRB 141). While this does not say it is your primary and off hand, those are the one two hands you have during an attack (and the descriptions of a light and one handed weapons in the preceding paragraphs do speak to that language). So, when you attack with a THW, you are using both your primary and off hand to make the attack. You cannot then swap into two weapon fighting and use the off hand (or your primary for that matter, since the THW rules do not state which hand you are using at all, because you are using both) to make additional attacks. So.. as things currently stand. When you attack with a THW, you "consume" a primary and off hand attack for each attack you make. You can "consume" more off hand attacks than you are normally entitled too when attacking in this way, but if you swap to do some TWF in the same round, those off hand attacks are gone and cannot be used.
Its an odd corner case, and one that I am not very satisfied with from a rules elegance perspective, but to be honest, I think this is a pretty tight corner that does not see that much use.
Hope that helps. We are continuing to contemplate this issue, but as of the current moment, this is the official ruling (for what that's worth, which in your home game, is totally up to GM call).
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Jason Bulmahn, are you considering the Thunderstriker archetype problem as it relates to the FAQ or should we just make a new FAQ request for the Thunderstriker archetype?
- Gauss
|
Lead Designer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Jason Bulmahn, are you considering the Thunderstriker archetype problem as it relates to the FAQ or should we just make a new FAQ request for the Thunderstriker archetype?
- Gauss
Hmm.. I am not sure that the problem is all that severe. This ruling changes some usage but all of the abilities still function. It seems to me that this archetype (iirc) was always intended to be using a one handed weapon, swapping between using it one and two-handed, as noted in the description.
Am I missing something?
Jason
It seems to me that this archetype (iirc) was always intended to be using a one handed weapon, swapping between using it one and two-handed, as noted in the description.Am I missing something?
Jason
I don't think that was the intent at all. While I suually don't condone using fluff to prove rules, I think it serves as a good barometer of intent here.
"The thunderstriker adopts an unusual fighting style, gripping a [b]heavy weapon with both hands[b] and switching to a defensive posture with weapon and buckler, lashing out with the shield with surprising speed and power."
It specifically calls out a "heavy weapon" gripped in both hands, not just a weapon (like a longsword would likely be referred to).
Edit: Also, everything Gauss said below in reference to the abilities.
Jason Bulmahn, the archetype appears to be designed around using a 2-handed weapon while shield bashing with a buckler.
Ability 1) No penalty to attack rolls while using a two-handed weapon and a buckler.
Ability 2) Shield Bash with a buckler as if a light shield
Ability 3) Enhancement bonus to shield bashing with a buckler
Ability 4) Reduction of TWF penalties when shield bashing with a buckler.
Ability 5) Retains some of the Buckler's AC bonus while using a weapon in both hands or an off-hand weapon.
Ability 6) Elimination of TWF penalties when shield bashing with a buckler.
Ability 7) Retains complete Buckler AC bonus while using a 2-handed weapon.
Abilities 1, 5, and 7 cover the use of a Buckler while wielding a Two-Handed weapon.
Abilities 2, 4, and 6 all cover using a buckler to TWF.
So, the conclusion from all of that is that this archetype appears to be written to enable a person to wield a two-handed weapon while two-weapon fighting with a buckler as the off-hand weapon. However, the FAQ basically makes it so this archetype cannot be used as written.
- Gauss
Gauss the Thunderstrikers Strapped Shield ability does not say "using a two-handed weapon". It says, "At 3rd level, a thunderstriker takes no penalty on attack rolls when using a weapon in two hands while wearing a buckler."
Crash, so what you are saying is, half of the abilities are pointless? Either the 2-handed abilities or the shield bashing abilities?
- Gauss
Well, it wouldn't be the first time a class or archetype was released that was utterly pointless.
It's still not as pointless as Totem Warrior, I guess.
Still, I don't think that was the intent.
Crash, it isn't that versatile. You're switching between two melee styles. The only reason I can think to do that is when you're facing something with DR and need to hit heavier to make a difference. When you're using two-weapon fighting you won't be doing any more damage than you would when two-handing.
It's actually non-versatility disguised as versatility because you have higher feat requirements to make both your fighting styles work. Both do functionally the same thing, but neither is anywhere close to optimal.
The thing I don't get is why anyone would ever want to sink feats into both styles and switch back and forth between them without synergy.
I get that the archetype creates a small amount of synergy regarding the buckler itself, but the current ruling doesn't allow the two fighting styles to blend at all.
So the fighter is dumping a large number of feats to be able to switch back and forth between two styles, neither of which is terribly optimal because of feats invested in the other style.
It's the same reason you don't see many fighters who take archery feats and melee feats. An unfortunate fact of the game is that your character will be far more effective if they hyper-specialize.
If the styles were usable together, then the archetype would be quite good. Without that, this is one of those archetypes that is a neat, stylish idea that completely fails mechanically.
It always irks me when you have to give up functionality for style.
The Thunderstriker didn't grant a special ability to combine TWF and 2HF because the writer believed that everyone could do this anyway! That it wasn't a special ability at all!
It does not appear so, Malachi. The words "two-handed weapon" do not appear in the archetype anywhere at all. Not even in the fluff.
It only uses the words "using a weapon in two hands", and " when fighting two-handed". The first quote is from the Strapped Shield ability (gained at 3rd) and the second is from the Improved Buckler Defense ability (gained at 19th).
|
|
Its true, that TWF does not link attacks in pairs, but what we are saying is that a two-handed weapon does, in one important respect. The rules for two-handed weapons state that they use up two hands (CRB 141). While this does not say it is your primary and off hand, those are the one two hands you have during an attack (and the descriptions of a light and one handed weapons in the preceding paragraphs do speak to that language). So, when you attack with a THW, you are using both your primary and off hand to make the attack. You cannot then swap into two weapon fighting and use the off hand (or your primary for that matter, since the THW rules do not state which hand you are using at all, because you are using both) to make additional attacks. So.. as things currently stand. When you attack with a THW, you "consume" a primary and off hand attack for each attack you make. You can "consume" more off hand attacks than you are normally entitled too when attacking in this way, but if you swap to do some TWF in the same round, those off hand attacks are gone and cannot be used.
Its an odd corner case, and one that I am not very satisfied with from a rules elegance perspective, but to be honest, I think this is a pretty tight corner that does not see that much use.
Hope that helps. We are continuing to contemplate this issue, but as of the current moment, this is the official ruling (for what that's worth, which in your home game, is totally up to GM call).
Thanks for the further peek inside your mind.
I have a question, though. Do you think that '2HW consume two attacks, primary and off hand, even when you're not Two-Weapon Fighting' is 'obvious' to someone reading the book? Was it 'obvious' for the last decade, bearing in mind these parts of the rules didn't change from 3.5?
Mr Bulmahn Would this be considere for an errata? cause outsie the FAQ and the dev team explanation in this forum it is imposible to tell that the THF also use the "off-hand" (since that last term only appears in the TWF section).
Reply, you might want to read the rulebooks a little bit closer.
Post with references to "off hand" not in TWF
In one of those cases, the Buckler Gun is always an off hand weapon, and in another the weapon can only be strapped to the forearm of the off hand, and in a third a rose is carried in the off hand.
You can't use the off hand twice.Where is this rule?
There is no such rule!
If that were true, then you couldn't use a 2HW for both your attacks at +6 and +1, because you 'already used your off hand'. This is clearly not in the rules.
If you have two attacks because your BAB is +6, and this does allow you to use your off hand twice, then if you have two attacks because of TWF then you can also use your off hand twice.
And there is nothing in the rules which says you can't. The rules you keep pointing to re: the definitions of light, one-handed and two-handed, do not prevent you from doing anything with your hands before or after the attack, only that you need that many hands to execute an attack.
Thanks to this ruling my next character will use the following attack sequence.
Two handed sword (Primary)
Barbazu Beard (off hand)
Armor Spikes (off hand)
Unarmed attack (off hand, kick right leg)
Unarmed attack (off hand, kick left leg)
release left hand (free action)
Cestus left hand (off hand)
Tekko-Kagi (off hand)
regrasp left hand (free action)
release right hand (free action)
Cestus right hand (off hand)
regrasp right hand (off hand)