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


Rules Questions

1,251 to 1,300 of 1,428 << first < prev | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | next > last >>

Vod Canockers wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Crash_00 wrote:
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)

You are still limited to 1 off hand attack with Twfing.

Are you level 20? Then sure, it is silly to waste your BAB attacks like that though, but you can.


Hey Vod, this thread actually became productive recently, if you didn't notice.
Paizo's Design Team has recognized the value of clarifying issues around this FAQ.
Can you NOT make strawmen arguments about gaining more iterative attacks than granted by BAB/2WF?

Quote:
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.

Sounds like Errata material to me, just like what happened with Shield Bashes...


Quandary wrote:

Hey Vod, this thread actually became productive recently, if you didn't notice.

Paizo's Design Team has recognized the value of clarifying issues around this FAQ.
Can you NOT make strawmen arguments about gaining more iterative attacks than granted by BAB/2WF?

Can the other posters stop posting blatantly false statements, like "off hand" only appears in TWF? As for my "strawman," Malachi said there was no limit on using of the off hand, so I showed how silly that statement is. There is a limit, you can use it once without iterative attacks or a rule that lists an exception.

Quote:
Quote:
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.
Sounds like Errata material to me, just like what happened with Shield Bashes...

Why would any of that be errata material? If they are going to change terminology for a future printing, they can change it there, but errata is a bad idea. One game system had multiple rulebooks of just errata, 64 page rulebooks.


Yes, it does not need an errata cause the thing is so obvious from the book that even jason Blumahn state that the issue was not clear enough.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vod Canockers wrote:


Thanks to this ruling my next character will use the following attack sequence.

Attack 1 Two handed sword (Primary) BaB +20 (haste)

Attack 2 Barbazu Beard (off hand) BaB +20

Attack 3 Armor Spikes (off hand) BaB +20

Attack 4 Unarmed attack (off hand, kick right leg) BaB +15

Attack 5 Unarmed attack (off hand, kick left leg) BaB +15

release left hand (free action)

Attack 6 Cestus left hand (off hand) BaB +10

Attack 7 Tekko-Kagi (off hand) BaB +10

regrasp left hand (free action) BaB +5

release right hand (free action)

Attack 8 Cestus right hand (off hand) BaB +5

regrasp right hand (off hand)

Completely doable assuming 20th level, haste and the full two weapon fighting tree. Kind of a waste of an attack sequence though.

Silver Crusade

Weslocke wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
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).

The FAQ isn't about two-handed weapons per se, but about using a weapon two-handed. Unless you think the FAQ allows me to use a longsword two-handed and TWF with armour spikes.

Quote:
The thunderstriker adopts an unusual fighting style, gripping a heavy weapon with both hands and switching to a defensive posture with weapon and buckler.

So, yeah, the writer believed that doing this was not a special ability. If he had, he would have granted it to make his archetype work as intended.

Silver Crusade

Vod Canockers wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Crash_00 wrote:
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)

How are you getting all those attacks?

No matter how many weapons you could use, you can only take the number of attacks to which you're entitled by a high BAB and/or feats/special abilities.

First, you work out how many attacks you get (for example, four from BAB +16, three from the TWF feat tree), then designate an off hand weapon to take all of those off hand attacks, then take the other attacks with any combination of weapons (apart from the designated off hand weapon) you can get in the correct number of hands at the moment of that attack.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:


Quote:
The thunderstriker adopts an unusual fighting style, gripping a heavy weapon with both hands and switching to a defensive posture with weapon and buckler.

If the archetype really is about switching between styles rather than combining them, it makes me wonder how two-weapon fighting with a one-handed weapon and a buckler is considered "defensive".

Maybe the Archetype presupposes that the Thunderstriker will take Two-Weapon Defense?


"Heavy" could just as easily mean bastard sword or dwarven axe, Malachi.

Jason Buhlman even said that it appeared as if the archetype was intended to use one-handed weapons. I am not going to argue about it though. You are most certainly entitled to your opinion.


Weslocke wrote:


Jason Buhlman even said that it appeared as if the archetype was intended to use one-handed weapons.

Except that it specifically mentions using the weapon in two hands.


Actually it mentions "when using a weapon in two hands" in the Strapped Shield ability (gained at 3rd) and "when fighting two-handed" in the Improved Buckler Defense ability (gained at 19th). Nowhere in the archetype do the words "two-handed weapon" appear.

It is also worth noting that it mentions using a "weapon in both hands or in each hand" in the Buckler Defense ability (gained at 15th).

Leaving us with just our opinions and the opinion of a Developer.


The opinion of the Dev was that he wasn't sure, if you'll recall.

So at this point it's just our opinions.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Well, if attacking with a Two handed weapon eats up one off-hand attack, then a PC with the Improved Two Weapon Fighting feat should still be able to get his extra attack with an off-hand weapon.

So, giving up the first off hand attack to use it as part of the attack with the two handed weapon, then making the extra off hand attack, provided by the feat, with say, Armor Spikes or an Unarmed Strike.

This would go within this "primary and off-hand" used reasoning with why the combination is unavailable.


Quote:
Quote:
You can't use the off hand twice.
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'.

Jason wrote that switching of 'modes' within a full attack overly complicates things, and it certainly does and shouldn't be PROMOTED per se, but I don't see why the rules actually prevent regripping the mainhand (from 1H to 2H) to make a final iterative for which you don't want to (or can't) make a corresponding off-hand attack. Of course, doing that is not trivially compatable with many 2WF weapon set-ups, usually requiring sub-optimal UAS as the off-hand in order to easily switch grips, so anybody who wants to do that is going out of their way to do so and dealing with the trade-offs.

Unless Paizo is ruling that if your first iteratives use 2WF, then the final iteratives will also be considered to be 'main-hand' attacks* and suffer the appropriate 2WF penalties even if you don't have or aren't using the higher tier 2WF feats. In other words, if you would need to take ALL the 2WF Feats simply to avoid being penalized on your later iterative attacks... Even though 2WF does not apply an attack penalty to all attacks across the board (or even within the full attack action), but only to the main- and off-hand attacks which explicitly comprise a pair of 2wf attacks.

* Or if it is being 2H-wielded with the 'main hand' AND 'off hand' per Paizo's current reading, would it not count equally as main- and off-hand and thus suffer the worse attack penalties of those (which really sucks if that weapon is not a light weapon)?

Liberty's Edge

Is there a reason this thread isn't locked yet?


Jason Bulmahn wrote:

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

He stated his opinion.

He then asked if he had missed something.

No one replied.

That leaves us with our opinions and the opinion of a developer.

Now I would love to hang out and debate this all night, but I have some encounters to plan for my Kingmaker game as well as a map to work on with a rookie GM who is starting his first campaign this Saturday.

Have a great night everyone!

-Weslocke of Phazdaliom-


I believe people replied quoting the explicit reference to "heavy weapons", which Jason had not acknowledged/addressed.
That term is plausibly "compatable" with Bastard Swords/etc, but as I already mentioned, it would be very strange to use an open ended reference like that when the intent is for only a very small specific sub-set of "heavy weapons", and those specific weapons are no-where mentioned in the archetype.
Using the term "heavy weapons" for "1 handed weapons" i.e. normal weapons, and maybe a few 2H weapons usable as "1 handed weapons" i.e. normal weapons doesn't seem to have much justification... I don't see a reason to mention "heavy weapons" if that were the intent. Obviously the intent is easily resolvable by asking the author.

Given that Paizo continues to solicit feedback they are unlikely to lock this thread.
Anybody who isn't interested in taking part in that doesn't need to read the thread.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I still feel the "clarification to stop a loophole" is creating more of a mess than intended by those looking to do so.

Simply putting a special caveat in Armor Spikes, like "You cannot make an off hand attack with Armor Spikes in combination with an attack with a two handed weapon." and there you go.

This "uses up an off hand attack" with two handed weapon thing makes ruling in many other situations confusing.


ciretose wrote:
Is there a reason this thread isn't locked yet?

Pithy banter?

Liberty's Edge

I love the feedback from the Devs. The commentary on the Devs feedback I don't find particularly helpful.

As to the Thunderstriker, I believe it would be the only way to have a one handed weapon and a shield at the same time where you can choose to Two-handed fight, two-weapon fight, or straight sword and board without changing anything out.

Which is the advantage of the archetype.

If you are a normal sword and board, you can't. If you sword and board with a buckler, you would need a weapon in your off-hand to TWF and to drop it to two handed fight.

If you read it as a one-handed weapon, it makes perfect sense. A lot of people who assumed armored spikes worked differently didn't see a lot of benefit from the thunderstriker unless it was also working like armor spikes.

People reading "Two-handed weapon" into heavy weapon is kind of the problem here. People assumed, now that they have been corrected, rather than saying "Oh, my assumption was incorrect. That you for clarifying" they are trying to tell the people that wrote the game that they were wrong...

It was unclear. I personally don't think it should have been unclear to people if they thought about it, but hey, it was unclear. It has been clarified.

Thunderstriker works perfectly well with a one-handed weapon you can also wield in two hands. You have a Scimitar rather than a Falcion, 1d6 vs 2d4. 3.5 avg vs 5 avg per attack.

Liberty's Edge

There is no mess.

Because a two-handed weapon actually takes two hands to use, and so you will have to use a one-handed weapon instead isn't a mess.

It is game design.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ciretose don't forget about QuickDraw shields.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

If you had not noticed, there was even confusion amongst Devs.

It is not all clear.

Silver Crusade

People aren't reading 'two-handed weapon', they are reading 'in two hands'.

Liberty's Edge

Swift action combined with a regular move action, unless you have the quick draw feat.

With the quick draw feat it falls into that wonderful grey area of how many free actions your GM deems reasonable, in the same way releasing and re-gripping falls into that area.

Which goes to another classic FAQ

"Two-Handed Weapons: What kind of action is it to remove your hand from a two-handed weapon or re-grab it with both hands?
Both are free actions. For example, a wizard wielding a quarterstaff can let go of the weapon with one hand as a free action, cast a spell as a standard action, and grasp the weapon again with that hand as a free action; this means the wizard is still able to make attacks of opportunity with the weapon (which requires using two hands).

As with any free action, the GM may decide a reasonable limit to how many times per round you can release and re-grasp the weapon (one release and re-grasp per round is fair)."

Liberty's Edge

No one is arguing a clarification wasn't needed. What is bothering most of us is that the clarification isn't being accepted.

Not to say you need to follow the FAQ in your home game, but to say this is what the rules were intended and designed around.

Which was a unanimous decision with all the Devs, you might recall.

Thunderstriker works perfectly well with a one handed weapon that you can both use as a two-handed weapon or a primary weapon in a two-weapon fighting sequence.

It does less damage than the Two-handed weapon, but that is the point. You trade damage for versatility.

If you aren't making that trade, what is the point of a one handed weapon?

In the same way light weapons do less damage, because you can use them in your off-hand as part of a two-weapon fighting sequence.

Which is a "secret unwritten" part of the design that I think we all recognize, correct?

That was what SKR was saying. Some things are implied in the rules. Light weapons do less damage than one-handed, which do less than two-handed...and are versatile in declining order.

Similarly the Devs thought it was...well...obvious that in the section discussing Off-hand and two weapon fighting that in that same section, in the very next sentence going to two-handed it would be clear those were different options, not generally intended to be combined.

It apparently wasn't clear enough, but it wasn't a secret anymore than light weapons having less damage than two-handed weapons is a "secret".

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Well, do attacks with a two handed weapon still eat up both "primary and off hand" attacks, if said two handed weapon is used as an off hand weapon attack?

Liberty's Edge

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Well, do attacks with a two handed weapon still eat up both "primary and off hand" attacks, if said two handed weapon is used as an off hand weapon attack?

How would that occur?

In the thunderstriker you have a weapon that can be either wielded two handed or be your primary attack in a TWF sequence. It would pretty much never make sense for it to be the off-hand attack, given the penalties.

So you have the option of fighting two handed (probably when you move, as moving and single attack two handed is usually your best bet) then attacking with it as a primary weapon (1X str) then using your buckler as your off-hand in the TWF sequence.

Are you talking about with double weapons? I don't really follow.


So just so I'm clear, does using a Two-Handed weapon use up just the off-hand or the off-hand attack as well?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I am not directly addressing the Thunderstriker.

I am looking to figure out what about attacks with two handed weapon eats up an Off hand attacks.

Is it damage?

Is it available hands?


CrystalSpellblade wrote:
So just so I'm clear, does using a Two-Handed weapon use up just the off-hand or the off-hand attack as well?

As I understand it, a Two-handed weapon uses up both the primary and off hand attacks. There are certain weapons, feats and other rules that provide specific exceptions to this.


Bbt looking at the ruling you can't TWF with a THW full stop. If your using a THW then it's both your primary and off hand for the round. You can't get around the ruling by declaring your gonna spike them first then swing the great sword.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Well, do attacks with a two handed weapon still eat up both "primary and off hand" attacks, if said two handed weapon is used as an off hand weapon attack?

So... wait.... Use Armor spikes as your primary and take some massive TWF penalties to use the greatsword as your off-hand attack...?

Can open... worms everywhere....


Vod Canockers wrote:
CrystalSpellblade wrote:
So just so I'm clear, does using a Two-Handed weapon use up just the off-hand or the off-hand attack as well?
As I understand it, a Two-handed weapon uses up both the primary and off hand attacks. There are certain weapons, feats and other rules that provide specific exceptions to this.

If that's so, how are iterative attacks with Two-Handed Weapons going to work? I'm only getting one off-hand attack a round unless I take Improved TWF/Greater TWF. Or does it just ignore it when my BAB is high enough?

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Talonhawke wrote:
Bbt looking at the ruling you can't TWF with a THW full stop. If your using a THW then it's both your primary and off hand for the round. You can't get around the ruling by declaring your gonna spike them first then swing the great sword.

That would fit into the "1.5 cap" unwritten rule, as the two handed weapon would only get 0.5 strength to damage.


CrystalSpellblade wrote:
Vod Canockers wrote:
CrystalSpellblade wrote:
So just so I'm clear, does using a Two-Handed weapon use up just the off-hand or the off-hand attack as well?
As I understand it, a Two-handed weapon uses up both the primary and off hand attacks. There are certain weapons, feats and other rules that provide specific exceptions to this.

If that's so, how are iterative attacks with Two-Handed Weapons going to work? I'm only getting one off-hand attack a round unless I take Improved TWF/Greater TWF. Or does it just ignore it when my BAB is high enough?

No, it doesn't use it up; it blocks it off was how Jason put it.

The exception is Babazu beard since it says it works.

Liberty's Edge

blackbloodtroll wrote:

I am not directly addressing the Thunderstriker.

I am looking to figure out what about attacks with two handed weapon eats up an Off hand attacks.

Is it damage?

Is it available hands?

It's the damage, brought on by focusing your primary and off hand on that attack rather than dividing your primary and off-hand into two separate attacks.

You are basically putting all of your possible options into a single attack, and therefore getting a bonus on that attack.

The bonus is even greater with a two-handed weapon than with a one-handed weapon, because the two-handed weapon never gave you the other option in the first place.

So in order, light weapons give you the most options (can be in either hand with the least penalties) and the least damage.

One handed you can have in your primary, but if you have it in your off-hand you take a bigger penalty. On the plus side, more damage than light.

Two-handed...you get the highest damage output of all the options, but you have the least options.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

So, then using a two handed weapon, as an off hand weapon, is still allowed, as it only adds 0.5 strength to damage?

This falls in that reasoning.

Liberty's Edge

Starbuck_II wrote:
CrystalSpellblade wrote:
Vod Canockers wrote:
CrystalSpellblade wrote:
So just so I'm clear, does using a Two-Handed weapon use up just the off-hand or the off-hand attack as well?
As I understand it, a Two-handed weapon uses up both the primary and off hand attacks. There are certain weapons, feats and other rules that provide specific exceptions to this.

If that's so, how are iterative attacks with Two-Handed Weapons going to work? I'm only getting one off-hand attack a round unless I take Improved TWF/Greater TWF. Or does it just ignore it when my BAB is high enough?

No, it doesn't use it up; it blocks it off was how Jason put it.

The exception is Babazu beard since it says it works.

And the beard is basically you trading an extra attack to give your opponent an extra attack, likely at better bonuses than you get since the beard is an off-hand.

Liberty's Edge

blackbloodtroll wrote:

So, then using a two handed weapon, as an off hand weapon, is still allowed, as it only adds 0.5 strength to damage?

This falls in that reasoning.

How would you use a two handed weapon as an off-hand attack?

Are you just trying to find something?


ciretose wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

So, then using a two handed weapon, as an off hand weapon, is still allowed, as it only adds 0.5 strength to damage?

This falls in that reasoning.

How would you use a two handed weapon as an off-hand attack?

Are you just trying to find something?

Yes

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
ciretose wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

So, then using a two handed weapon, as an off hand weapon, is still allowed, as it only adds 0.5 strength to damage?

This falls in that reasoning.

How would you use a two handed weapon as an off-hand attack?

Are you just trying to find something?

Well, that leaves the style open, without breaking the unwritten" 1.5 cap"

rule.

Liberty's Edge

So does using a one handed weapon.

Two-handed weapons do more damage and/or have special features like reach. This come in exchange for the limits of it being two-handed.

You take the bad with the good.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

That cuts out a ton of weapons.

Not the same.


ciretose wrote:

So does using a one handed weapon.

Two-handed weapons do more damage and/or have special features like reach. This come in exchange for the limits of it being two-handed.

You take the bad with the good.

using a one-handed weapon with just 1 str and 1/2 power attack rating put the style behind TWF, waaay behind normal THF.

THF/TWF but only with one times str in hte Two handed weapon is more balanced.

Liberty's Edge

Yes. It's called choices. Choices imply you lose something and gain something with each option. Otherwise it isn't a choice.

Two handed weapons are inherently better at doing damage. The whole point of making them better is that they come with the problem of being two-handed weapons.

It is bad game design to include ways to get around what are intentional trade offs.

Using it one handed puts it about 1 to 1.5 damage per attack behind a two-handed weapon.

In exchange, you can use a one-handed weapon both for twf and THF.

1 to 1.5 damage is what you trade. It made zero sense to give a way to just avoid that trade off.

Liberty's Edge

Also, if you have what we did before, do the math on a scimitar and see what "waaay" behind actually calculates out to.

I suspect it isn't as bad as you think.


Thunderstriker has a tradeoff (loss of armor training and half of weapon training).

Would you be okay if that were allowed to do it?

Because I personally believe that's what it's supposed to do.

Or is that not a big enough tradeoff?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Many two handed weapons are terrible.

That's a poor example.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

So, then using a two handed weapon, as an off hand weapon, is still allowed, as it only adds 0.5 strength to damage?

This falls in that reasoning.

I would think in that case you have already used up your primary hand, correct?

1,251 to 1,300 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