|
They have precisely zero impact on playing the game, because they are not rules for how a character interacts with the game world.They just issued a FAQ based on those secret un-written rules, over-riding the RAW.
Not sure I would agree with this. The FAQ only helps you to understand the RAW more fully.
|
I'm fine with armour spikes requiring a free hand, because I always pictured them as something you have to push or pull someone onto. However, this ruling has implications for other builds that up to now seemed okay.
Can a build with a two-handed reach weapon and Improved Unarmed Strike still threaten with unarmed strike while wielding his reach weapon? He's spent a feat, so I think it's fair that he can.
Can a character with a barbazu beard or dwarven boulder helmet threaten with it while wielding a similar reach weapon? Likewise, the feat spent makes me think it's fair that threatening is possible.
Now that's a little different from two-weapon fighting, but your ruling sets a precedent that is going to make it hard to adjudicate exactly who is wielding what and when.
|
|
I am not allowed to disagree?
Why must I find this overwriting of RAW totally agreeable?
When change comes, must I never question it?
Sure you can disagree, but you've gone beyond simple disagreement. I would argue that your point has been made.
You don't have to find it agreeable, disagree if you want to. In fact, you already have disagreed. If you want to houserule differently, you should do that. I have a list of houserules down to my toes that I actively employ at my table.
You should question it as it relates to you creating the best possible gaming atmosphere at your table. Once you've been given an answer, you should move your discussion about the rules as you would have them to the homebrew section. I post there all the time.
If there's a rule you don't like, just houserule it.
You'll be happier.
Perhaps I missed it, but SKR's "explanation" didn't actually answer the stated question.
He explained his thought process ("These unwritten rules that drive our game design philosophy that you don't know about"), but he never really explained how this concept was broken either thematically or mechanically.
But whatevah. I've resigned myself to the fact that some dev rulings/FAQs/Erratas will always baffle and mildly irritate me.
Especially the blood drinking thing.
I can't get over the blood drinking thing.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since 2003, when I played 3.5, no one, ever, even suggested, there was a restriction to one-handed and light weapons whilst two weapon fighting.
Were all these people fools?
Have I had the misfortune of only ever meeting, and gaming with people of the most dull of minds, unable to see something so obvious?
If it was deliberate design, then why was it different in 3.5?
Why are there Rogue Talents? Why do Clerics Channel now instead of having Turn or Rebuke Undead? Why are there so many things that are different between Pathfinder and 3.5? If you want play with 3.5 rules, play 3.5.
Why was it unwritten?
Most likely because they didn't think that it needed to be written down, just like how they didn't define what "cackling" is.
If it was deliberate design, then why was it different in 3.5?
Why was it unwritten?
It was my understanding that 3.5 went back and forth on this.
I'm something of a rules junkie. I'd love to have a written copy of the meta-rules. I suspect, though, that they'd take up more space than the PRD does, when what they boil down to is "compare to existing rules, and apply common sense: new rules and options should not be more powerful than core rules and options without additional cost".
We are all free to interpret the PRD however we want. The FAQ is there to allow the PDT to tell us what they mean by the rules. Edge cases must be looked at case-by-case. If in doubt, go for the weaker interpretation. If still in doubt, FAQ it.
I see a lot of people on here bandying forth an interpretation of the Rules As Written that is either incredibly in-depth examination of the written word to reach a conclusion, or is an interpretation of the wording of the rule with what seems to be a single aim: to make something "better" than other options of the same mechanical cost (feats and class abilities) (recent case-in-point: the Large Bastard Sword in two hands is martial debate, which makes the bastard sword better than the long sword if they're large weapons being used by a medium creature).
I half think there should be a rule for this sub forum that goes something along the lines of: if you think you've found a rule or combination of rules that seems too good to be true... it is too good to be true.
I honestly find the whole thing fascinating. The FAQ seems perfectly clear to me. No two-handed fighting while two-weapon fighting. I guess you would say I'm not passionate about the rules per se so all this wailing and gnashing of teeth is beyond me.
You cannot compare something that did not exist before, to something that did, and functioned the same.
Also, with identical wording.
I've been playing AD&D, D&D, Pathfinder and such since the early '80s. 3.0 and 3.5 when they came out, and never in my mind did I ever consider that when fighting with a two handed weapon, could you also fight with two weapons. The rules say that "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand," since when you are wielding a weapon in two hands, you don't have an off hand, you can't be wielding a second weapon.
And yet, there is clear precedent for allowing TWF-ing with weapons that aren't even in your hands at all.
Pretty sure someone could whip up a TWF-ing build someone could use for a character with NO hands (Armor spikes + Boot Blades?).
I don't think it's that complicated.
The underlying logic is you should not be able to simultaneously use a two-handed weapon or use a weapon with two hands to gain the STR benefit, AND gain an attack from another source/weapon/unarmed attack/boot knife/armor spikes, etc, aside from iterative attacks. You can either fight with 2 weapons (it's not called two handed fighting after all), or with one using 2 hands.
Or even more simply, you don't 'just get' a free attack because you have spikes on your armor, or a pointy thing in your boot when full attacking with a weapon 2 handed or with a weapon requiring 2 hands to wield, unless your BAB supports an extra attack.
These kinds of things are usually called out for being 'cheese' until it's clarified. Well, it's been clarified.
|
Or even more simply, you don't 'just get' a free attack because you have spikes on your armor, or a pointy thing in your boot when full attacking with a weapon 2 handed or with a weapon requiring 2 hands to wield, unless your BAB supports an extra attack.
No-one is trying to get a 'free' attack, just using the non-secret actually-written-down TWF rules to get that extra attack!
Or even more simply, you don't 'just get' a free attack because you have spikes on your armor, or a pointy thing in your boot when full attacking with a weapon 2 handed or with a weapon requiring 2 hands to wield, unless your BAB supports an extra attack.No-one is trying to get a 'free' attack, just using the non-secret actually-written-down TWF rules to get that extra attack!
Sure. But as this clarification shows, if your off-hand attack was devoted to wielding a two-handed weapon, you don't get to make an extra attack. The off-hand has already been used.
|
^ this. Though, others said otherwise because "there is no rule that says this or prevents this", I can understand why people might think you could TWF with a 2HW. If you look at it from an intuitive perspective (ie-two hands available for use), what SKR said is not outside the realm of understanding.
I personally don't have a problem with the ruling, though I don't think it was necessary and can understand why people are arguing against it. The damage potential was there, but the feat and stat investment meant you were giving up significant resources that could be used to make your character better at other things (such as not being dominated - Iron Will, I'm looking at you!)
I follow Crash_00's logic, but it is not the way things have been understood for the longest time, so this is clearly a change (sorry ciretose) to the interpretation of the Pathfinder community as a whole...
But this whole thing takes me back to my underlying concern about the way Paizo has been using FAQs to change basic understandings about the game that have stood for a long time - SLA change, this one, and many more... At least they back peddled on the Power Attack and two handed weapon being wielded in one handed weapon thing, though I think they need to remove the previous FAQ about Power Attack in One hand, unless they intend to allow it for a lance, specifically, which is IMO, a bad idea as it's a somewhat direct contradiction to the more recent FAQ...
Changing the game via FAQs often creates more issues than existed before the ruling. SLAs were a prime example of this and now there's this one, though with an arguably more limited effect. I REALLY don't feel like you should have to follow the forums on a weekly basis to stay up to date on rules that have been in place for over a decade...
EDIT: It also gives the impression that Paizo's developers are not taking a long term approach to the game, which is troubling as well...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can appreciate that MechE, but you're begging the question to some degree.
Some of these rules issues may have been standard for some gamers. People argued that very idea ("you're changing how people have been playing it for years") in the Bastard Sword et al. threads. However, that ignores the very large chunk of gamers who didn't play it that way. There's an assumption that because a lot of people played it that way, it necessarily must be the correct or the prevailing method of doing it. That's not necessarily the case.
Views were pretty split on all of these, so whichever way it came down, your argument would hold value. That's why I don't think it's necessarily a good argument to change how the FAQs operate, though I certainly understand the position.
I can appreciate that MechE, but you're begging the question to some degree.
Some of these rules issues may have been standard for some gamers. People argued that very idea ("you're changing how people have been playing it for years") in the Bastard Sword et al. threads. However, that ignores the very large chunk of gamers who didn't play it that way. There's an assumption that because a lot of people played it that way, it necessarily must be the correct or the prevailing method of doing it. That's not necessarily the case.
Views were pretty split on all of these, so whichever way it came down, your argument would hold value. That's why I don't think it's necessarily a good argument to change how the FAQs operate, though I certainly understand the position.
This was not the case with the SLA change, was it? How many people thought SLAs qualified you for prestige classes or feats even before they started the SLA FAQs a few months back? Everyone I've talked to (~10 players) all felt that they did not, so this one is a change. Also, with this one, there was strong rules precedent set that when no Paizo ruling existed, revert back to 3.5e rulings - Paizo's own developers have said this before. This was what people were doing for two-handed weapons and armor spikes being used in TWF...
My problem with this ruling is that it unnecessarily removes a balanced option from the game. Why do that?
Having more options is always preferable to having less of them. It encourages creativity and innovation, both of which are great to attract new players and keep veterans interested.
I could understand if it were an incredibly powerful combo, but it isn't. It's about as effective as TWFing with 2 equal weapons, and that's not even the most powerful combat style in the game (single 2-handend weapon and archery still overshadow all sorts of TWF).
IMHO, "this combo is slightly more effective than an incredibly weak combat styçe (TWFing with 2 different weapons)" is a terrible reason to nerf/ban something.
2-Handed + Armor Spikes has been possible ever since 3.5. Or at the very least, I've never seen a gaming group that thought otherwise. It's very flavorful and it's completely balanced, so why ban it?
Sean explained the logic behind this ruling, but he didn't really explain why this ruling was made.
Character customization is one of the greatest strengths of pen-and-paper RPGs, so I'm always sad to lose balanced options.
|
|
Not sure I would agree with this. The FAQ only helps you to understand the RAW more fully.They have precisely zero impact on playing the game, because they are not rules for how a character interacts with the game world.They just issued a FAQ based on those secret un-written rules, over-riding the RAW.
Or the RAW has always been clear, if you don't add things to it that aren't there...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Looks like Jason, et al finally got around to looking into the issue more.
At PaizoCon, I learned that when it comes to the FAQs, Jason is much more interested in answering how the rules work given the rules, and prefers to keep changes to a minimum so that more people are playing 'the same game'. This is opposed by the idea of changing the rules to reflect what they had meant, since that slightly fractures the community.
This revelation shines a new light on this FAQ, as it means that my knowledge of the rules was incomplete if Mr. Jason "I'm The Lead Designer Of Pathfinder" Buhlman says something that I'm not seeing. And I love learning new things about the system. It'll help me adjuciate ambiguous situations in the future (but not how to spell that damn word), and it'll help me grow as a designer.
Me? I'm loving reading about all these unwritten rules of the game. It means that they are Sort Of Written now, and if people wonder, I can show them what the designers are thinking. So, many thanks for that, Sean.
For others wondering, here are some other unwritten rules, in a thread surprisingly a lot like this one.
And another one is that items over 200,000 gp are artifacts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing keeps you from using Armor Spike and Two Handed Weapons. You are prevented from Two weapon fighting with armor spikes and two handed weapons.
Two weapon fighting with two handed weapons is not balanced. You get a higher damage die for the weapon and you get an extra .5 Str damage.
This is clearly superior to every other form of two weapon fighting. How is that balanced?
The only time those other two weapon fighting styles have a chance to catch up is later in levels when plenty of feats and options have allowed them to capitalize on using two of the same weapon (or two weapons from the same weapon group at least).
However, that reasoning completely ignores the fact that they balance at starting levels first.
- At 1st level, the difference is 1~2 points of damage. Even less, if the guy TWFing with 2 shortswords grabs Weapon Focus. That's hardly overpowering.
- Armor Spikes only deal piercing damage (which is the least useful type of melee damage) and are tied to an specific armor. Found a +2 armor without armor spikes? Tough luck. You either give up your loot or your TWF feats.- At 1st level, when cash is tight, Greatsword + Armor Spikes costs 100gp, while 2 shortswords cost 20gp. Beyond first level, weapon specific feats and class features (such as Improved Critical, Weapon Specialization and Weapon Training) more than balance the 0.5 Str advantage.
- Weapon Specific feats only apply to half of your attacks.
- A single 2-handed weapon is still superior to all forms of TWF (including 2-handed + armor spikes and TWFing with 2 similar weapons) and it requires less feats and lower Dex scores. Should we ban 2-handed weapons as well?
- It's a flavorful combo, and any numerical advantage it might have over any other TWF is minimal. TWF is a weak combat style, why ban something that is barely better than its weakest combination?
- Having more options is better than having less options.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It means that a standard race has two "Hands".
If you use both of them to attack, you can add 1.5 strength.
If you use both of them to attack, you take a penalty on both attacks, and one becomes an off hand and counts for only .5 strength, which adds up to...you guessed it, 1.5 being strength being added.
If you use one to attack and one to hold a shield, one attacks and one holds a shield.
And if you have a free hand, you don't use one of your hands.
Hands are not actually your hands. If I decide to kick you twice, or kick you once and then headbutt you, etc...I don't have two additional attacks with my actual hands.
People thought they found a way around this. Now people are made because they are being told that is a loophole, not an intended use.
Which anyone who thought about double weapons not getting two-handed bonus despite being used with two hands, should have realized.
If you think something gives you a bonus with no penalty or trade off, you are probably reading it wrong.
@Lemmy - You still have the options. The options just aren't better than other options.
Armor spikes allow you to use a reach weapon and still threaten or attack next to you.
I have one less option than I had before. I never said this FAQ removed all options from the game.
And why do I have one less option? Because it was better than TWFing with a longsword and a shortsword? If that's the reason, pretty much every combat style ever should be banned as well.
|
|
An option that sucks is not really an option.@Lemmy - You still have the options. The options just aren't better than other options.
Armor spikes allow you to use a reach weapon and still threaten or attack next to you.
It doesn't suck. It can't be disarmed, gives attacks in grapple without and it covers a gap in a reach weapon build.
It just isn't able to be used in a way unlike anything else in the game, which doesn't mean it isn't still useful.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Lemmy - You still have the options. The options just aren't better than other options.
Armor spikes allow you to use a reach weapon and still threaten or attack next to you.
I have one less option than I had before. I never said this FAQ removed all options from the game.
And why do I have one less option? Because it was better than TWFing with a longsword and a shortsword? If that's the reason, pretty much every combat style ever should be banned as well.
No you have the same options.
One of those options, however, is no longer acting differently than every other item in the game, providing a bonus that no other option permits.
It was a rather ridiculous option to start with, to be honest. I swing my sword with two hands then chest bump...