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


Rules Questions

251 to 300 of 1,428 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

It does fit the case.

Why can't you do two handed damage with a double weapon when it you are holding it in two hands.

Holding it in two actual hands never had anything to do with THF anymore than having two weapons in separate hands has anything to do with Two-Weapon fighting.

If you fight two handed, you are not able to two weapon fight, unless it is an exception such as the beard, which itself provokes when it is used.

You can probably also two weapon fighter with a beard, in addition. The beard is trading you getting an attack for you receiving an attack.

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

If a character was using TWF with a shortsword in each hand, would you let him also make a kick attack in the same round he made his two sword attacks? Both of his hands are occupied, but he still has a foot he can use, right?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
If a character was using TWF with a shortsword in each hand, would you let him also make a kick attack in the same round he made his two sword attacks? Both of his hands are occupied, but he still has a foot he can use, right?

TWF only add one extra attack so your example is not the best.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Both of his hands are occupied, but he still has a foot he can use, right?

No, because RAW.

It'd be nice to clear up what the exact rules change from RAW is here, so that tangential issues can resolved by players capable of applying RAW.
Unless we're to expect the FAQ to answer every single issue directly... Which doesn't seem to be Paizo's approach,
given that posters' questions are often curtly rebuffed when it's considered that RAW gives them the intended functionality.

A number of these tangential questions that are prompted by the FAQ have already been posted.
I don't really care what the final ruling is as long as it leaves a clear state of affairs re: RAW.

The PFS ruling that Armor Spikes requires open hand to use is in line with the latest FAQ, and Paizo's PFS manager said that was supported by Jason himself. Except that ruling doesn't just apply to 2WF, but to how Armor Spikes are ALWAYS used and thus whether you can threaten with Armor Spikes (for AoOs) simultaneously with a Pole-Arm, or while carrying suitcases in your hands, etc... Or if a one-armed man is 2WF'ing, whether he could main-hand: 1H longsword + off-hand: armor spikes. This is another case where it is important to know what exact rule is being changed/over-ridden, and what rules are staying the same.

Silver Crusade

ciretose wrote:
Two Handed Fighting and Two Weapon fighting are separate options in a given attack sequence that are mutually exclusive (barring some feat to be named later...)

The trouble is, nowhere in the rules does it say that they are mutually exclusive!

It is not a general assumption of the rules that abilities are mutually exclusive. The game assumes that you can do more than one thing, as long as you take the appropriate penalties.

For example, you can TWF and Power Attack simultaneously. No suggestion that these are any more mutually exclusive than TWF and 2HF.

At least, no suggestion in the non-secret, actually-written-down rules...!

To say that 'the rules have always said this' is as true as the Doublespeak from Nineteen Eighty-Four, "We've always been at war with Eastasia"!

Not a con, but it is a ret-con.

Liberty's Edge

Because it spells out in power attack how it relates to TWF and THF.

Separately. With different values for using either.

People made an assumption. That assumption was wrong. It didn't say you got to add 1.5 strength, you can't use 1.5 with a double weapon, which is held in two hands...

It isn't ret con. Get over it.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
If a character was using TWF with a shortsword in each hand, would you let him also make a kick attack in the same round he made his two sword attacks? Both of his hands are occupied, but he still has a foot he can use, right?

Sure, he could make all the attacks he gets in a round.

By using TWF, he gets one more than normal for a penalty on all of the attacks for the round.

Likewise I would let a character TWF with armor spikes and a boot blade while using both hands to hold something else.

What's the problem? Is it tied to the actual hands, or the number of attacks allowed in the round?

-James


ciretose wrote:
Because it spells out in power attack how it relates to TWF and THF.

It spells out how it works with 2Handed weapons/ weapons wielded in 2 hands.It spells out how it works with off-hand weapons. No mention of main-hand weapons in 2WF. Why would SKR be resorting to invoking 'secret unwritten rules' if the RAW already directed this functionality?

Liberty's Edge

There is no mention of primary and off-hand weapon in 2wf?

Really?

My book must be different than your book...


ciretose wrote:
Because it spells out in power attack how it relates to TWF and THF. Separately. With different values for using either.

Maybe that was a joke not meant to be taken seriously?

2WF itself never discusses damage for the main-hand. If it did, SKR wouldn't need to invoke secret rules, would he?

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

james maissen wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
If a character was using TWF with a shortsword in each hand, would you let him also make a kick attack in the same round he made his two sword attacks? Both of his hands are occupied, but he still has a foot he can use, right?
Sure, he could make all the attacks he gets in a round.

Let's try this again.

If a 1st-level character was using TWF with a shortsword in each hand, would you let him also make a kick attack in the same round he made his two sword attacks? Both of his hands are occupied, but he still has a foot he can use, right?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
If a character was using TWF with a shortsword in each hand, would you let him also make a kick attack in the same round he made his two sword attacks? Both of his hands are occupied, but he still has a foot he can use, right?

Since he is already getting his extra attack per TWF, no. And as Quandary points out, I'd be relying on the written rules for that decision. If he had Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, of course I would. But then he'd have another eligible attack coming to him, by the written rules.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

ooo a three-weapon fighting argument.

And of course, if you allow the kick, you allow armor spikes and barbazu beards and bite attacks to pile on, for six weapon fighting! Go-go non-existent hands!

==Aelryinth

Liberty's Edge

"Two-Weapon Fighting
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in two ways. First, if your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each."

If it were actually a hand required to be in your off hand, you couldn't use anything not actually in an actual, physical hand.

But of course, it isn't. It is a descriptor of attacks. A primary attack and an "off-hand" attack. You can either use your "Off-Hand" to make another attack, or to do something else.

Something like...

"Wielding a Weapon Two-Handed: When you deal damage with a weapon that you are wielding two-handed, you add 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus (Strength penalties are not multiplied). You don't get this higher Strength bonus, however, when using a light weapon with two hands."

Wielding two handed, not holding (or even wielding) with two hands. As in you are using both the primary and off-hand.

People read into the rules an assumption that holding a weapon in two hands is the same as wielding a weapon two-handed. That is something that was not there. Further, given that holding a double weapon in two hands doesn't give you the strength bonus of wielding a weapon two handed...

People read it incorrectly. Now it has been clarified. It really isn't even that complicated when you look at it without trying to add assumptions.

You have a primary hand option and an off hand option. If you use both, you can wield two handed or attack with each. If you don't use the off-hand to attack (either by wielding two-handed or attacking with two weapons) you have a free hand you can use for other things, like shields, casting, etc...

If you don't try and read anything into it, it is spelled out very clearly.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Why is SKR citing secret un-written rules (that define the game's assumptions) if the RAW is sufficient without assumptions?

Sure, if Paizo put these secret rules into writing in the FAQ, then you and everybody could cite them.
That's really what people are asking for, so that the exact way RAW is over-ruled can be a known factor.

Liberty's Edge

He isn't. You are claiming un-written rules that make holding a weapon with two-hands = wielding two-handed.

Which given how double weapons work...


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I really hope the design team isn't so mortified by this response that they stop answering FAQs again =/


Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Let's try this again.

If a 1st-level character was using TWF with a shortsword in each hand, would you let him also make a kick attack in the same round he made his two sword attacks? Both of his hands are occupied, but he still has a foot he can use, right?

Was anyone reading it that way?

Now, could he elect to attack with only one of his shortswords and kick via TWF? His other hand is full. Does this matter?

Assuming it doesn't matter. He drops one of the shortswords and grips the other with both hands. He TWFs with it and that left foot of his.

Is this disallowed?

Does that change if the shortsword wasn't a light weapon?

I can understand you wanting to change the rules to streamline the idea of 'primary' and 'secondary' attack forms. But is there a reason why, with so many exceptions regarding hands out there, that we still want to tie it to actual hands?

-James
PS: For fun.. your 1st level character is a 1/2 orc and also bites as a secondary natural weapon...

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I really hope the design team realizes that the petulant response is exactly why we need them to make these rulings.

You can imagine if a GM tried to make this ruling with some of these posters without an FAQ to back them up...


ciretose wrote:
He isn't. You are claiming un-written rules that make holding a weapon with two-hands = wielding two-handed.
Hmmm...
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw[/quote wrote:
What was the reason for the 'no' to armour spikes?

Because the game has an unwritten rule which essentially states the following:

• (...)
There is a hard (but not-explicity-stated-in-the-rules) limit to what a standard-race PC should be able to do in one round of combat. Even though it's not stated in the rules, it is a real limit (in the same way that there's no printed rule that says "don't make a first-tier feat that gives more than +3 to one skill for a 1st-level character," or "don't make a first-tier feat that gives more than a +1 to attack rolls with one type of weapon," but it's still a rule we follow), and you shouldn't be allowed to break that limit.

Maybe you should take that up with Sean then, hm?

If you want to get technical, what it means to wield a weapon in two hands is NEVER DISCUSSED in the RAW.
Of course, without rules to the contrary, the normal English definition could expected to be used,
as it is used in the rest of the rules where terms are not exlicitly defined when their usage isn't straying from normal English.
The FAQ isn't giving us a definition of what "wielding with two hands" means, or even specifying that that conflicts with 2WF.

Quote:
Which given how double weapons work...

For which nobody has shown RAW discussing main-hand damage, for double weapons specifically or 2WF, which only mention attack penalties and nothing about main-hand damage. I'm SURE there's got to be a secret rule covering that too, but not in RAW.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
james maissen wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
If a character was using TWF with a shortsword in each hand, would you let him also make a kick attack in the same round he made his two sword attacks? Both of his hands are occupied, but he still has a foot he can use, right?
Sure, he could make all the attacks he gets in a round.

Let's try this again.

If a 1st-level character was using TWF with a shortsword in each hand, would you let him also make a kick attack in the same round he made his two sword attacks? Both of his hands are occupied, but he still has a foot he can use, right?

Uh...what?

How about these as examples?

Character has Shortsword 1 (S1), and Shortsword 2 (S2), main- and off-hand, respectively, is level 6 with a +6 BAB, and has Improved Two-Weapon Fighting. Kick (K); Armor Spike (A)

Normal:
S1 +4/S2 +4/S1 -1/S2 -1

Can he:
S1 +4/S2 +4/S1 -1/K -1 (replacing his second off-hand attack with a kick)

S1 +4/S2 +4/K -1/S2 -1 (replacing his second main-hand, iterative attack with a kick)

S1 +4/S2 +4/A -1/S2 -1 (replacing his second main-hand, iterative attack with an armor spike)

S1 +4/S2 +4/S1 -1/A -1/ (replacing his second off-hand attack with an armor spike)

A +4/S2 +4/A -1/S2 -1 (using armor spikes as your primary weapon and one of your shortswords as your secondary)

Would you rule that you can't perform any of the above? Why?

The rules already say that you may use any weapon for your iterative attacks, so, according to those, you could attack with either shortsword at +6, then either shortsword, a kick, or an armor spike at +1.

Going back to the recent FAQ, you could attack with a greatsword (G) held in two hands at +6, then your armor spike (A) at +1, using iterative attacks, but strangely/confusingly/inexplicably CANNOT
go G +4/G-1/A-4 if you have TWF. Why is it that you can mix your two-handed attacks with armor spikes if the latter is used as part of your iterative attacks, but NOT if the latter is used as an off-hand attack? Just because you're wielding one weapon in two hands? How does that make sense? If it's merely of ruling in favor of game balance, I really don't think that's needed, given the level of investment needed in order to accomplish this.

THAT is what makes no sense.

[Edit] Note that no one is looking to add an attack with armor spikes that exists outside of the rules (ie., not as either an iterative attack, or as an off-handed TWF attack with the appropriate modifiers). It's not a question seeking to make a sort of natural attack with the armor spike. Mind, however, that your 1st level character could, depending on race, make a main-hand attack with a sword, an off-hand attack (TWF) with an unarmed strike, a claw attack as a secondary natural attack (at -5 attack and 1/2 Str) and a bite attack as a secondary natural attack (ditto).

Liberty's Edge

@James - By saying that because it isn't in your "hands", it doesn't count, yes that is how people were reading it.

Holding something in two hands is not the same as wielding something two-handed.

If it were, double weapons would do 1.5.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
james maissen wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
If a character was using TWF with a shortsword in each hand, would you let him also make a kick attack in the same round he made his two sword attacks? Both of his hands are occupied, but he still has a foot he can use, right?
Sure, he could make all the attacks he gets in a round.

Let's try this again.

If a 1st-level character was using TWF with a shortsword in each hand, would you let him also make a kick attack in the same round he made his two sword attacks? Both of his hands are occupied, but he still has a foot he can use, right?

As a 1st level character with TWF, he gets two attacks on a full attack. They could be sword + sword, sword + unarmed, unarmed +sword, or unarmed + unarmed.

He can't make 3 attacks, barring haste or something else. He only has two. That's the bottom line. You have x many attacks. That's the limit.

A 1st level guy with a greatsword, TWF, and a way to safely attack unarmed (IUS; some metal boot, I don't know, whatever) would also get two attacks. Since the greatsword is clearly not a light or 1H weapon, at best he can only make his first attack with it, but if he attacks with greatsword + unarmed, he is STILL only making his two allotted attacks.

Silver Crusade

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
james maissen wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
If a character was using TWF with a shortsword in each hand, would you let him also make a kick attack in the same round he made his two sword attacks? Both of his hands are occupied, but he still has a foot he can use, right?
Sure, he could make all the attacks he gets in a round.

Let's try this again.

If a 1st-level character was using TWF with a shortsword in each hand, would you let him also make a kick attack in the same round he made his two sword attacks? Both of his hands are occupied, but he still has a foot he can use, right?

The rules already say that he only gets one off hand attack (unless you get the feats that give you more). No-one is trying to get more attacks, just to take the attack that they have already been granted by TWF with a weapon they have which threatens.

You're barking up the wrong tree, here. You're trying to stop a trick that no-one is trying.

Liberty's Edge

@Quandry - Fortunately, as I have shown you in above, the unwritten part of the rule is covered by the actual rule.

You read something into the rules that wasn't there. You were wrong. Accept it and move on.

Liberty's Edge

@Streamofthesky - A first level character without Two-weapon fighting gets two attacks.

They just have really high penalties.

Two weapon fighting doesn't give you an off-hand attack. It reduces the penalties of taking an off-hand attack. Existing (with most classes) gives you an off-hand attack.

Using your off-hand to attack, rather than to use a shield or wield a weapon two handed, gives you an off-hand attack.

If a 1st level character takes a feat or ability that grants an extra attack, such as bite which was mentioned above, they actually can have 3 attacks, by the way.

It does not matter how many hands are on the weapon. It matters what you are devoting your off-hand to doing: Attacking, wielding two-handed, holding a shield, etc...


I'm going to believe Sean when he says the ruling is based off of secret rules NOT the RAW, over your protestations to the contrary, sorry.

I'm happy to move on, I've just asked Paizo to clarify the actual changes to RAW so that I can apply them consistently outside the actual examples of the FAQ (which doesn't even cover UAS).

Liberty's Edge

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:


The rules already say that he only gets one off hand attack (unless you get the feats that give you more). No-one is trying to get more attacks, just to take the attack that they have already been granted by TWF with a weapon they have which threatens.

You're barking up the wrong tree, here. You're trying to stop a trick that no-one is trying.

Two-Weapon fighting doesn't grant you an extra attack. Two-Weapon Fighting is deciding to designate your off-hand to making an extra attack rather than using it to wield two handed, hold a shield, be left as a free hand, etc...

Liberty's Edge

Quandary wrote:

I'm going to believe Sean over you, sorry.

I'm happy to move on, I've just asked Paizo to clarify the actual changes to RAW so that I can apply them consistently outside the actual examples of the FAQ (which doesn't even cover UAS).

They aren't changes. You read things into it that were not there. Sean made clear that they weren't there. Are there unwritten factors considered by the Devs.

Yes.

Did anything in the text say that holding something in two hands means you are wielding it two handed.

No.

Did other examples, like double weapons, show that holding something in two hands did not equal wielding two handed.

Yes.

There is nothing more to clarify. You read it wrong. They posted an FAQ to clarify what people did not understand. It is now completely clear, and nothing has changed.


That damnable thing, the RAW wrote:

Two-Weapon Fighting

If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.

Liberty's Edge

Two-Weapon Fighting
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in two ways. First, if your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each."

That actually posting the full text that I posted above showing how it clearly states "Regular attack or attacks with your primary hand".

By your reading, anything not actually held in an off-hand doesn't count, so Armor spikes are right out...

Or...off hand means off hand weapon, regardless of if it is in a hand or not in a hand, and regular or primary attack is a primary attack regardless of if it is in a hand or not.

You might want to scroll up. I already posted this...


Fine. The 1st level character doesn't need the TWF feat to make two attacks. He had it in SKR's example, so that was what I was going off off. That doesn't change the point. You have two attacks. Not three, not infinite. Two.

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

james maissen wrote:

Was anyone reading it that way?

Now, could he elect to attack with only one of his shortswords and kick via TWF? His other hand is full. Does this matter?

Assuming it doesn't matter. He drops one of the shortswords and grips the other with both hands. He TWFs with it and that left foot of his.

James, you didn't even answer my question.

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

yeti1069 wrote:


Sean K Reynolds wrote:


If a 1st-level character was using TWF with a shortsword in each hand, would you let him also make a kick attack in the same round he made his two sword attacks? Both of his hands are occupied, but he still has a foot he can use, right?

Uh...what?

How about these as examples?
Character has Shortsword 1 (S1), and Shortsword 2 (S2), main- and off-hand, respectively, is level 6 with a +6 BAB, and has Improved Two-Weapon Fighting. Kick (K); Armor Spike (A)

Read the bold part of what I said, then the bold part of what you said.

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
The rules already say that he only gets one off hand attack (unless you get the feats that give you more). No-one is trying to get more attacks, just to take the attack that they have already been granted by TWF with a weapon they have which threatens.

Hard to have a discussion if nobody bothers to answer my simple question.

Liberty's Edge

StreamOfTheSky wrote:
Fine. The 1st level character doesn't need the TWF feat to make two attacks. He had it in SKR's example, so that was what I was going off off. That doesn't change the point. You have two attacks. Not three, not infinite. Two.

Or three if you have a bite attack...

But more on point, wielding two-handed is not referring to having two hands on the weapon. It is referring to dedicating both your primary and your off-hand to the attack.

If it were, double weapons would do 1.5 when you TWF. They don't.

Just like the off-hand weapon doesn't need to be in your actual hand. It can be an armor spike.

You have a primary or regular attack, and an off hand. You can use your off hand to attack, wield two handed, carry a shield, give a thumbs up...it is your off hand, you can do with it as you like.

But in order to wield two-handed, you need to use both your primary and your off-hand.

If you are fighting with a double weapon, your primary attack and your off-hand attack are both occupied, either when you wield it as a two handed weapon, or if you make two attacks with it.

The number of actual, physical hands on the weapon is not relevant. An octopus does not add extra strength if it wields it with 8 hands. It is still just Two-Handed Wielding, aka dedicating both the primary attack and the off-hand attack to the move.


No, Sean he cant, because of number of attacks he gets at level one which is two with two-weapon fighting.

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Ya know what, it doesn't matter. It's Saturday, I'm off for the first weekend in a while, and I don't have any need to deal with people wanting to nitpick things and dispute a ruling. See you on Monday.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As Stream pointed out the option for the 1ts level guy are

Short sowrd + shortsword

or

Shortsword + Unarmed strike

or

Unarmed strike + Unarmed strike.

No Short sowrd + shortsword + Unarmed strike.

========
Now if the intention is that shortwod + Unarmed is disallowed if the character is wielding two sword then that should be stated clearer.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
yeti1069 wrote:


Sean K Reynolds wrote:


If a 1st-level character was using TWF with a shortsword in each hand, would you let him also make a kick attack in the same round he made his two sword attacks? Both of his hands are occupied, but he still has a foot he can use, right?

Uh...what?

How about these as examples?
Character has Shortsword 1 (S1), and Shortsword 2 (S2), main- and off-hand, respectively, is level 6 with a +6 BAB, and has Improved Two-Weapon Fighting. Kick (K); Armor Spike (A)
Read the bold part of what I said, then the bold part of what you said.

I changed the example so that it would be relevant to this discussion.

No one is claiming that someone would be able to make an EXTRA attack (beyond the one normally allowed via BAB, and the one from TWF) with a foot (or spiked armor), so I don't know what your example was trying to illustrate, or prove, or what answer you're looking for, but if you want an answer...

No, a character wielding two shortswords at level one, who has made an attack with each of those weapons should NOT be allowed to also make an unarmed attack.

Similarly, a character with BAB +6/+1 wielding a greatsword in two hands, SHOULD be able to make two attacks with his sword, and one with his foot, employing either the penalties for two-weapon fighting (with or without the feats), or natural weapons (doubtful in this case). He should also be able to take that third attack with his spiked armor, again with the penalties for TWF (main sword at +4, main sword at -1, spiked armor "off-hand" at -1). He should NOT be able to make two normal iterative attacks, an "off-hand" attack with his armor, and an extra attack with his foot, because the rules already dictate how, when, and how many attacks someone can use in a round.

So, again I ask, why did we get a FAQ answer that says, "No, (you cannot make an off-hand attack with spiked armor when wielding a weapon in two hands, even though some characters, such as monks, could, say, wield a temple sword in two hands and flurry--essentially TWF--intermingling the attacks with the sword with kicks, knees, and headbutts)"? What is the purpose of denying that attack with the spiked armor? On what grounds does it stand? No one is trying to eek an extra attack out of the game system that the RAW doesn't permit.


Enjoy your weekend Sean


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
The rules already say that he only gets one off hand attack (unless you get the feats that give you more). No-one is trying to get more attacks, just to take the attack that they have already been granted by TWF with a weapon they have which threatens.
Hard to have a discussion if nobody bothers to answer my simple question.

There are multiple answers to your question in this thread. Direct ones too. I don't know, maybe you should read them.


Maybe we'll get back to rationality once Sean has gotten to rest and enjoy his Sunday off...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Ya know what, it doesn't matter. It's Saturday, I'm off for the first weekend in a while, and I don't have any need to deal with people wanting to nitpick things and dispute a ruling. See you on Monday.

Is it nitpicking when the RAW says one thing, and the ruling says another in a one-word reply without any explanation, to then ask for an explanation that makes sense?

Liberty's Edge

Nicos wrote:

As Stream pointed out the option for the 1ts level guy are

Short sowrd + shortsword

or

Shortsword + Unarmed strike

or

Unarmed strike + Unarmed strike.

No Short sowrd + shortsword + Unarmed strike.

========
Now if the intention is that shortwod + Unarmed is disallowed if the character is wielding two sword then that should be stated clearer.

What he is saying is that Two-handed longsword and unarmed is out, because one is a primary attack and one is an off-hand attack, and you need your off-hand to wield a weapon two handed.

Your second attack requires an off-hand.

Two Handed fighting requires an off-hand.

If you are attacking with your off-hand, even if that attack doesn't use an actual hand, but instead uses a foot, or a spike, or whatever...it is still using the off-hand.

Which means you don't have the off-hand available to Two Handed attack.

Liberty's Edge

yeti1069 wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Ya know what, it doesn't matter. It's Saturday, I'm off for the first weekend in a while, and I don't have any need to deal with people wanting to nitpick things and dispute a ruling. See you on Monday.
Is it nitpicking when the RAW says one thing, and the ruling says another in a one-word reply without any explanation, to then ask for an explanation that makes sense?

It doesn't say that. It never said that. I've posted what it said, using copy and paste, multiple times.

People assumed holding a weapon in two hands was the same as wielding a weapon in two hands.

They were wrong. When you hold a double weapon and two weapon fight, you are holding a weapon in two hands and only doing .5 strength on one attack.

How many of your hands are on the weapon is what decides if you are wielding it two handed. It is if you dedicated both your primary and off-hand to the attack.

There is no discrepancy in RAW. People read things into the text that weren't there. Now it has been made clear what they read into the text was not correct.

It was always this way. People misread it. Period, full stop.


ciretose wrote:
yeti1069 wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Ya know what, it doesn't matter. It's Saturday, I'm off for the first weekend in a while, and I don't have any need to deal with people wanting to nitpick things and dispute a ruling. See you on Monday.
Is it nitpicking when the RAW says one thing, and the ruling says another in a one-word reply without any explanation, to then ask for an explanation that makes sense?

It doesn't say that. It never said that. I've posted what it said, using copy and paste, multiple times.

People assumed holding a weapon in two hands was the same as wielding a weapon in two hands.

They were wrong. When you hold a double weapon and two weapon fight, you are holding a weapon in two hands and only doing .5 strength on one attack.

How many of your hands are on the weapon is what decides if you are wielding it two handed. It is if you dedicated both your primary and off-hand to the attack.

There is no discrepancy in RAW. People read things into the text that weren't there. Now it has been made clear what they read into the text was not correct.

It was always this way. People misread it. Period, full stop.

Nope. No misreading.

The FAQ doesn't account for someone with, say, 3 arms, making an attack with a two-handed weapon and slamming someone with their armor spikes as an off-hand attack. Nor does it account for someone using an unarmed strike as an off-hand attack, even if they are using a foot, or their head, or an elbow, or knee, for that "off-hand" attack, which seems to be allowed with TWF. Additionally, monks with flurry of blows, which has been described as working (mostly) like TWF CAN make an attack with a weapon two-handed (temple sword wielded in two hands), and an "off-hand" attack with an unarmed strike.

There's no explanation as to why you can't make an main-hand attack with a two-handed weapon then off-hand with armor spikes.


yeti1069 wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
yeti1069 wrote:


Sean K Reynolds wrote:


If a 1st-level character was using TWF with a shortsword in each hand, would you let him also make a kick attack in the same round he made his two sword attacks? Both of his hands are occupied, but he still has a foot he can use, right?

Uh...what?

How about these as examples?
Character has Shortsword 1 (S1), and Shortsword 2 (S2), main- and off-hand, respectively, is level 6 with a +6 BAB, and has Improved Two-Weapon Fighting. Kick (K); Armor Spike (A)
Read the bold part of what I said, then the bold part of what you said.

I changed the example so that it would be relevant to this discussion.

No one is claiming that someone would be able to make an EXTRA attack (beyond the one normally allowed via BAB, and the one from TWF) with a foot (or spiked armor), so I don't know what your example was trying to illustrate, or prove, or what answer you're looking for, but if you want an answer...

No, a character wielding two shortswords at level one, who has made an attack with each of those weapons should NOT be allowed to also make an unarmed attack.

Similarly, a character with BAB +6/+1 wielding a greatsword in two hands, SHOULD be able to make two attacks with his sword, and one with his foot, employing either the penalties for two-weapon fighting (with or without the feats), or natural weapons (doubtful in this case). He should also be able to take that third attack with his spiked armor, again with the penalties for TWF (main sword at +4, main sword at -1, spiked armor "off-hand" at -1). He should NOT be able to make two normal iterative attacks, an "off-hand" attack with his armor, and an extra attack with his foot, because the rules already dictate how, when, and how many attacks someone can use in a round.

So, again I ask, why did we get a FAQ answer that says, "No, (you cannot make an off-hand attack with spiked armor when wielding a weapon in two hands, even though some...

The only thing ruled out by the FAQ is two wield a single weapon with two hands to gain a 1.5 damage bonus, and also state that you're going to use TWF to, say, kick the person in the chest.

The reasoning put forward as to why you should be able to do it is because even if you're gripping your sword with both hands, your foot is still free.

If I'm reading it correctly, Sean is sort of taking a 'reductio ad absurdum' stance and saying, "Well, if you're saying that all you need is to have a free foot to be able to kick someone, then it should be okay to TWF and then kick someone too, even at first level."

I'm not a big fan of the ruling; I personally think that the penalties for TWF offset any damage increase you might get from wielding a weapon two-handed and then punching them with your spiked gauntlet.

At the same time, I'm really not certain why there's so much outrage over this. It's a game; some people seem to be treating it like the Paizo Design Team just flensed a puppy while burning a flag and wiping their butts with a holy book.

And while I don't expect anyone to really care (this is the Internet, after all), I'm with Cheapy that I'm afraid a backlash like this will turn off the design team from bothering to answer FAQs in general. I know at this point I'd question why it's worth it to bother...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I admit that I don't really care about the FAQ, as it was how I ruled things at my table anyway, but all the crap about "secret rules" is bogus. Any good game developers are going to have certain standards that are going to guide the creation of new rules or the clarification of old rules. They don't write them down because 1. No one wants a rule book with a 1000 more pages of rules that rule the rules, and 2. Most people who enjoy the game will trust the developers to balance the rules appropriately, and 3, we can always CHANGE WHAT WE WANT in our home games.
I understand if you don't agree with the ruling, but please stop with trying to find a secret cabal who is hiding the real rules from y'all (hey, that rhymed) and whose ultimate goal is to suck all the fun of RPGs out of the world. This just ain't that deep.


So, a question to further carve out the specifics here.

Can you make an off-hand attack with armor spikes (A) if you are only wielding one weapon in one hand? For example, let's say you're holding a longsword (L) in one hand, with your other hand free, at level 1 with TWF.

Can you attack once with the longsword as your main-hand attack, then off-hand attack with the armor? Can you main-hand with the armor, then off-hand with the sword?

251 to 300 of 1,428 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Two Handed Weapon and Armor Spikes Resolved by the Design Team? All Messageboards