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


Rules Questions

351 to 400 of 1,428 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>

I think somebody who issues a one-line FAQ on Armor Spikes + 2H Weapon 2WF ONLY (updated to Gauntlets) that is self-admittedly not substantiated by the RAW, and is then surprised when further clarification is requested should definitely qualify for the title of Paizo Princess.

I do think there have been a number of posters who have unproductively gone beyond just asking for clarification (mostly being motivated by dislike of the FAQ's functionality), although I should say that SKR has exhibited hostility when merely being asked for clarification. FAQs are supposed to answer people's questions about the rules. If it creates more questions for people, that is not a problem with the questioner, and hostility to such questions does not seem congruous with a job description that is supposed to resolve FAQs, i.e. resolve people's questions.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The issue is that a developer was coming here on his saturday to answer your questions about a hobby we all love. He gave a clear answer, that two-weapon fighting is designed to give you an additional attack beyond the iterative attack sequence, with 0.5x strength, and that taking this attack means that attacks from the main iterative attack sequence are at 1.0x strength. If you don't want to use the dev's rules in your home game that is fine, but don't argue with their interpretation. This entire game's rules ARE their interpretation.


I do want to be able to use their ruling, that's why I'm asking for clarification.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.

They won't answer your question, because doing so might undercut their arguments.

In this thread or another on the same subject I asked about the Buckler Gun and in ALWAYS being an off hand weapon. One person claimed that that meant only during TWF, so I asked when the definition of "always" changed to "sometimes." Oddly, or rather not, I got no answers.

I hope you had a good weekend.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

People react negatively to the pejorative connotation of calling underlying, unwritten rules and guidelines "secret". It's aggressive and contrarian.

If you're curious or even dubious about unwritten guidelines, ask about them. But angrily asking about these "secret rules" certainly sounds like you're picking a fight.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Atarlost wrote:
As a professional game designer you have a responsibility to publish all of your relevant rules. You can be forgiven for leaving out really obvious stuff like "dead characters can't take actions," but a limit like this really needs to be in the published rules or citing it in FAQs is terribly unprofessional.

I shall write such a rulebook, it should only take me 10 years or so, and be 1000+ pages long and cost around $900. No one will buy it, no one will play the game, and I still will not have come up with every stupid situation that some other person can come up with.

People here have argued that common English words do not mean what they mean when used as game rules. Beyond the "dead characters can act," I've seen that "cackling" can be done silently, "always" means only during two weapon fighting, and others where the definition of the word is ignored or changed to fit what the posters want.

My Rulebook will also have to include a dictionary of all the words appearing in it, and all those words will only be able to be used one way.

Liberty's Edge

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, the responses from a majority of the posters in this thread is pretty unfortunate, and borders on childish and stupid. It's one thing to say "I disagree, let's have a respectful discussion about it". Nothing in this thread even remotely approaches that demeanor...it's all vitriol and nerd-rage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
David_Bross wrote:
The issue is that a developer was coming here on his saturday to answer your questions about a hobby we all love. He gave a clear answer, that two-weapon fighting is designed to give you an additional attack beyond the iterative attack sequence, with 0.5x strength, and that taking this attack means that attacks from the main iterative attack sequence are at 1.0x strength.

Has he actually posted that? I haven't seen any clear communication that's what he's saying at all. The best I can put together is that two-handed fighting is mutually exclusive with two-weapon fighting and that is derived from an internal guideline that a character's applicable strength bonus in a round (before iterative attacks) should be limited to 1.5x the strength bonus. But that's not in the FAQ itself so this whole thing seems to be some kind of sidebar discussion.

Ultimately, if they're going to issue a FAQ on a topic that they think will affect two-handed + two-weapon combat, I think they need to nail down a lot more than they have in this case. Otherwise, they can expect lots of questions.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I find it ironic that we're being accused of entering 'nothing says dead characters can't take actions' territory, when the other side is making the claim that 'wielding a weapon in two hands is not the same as wielding a weapon two-handed'. Wielding a weapon two-handed is never defined as using the weapon in your primary and your off-hand. It is defined as wielding a weapon two-handed.

It can't be had both ways--if an 'off-hand' is, of necessity, a hand, then the Boot Blade, Kobold and Ratfolk tail weapons, Boulder Helmets, and Armor Spikes all have their existence invalidated. If an off-hand can be other limbs, than it is an illogical gamey kludge for that hand to affect TWF in any way.

Also, am I to presume that this ruling would also prevent a Marilith or similar multi-armed creature from two-handing a greatsword and two-weapon fighting with a short sword--or from dual wielding Greatswords?


I still don't think I've gotten an answer to the question that really matters. Most of this discussion I could care less about, but I really would like to know for what reason beyond these "unwritten rules" this was thrown out?

From the math people have run it poses no balance threat, and thematically it works too.

I get that the devs like to say "I don't like this, therefore it doesn't work" (and don't tell me otherwise because SKR has said almost that exact thing to me before), but I'd really like to know if there's some other reason or if it's just one of those scenarios that they don't like the idea of it working (hence the unwritten rules, hence the FAQ).

I'd really like to think there was.


Rynjin wrote:

I still don't think I've gotten an answer to the question that really matters. Most of this discussion I could care less about, but I really would like to know for what reason beyond these "unwritten rules" this was thrown out?

To you, it was thrown out.

For them, it was never allowed.


Semantics.

The question still stands. Why was it ruled this way instead of another, take your pick of phrasing, I don't really care.


Rynjin wrote:

Semantics.

The question still stands. Why was it ruled this way instead of another, take your pick of phrasing, I don't really care.

Maybe because they don't do math before rulings.

I just did some comparisons between a Strength 20 Fighter and a Strength 18 Fighter with TWF. Both using Power Attack and not and both using Weapon Focus(Greatsword). TWF+PA is notably superior only in the region where ACs are LESS than 10. At 10, it is 2 points ahead of a GS with no PA, and only 1 point ahead of GS+PA and TWF(no PA). At AC 15 they are all within 1 point of each other.

AC 14 is where GS+PA is equal to TWF+PA, and above that GS+PA is better. Just around AC 15 is where GS(no PA) is equal to TWF+PA.

So overall no great difference.

This is something that SEEMS better than it is.


David_Bross wrote:
The issue is that a developer was coming here on his saturday to answer your questions about a hobby we all love. He gave a clear answer, that two-weapon fighting is designed to give you an additional attack beyond the iterative attack sequence, with 0.5x strength, and that taking this attack means that attacks from the main iterative attack sequence are at 1.0x strength. If you don't want to use the dev's rules in your home game that is fine, but don't argue with their interpretation. This entire game's rules ARE their interpretation.

He actually said the restriction is only for level 1 and for normal humans.

He said differences for other races.


Starbuck_II wrote:
David_Bross wrote:
The issue is that a developer was coming here on his saturday to answer your questions about a hobby we all love. He gave a clear answer, that two-weapon fighting is designed to give you an additional attack beyond the iterative attack sequence, with 0.5x strength, and that taking this attack means that attacks from the main iterative attack sequence are at 1.0x strength. If you don't want to use the dev's rules in your home game that is fine, but don't argue with their interpretation. This entire game's rules ARE their interpretation.

He actually said the restriction is only for level 1 and for normal humans.

He said differences for other races.

Technically he said it was for level 1s (which makes no sense as things are almost even mathematically), and that if you had a +6/+1 you could attack with a Greatsword and then Spikes (on the +1), which doesn't really say anything remotely new and is probably not worth mentioning. At least, that is what he seemed to say.

He certainly didn't ever say you could TWF with a Greatsword at all.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Now we need a free hand to kick people...

Yeah, that makes sense... After all, we always kick people by holding a foot in our hand and then pushing it against our target... Or maybe it's a balance thing, since unarmed strike is so powerful, right?


If you're going to crunch numbers at level 1, how many Feats are you using?
Unless you spend a Feat on IUS, using UAS as secondary will provoke: not a good idea at 1st level with a non-Reach weapon.
To do 2WF with any efficacy you need Improved 2WF.
If you want Power Attack, Improved UAS is out the door for Level 1 'standard' races.
Monks are pretty much the only way around that, but Flurry is the exception to this rule already.
(although it's still not clear if their wording Unarmed Strike is meant to also be an exception outside of Flurry)


Quandary wrote:

If you're going to crunch numbers at level 1, how many Feats are you using?

Unless you spend a Feat on IUS, using UAS as secondary will provoke: not a good idea at 1st level with a non-Reach weapon.
To do 2WF with any efficacy you need Improved 2WF.
If you want Power Attack, Improved UAS is out the door for Level 1 'standard' races.
Monks are pretty much the only way around that, but Flurry is the exception to this rule already.
(although it's still not clear if their wording Unarmed Strike is meant to also be an exception outside of Flurry)

I had TWF+WF(GS), TWF+WF(GS)+PA, WF(GS), and WF(GS)+PA, I did the calculations with Armor Spikes and a Greatsword with TWF and just a Greatsword otherwise.

I'm aware the feats could be changed up a bit and it is true that the Greatsword only is using less feats. I can easily adjust the calculations if anyone wants to mess around with the feats.


ciretose wrote:

They did not change the game or the rule in this one. In SLA, yes, in this one, no.

I've said this was how it was for over 2 years now, in multiple threads. Mark Moreland said this, Jason said this, it is now just a full, official FAQ.

I wouldn't call it full by any means. It hints at it as if it were full elsewhere.

ciretose wrote:

Off-hand doesn't mean a hand at all, otherwise you couldn't very well use Armor spikes, now could you?

So what is the off-hand. The off hand is an option as a player. You can use it to add damage if you fight two-handed, you can use it to make another attack, you can use it to cast a spell, or use a shield.

Let me say, that if you are correct, that you've known about this 'rule' for 2 years, but it took you until now to realize some of the basic implications of it?

ciretose wrote:
In fact, when you put it that way, no I don't think you get the shield bonus.

You are active on these boards, other players of our game will not be.

When you read a FAQ in the equipment section speaking about armor spikes, you see all of this. And yet you didn't after 2 years figure out how it would work with a shield?

Should this, if nothing else, make it clear that this is something that should come in full production as clear cut rules, rather than be hinted about in a FAQ that doesn't speak to the root of the issue?

Many other people, who also are active on these boards, did not read 'use in two hands' to mean anything along the lines of using the 'off-hand'.. after all

ciretose wrote:
Off-hand doesn't mean a hand at all

So do you think that these rules as written clearly demonstrate what you see in them?

Even to you, they didn't give some of the natural consequences. And you've been reading it that way for years now!

-James


Sean K Reynolds wrote:

James, you didn't even answer my question.

I apologize, I honestly thought it was self-evident. Mea maxima culpa.

A 1st level character without natural weapons that is not hasted can make a single attack with a full attack action.

When using TWF he gains a single extra attack with a second weapon he is currently also wielding in addition to his normal weapon.

There are great penalties for gaining this extra attack beyond needing to have two weapons wielded simultaneously. The category of this second weapon and a combat feat can greatly reduce this penalty. This is of course an aside, as you were just asking about the number.

So if your 1st level character had a short sword in each hand, and was one to kick (perhaps having Improved Unarmed Strike as well as Two weapon fighting to make this a sane choice) he would have three choices for a single attack action.

He could attack with the left hand's sword, the right hand's sword, or make an unarmed strike.

Since he has more than one weapon available at the same time, he could elect to use two weapon fighting as a full attack option.

He would designate one of his three weapons as the secondary weapon. This would determine some of the penalties involved in the full attack action. Since all of his three choices here are considered light weapons this penalty is reduced. As I am assuming he has the two weapon fighting combat feat, his penalties are greatly reduced down to a -2 on both attacks.

There are 6 combinations for the order in which he can choose 2 distinct from 3. The designation of 'secondary' weapon does not determine the order in which he makes both attacks, so there is an independent choice of primary then secondary or secondary then primary. Thus there are 12 possibilities here for this first level to make attacks.

However in all of these attack sequences, the 1st level character has two attacks.

-James


james maissen wrote:

However in all of these attack sequences, the 1st level character has two attacks.

-James

Now, prior to the FAQ there would have been do difference in number of attacks (or effect) if the character had elected to drop one of the two swords, grip the sword in both hands, and then two weapon fight with the single sword and the unarmed strike. I'm not sure if post-FAQ that this is allowed or disallowed.

Technically the FAQ does not forbid this. The short sword is not a two handed weapon. It does not gain what some posters have surmised is the litmus for 'eating up' the off-hand. Nor does it gain any extra strength bonus to damage by being wielded in two hands, which you've stated was the real motivation behind it.

This is where I think that the FAQ misses the mark. It narrows down to a specific case, and gives very little indication of why there is a problem.

The added wording talks about 'both hands' being used, and thus 'off-hand' is not available.

Does one need a hand free to use armor spikes? Does a non-monk character need a hand free to kick?

I would have thought that these would merely be rhetorical questions, but now I do not know whether you want those answers to be yes.

Thank you for your time,

James

PS: Oh one more questions: with the prevalence of PCs having access to natural weapons (even in core races, even humans.. Pathfinder has added a myriad of ways to accomplish this) how does that factor into what you've said as the unwritten rule in terms of damage a 1st level character can do?

Liberty's Edge

yeti1069 wrote:
Oh, or any barbarian at level 1 could take Lesser Beast Totem and make two claw attacks at full strength, dealing 2x Str damage in the round (and on a class that has a bigger Str than everyone else). Albeit this isn't something he can do all day long, but it is also a cheaper investment than TWF, and easier to improve than TWF with two different weapons. Note that also, technically, the same character could attack with a two-handed weapon then release his grip with his off-hand and make a secondary natural attack with one claw.

Barbarians in your game get rage powers at first level?

Also:

"Beast Totem, Lesser (Su): While raging, the barbarian gains two claw attacks. These attacks are considered primary attacks and are made at the barbarian's full base attack bonus. The claws deal 1d6 points of slashing damage (1d4 if Small) plus the barbarian's Strength modifier."

So where are you getting 2X from.

Also, read natural attack regarding your use of weapons...

You are upset because you thought you found a loophole, and now that loophole has been closed.

Get over it.

Liberty's Edge

Quandary wrote:
I do want to be able to use their ruling, that's why I'm asking for clarification.

He gave you clarification.

He just didn't tell you want you wanted to hear. That your loophole was still open.

You read it wrong. No shame in that, apparently other people read it wrong as well, so it wasn't clear. You thought there was a loophole that allowed to THF and TWF.

There isn't.

It has been cleared up. The correct reply is "Thanks for the clarification" not "You took away my exploit and now I am going to be petulant!"

Liberty's Edge

Bill Dunn wrote:
David_Bross wrote:
The issue is that a developer was coming here on his saturday to answer your questions about a hobby we all love. He gave a clear answer, that two-weapon fighting is designed to give you an additional attack beyond the iterative attack sequence, with 0.5x strength, and that taking this attack means that attacks from the main iterative attack sequence are at 1.0x strength.

Has he actually posted that? I haven't seen any clear communication that's what he's saying at all. The best I can put together is that two-handed fighting is mutually exclusive with two-weapon fighting and that is derived from an internal guideline that a character's applicable strength bonus in a round (before iterative attacks) should be limited to 1.5x the strength bonus. But that's not in the FAQ itself so this whole thing seems to be some kind of sidebar discussion.

Ultimately, if they're going to issue a FAQ on a topic that they think will affect two-handed + two-weapon combat, I think they need to nail down a lot more than they have in this case. Otherwise, they can expect lots of questions.

I linked to in on the last page..

To sum up

"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 mad 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."

And before you say "That is just your interpretation..." I am copying and pasting what I posted earlier that SKR favorited.

This isn't new. Many of us have been saying this for years.

Liberty's Edge

Revan wrote:

I find it ironic that we're being accused of entering 'nothing says dead characters can't take actions' territory, when the other side is making the claim that 'wielding a weapon in two hands is not the same as wielding a weapon two-handed'. Wielding a weapon two-handed is never defined as using the weapon in your primary and your off-hand. It is defined as wielding a weapon two-handed.

It can't be had both ways--if an 'off-hand' is, of necessity, a hand, then the Boot Blade, Kobold and Ratfolk tail weapons, Boulder Helmets, and Armor Spikes all have their existence invalidated. If an off-hand can be other limbs, than it is an illogical gamey kludge for that hand to affect TWF in any way.

Also, am I to presume that this ruling would also prevent a Marilith or similar multi-armed creature from two-handing a greatsword and two-weapon fighting with a short sword--or from dual wielding Greatswords?

Holding a weapon in two hands is not the same as wielding a weapon in two hands.

See: Double Weapons.

You assumed holding a weapon in two hands meant you were also wielding it two handed.

Despite Double weapons.

The sky is falling, the sky is falling...

Liberty's Edge

james maissen wrote:

When using TWF he gains a single extra attack with a second weapon he is currently also wielding in addition to his normal weapon.

This is the key word.

Wielding.

Armor spikes are not in your "hand". But you do wield them in your "Off-hand". Off hand has nothing to do with your actual hand. It is what you are doing with your non-Primary attack option.

Are you attacking with it. Are you using a shield. Are you using it to increase the damage of an additional attack.

Why do you lose shield damage when you shield bash? Your shield is still being held in your off hand?

Because you traded the offhand defense for off-hand offense.

When you hold a weapon in two hands, it does not automatically give you Two Handed damage.

You need to add your off-hand to get two weapon damage.

Liberty's Edge

james maissen wrote:

PS: Oh one more questions: with the prevalence of PCs having access to natural weapons (even in core races, even humans.. Pathfinder has added a myriad of ways to accomplish this) how does that factor into what you've said as the unwritten rule in terms of damage a 1st level character can do?

Natural weapons are spelled out in the universal monster rules. If you use a weapon along with natural attacks, 1. If the weapon requires use of the limb used for a natural attack you lose that specific natural attack, and 2) all of your natural attacks become secondary attacks at -5 and .5 strength.

"Creatures with natural attacks and attacks made with weapons can use both as part of a full attack action (although often a creature must forgo one natural attack for each weapon clutched in that limb, be it a claw, tentacle, or slam). Such creatures attack with their weapons normally but treat all of their available natural attacks as secondary attacks during that attack, regardless of the attack's original type."


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Quandary wrote:

Sure MDT, but a Cleric/Monk dip + Special Feat wasn't being discussed, just a Monk dip was being discussed.

Crusader's Flurry is great, but doesn't help illuminate the general rules issue being discussed.

Yes, but you can still do it without the cleric dip, just not with a great sword. But a monk weapon will work (quarterstaff, temple sword used two-handed, etc).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Vod Canockers wrote:
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.

They won't answer your question, because doing so might undercut their arguments.

In this thread or another on the same subject I asked about the Buckler Gun and in ALWAYS being an off hand weapon. One person claimed that that meant only during TWF, so I asked when the definition of "always" changed to "sometimes." Oddly, or rather not, I got no answers.

I hope you had a good weekend.

Actually, several people answered his question. I'll repeat the answer below if you like...

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?

Answer : No. Why? Because Two Weapon Fighting only allows one additional attack. If you have made your two attacks (sword + sword) you have made all the attacks you can legally make that turn.

The return question is what is not being answered. Those questions are :

1) If I am using two short swords, and have Armor Spikes and a Boot Blade, can I use any of my weapons for my attacks?

1A) Prior to the FAQ, the answer would have been 'You may make your primary attack with any one of your weapons (sword 1, sword 2, boot blade, or Armor Spikes), and may then make your off-hand attack with any of the 3 you didn't use for your primary'. Post FAQ, it is not clear that that is true anymore. A strict reading of the FAQ and explanations by SKR indicate that the Armor Spikes and Boot blade are no longer valid attack forms due to the fact your second short sword is 'taking up' your off-hand slot. In other words, prior to FAQ, all the following would have been valid attack sequences :

Short Sword + Short Sword
Short Sword + Boot Blade
Short Sword + Armor Spike
Boot blade + Short Sword
Boot Blade + Armor Spike
Armor Spike + Short Sword
Armor Spike + Boot Blade

After the FAQ, based on comments from SKR, ONLY the following is valid :

Short Sword + Short Sword

2) How does this idea of off-handeness affect creatures with more than 2 arms? Before anyone says this is a corner case, Eidelon's are not corner cases, they are a primary class feature of a base class.

2A) Prior to this ruling, a 1st level eidelon with four arms could wield a Great Sword in two arms, and then wield a short sword in a third arm, wear a shield on a fourth arm, and have two additional arms with claws on them. His attack sequence using TWF would have legally been Great Sword + Short Sword or Shield Bash + 2 claws (at -5 each). Now, the FAQ says this is not legal, despite the Eidelon having 4 extra arms to handle 'off hand' attacks.

3) Is the intent of the FAQ to modify the existing rules (or clarify if you prefer) that if you use a Two-Handed weapon, or a weapon Two-Handed, you can never have an off-hand attack regardless of physical makeup or features (note this ruling would also prevent Monk's from making any off-hand attacks with TWF if they are using a temple sword, as they would also not have off-hand available for attacks, and would affect their flurry, as the flurry rules reference the TWF rules). If so, then those stating this is a 'unwritten rules' ruling would be correct, there's nothing in RAW to indicate that use of Two-Handed negates the ability to use an Off-hand attack (especially for those who have more than one off-hand attack). Prior to this, the rule was simple in that you couldn't use the same limb to make more than one type of attack (IE: If you had claws on both hands, but used a slam that required both arms, you couldn't also claw with both, because you used them with the slam).

Liberty's Edge

1. SKR never said that you can't use other weapons for your off-hand attack.

He said you can't use both your short swords AND another thing for your off-hand attack.

And if you use your off-hand to increase strength damage, your off-hand cannot be additionally used for making an additional attack.

2. Same as it always effected extra attacks. They are extra attacks. Period, full stop. Extra arms can mean extra attacks, if it says they do, but it doesn't automatically. Number of attacks is not equal to number of limbs.

3. Flurry is specifically an exception, because of the rule change made to flurry after Jason clarified how flurry worked like TWF, then reversed it.

The rule is not complicated if you don't try to find complications in it to get around restrictions...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A two handed weapon has always used your off hand to attack. It states that they use both hands in the Two Handed weapon description. In addition, the buckler description clarifies that the two handed weapons use the off hand.

The theory that you could THF and TWF has always been flawed.

SKR said that the rule wasn't explicitly stated. This unwritten rules is that Two Handed Weapons require two hands and that two weapon fighting requires two hands. Oh my...

Yes, this is dead characters can't act territory.

If a weapon functions as a light off hand weapon, then it functions as a light off hand weapon. Light weapons require a hand. Does that mean you physically hold the weapon as you attack? No. It means that for the purpose of mechanics, the attack uses a hand.

It's kind of like when you hit a monster for 1D8 + 8 damage you aren't actually hitting the monster with a D8, a plus sign and a giant sign with the number 8 scrawled across it. There are mechanics to any game.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
ciretose wrote:

1. SKR never said that you can't use other weapons for your off-hand attack.

He said you can't use both your short swords AND another thing for your off-hand attack.

And if you use your off-hand to increase strength damage, your off-hand cannot be additionally used for making an additional attack.

A) He did ask that, which was why people ignored that part of his question mostly, since the rules say you only make two attacks as part of a two-weapon attack, which nobody argued. In other words, his original question was off-topic, and a skew of the topic at that.

B) Your second half of the statement, again, has nothing in the rules to back it up. How many off-hands do you have? Nothing in the rules states you only have one off-hand, it just talks about having one primary, and other attacks being off-hand.

ciretose wrote:


2. Same as it always effected extra attacks. They are extra attacks. Period, full stop. Extra arms can mean extra attacks, if it says they do, but it doesn't automatically. Number of attacks is not equal to number of limbs.

And you completely ignore the question. Nobody has said 'limbs = attacks'. Please actually READ the question. Nothing in the rules also says 'you only have one off-hand attack and cannot use your off-hand if you are two-handed fighting'. Please point to the rule if there is (which is what people have been saying). You are, just like SKR, skewing the question off the topic (the topic being, where in RAW does it say you have one and only one off-hand, and which one is it?). Again, if the FAQ is adding a new rule (When using a two-handed weapon, use of off-hand weapons is forbidden), then that is fine, but it's a new rule, and requires errata and not just an FAQ entry. So again, please point out where ANYONE has stated that limbs = # attacks per round? This is a strawman argument. You are fighting against an argument that was never made.

ciretose wrote:


3. Flurry is specifically an exception, because of the rule change made to flurry after Jason clarified how flurry worked like TWF, then reversed it.

The rule is not complicated if you don't try to find complications in it to get around restrictions...

Incorrect. The rule used to be simple. You could make any attack you wanted with any valid weapon you could use, and apply the penalties for the situation with the weapon. For example, the rule previously (and was backed up FAQ) was when iterative attacking, you could use any combination of valid weapons you use in those iterative attacks. By the same token, two-weapon fighting used to be simple, you could make any attack you wanted, but applied penalties based off what feats you have, and what size weapon you are attacking with. Attack with a one-handed weapon off hand was harder than a light weapon. Now, because of the one word response on the FAQ, and SKR's comments in this thread, it's gotten complicated because we have to figure out when we have an off-hand and when we don't.

Liberty's Edge

It is not complicated. It never was complicated. People read a loophole into items that didn't require hands that wasn't there.

Wielding is not holding. If it were you couldn't use armor spikes as an off-hand attack, because it isn't in your hand.

Off-hand is not a literal hand. It is a mechanical term.

And double weapons would have done 1.5 damage when TWF.

Wielding a weapon two-handed requires the primary and off hand.

Two weapon fighting requires the primary and off hand.

Not. Complicated.

Liberty's Edge

To make this even more clear, if off-hand were a literal hand, you then couldn't wield armor spikes at all, because they aren't in your literal hand.

Off-hand is a mechanical term describing the option for a second attack, additional strength damage, etc...it is not a literal hand.

So getting another arm doesn't give you an off hand any more than having two legs gives you two extra kick attacks.

That was the point SKR was making.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
ciretose wrote:

It is not complicated. It never was complicated. People read a loophole into items that didn't require hands that wasn't there.

Wielding is not holding. If it were you couldn't use armor spikes as an off-hand attack, because it isn't in your hand.

Off-hand is not a literal hand. It is a mechanical term.

And double weapons would have done 1.5 damage when TWF.

Wielding a weapon two-handed requires the primary and off hand.

Two weapon fighting requires the primary and off hand.

Not. Complicated.

No it's not, when stated like that.

However, that is not stated in the RAW. Again, if this is an errata/change to the rules, that's great. But make it a change, put it in Errata, and either define 'primary hand' and 'off hand' or else use different terminology 'primary melee' and 'secondary melee' and then put in the raw that a two-handed melee attack requires both the primary and secodary melee attacks.

Here's a different question no one has thought of.

Prior to this FAQ, if I had armor spikes and a bow, I could make a ranged attack with the bow (two handed ranged attack), and an iterative attack with the armor spikes.

That is no longer possible, as the armor spikes have now been ruled to require your 'free hand' (See SKR's comments). That means that a bow user can't use his armor spikes to attack at range and then hit an adjacent melee opponent. I suppose a boot blade would still be viable.

Honestly it sounds like armor spikes should just be ignored as useless, and everyone use boot blades or IUS.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

For those that don't understand this ruling that clarifies the rules, it might help to think of things visually.

A normal 1st level standard race character has resource points that can be used. Visualize these points as apples, balls, dollar bills, or whatever suits you best. The number of resource points available is predicated on the number of arms—for a standard race character, that is 2.

It takes two resource points to wield a 2HW. Thus, there are no more points available to make additional attacks.

It takes one resource point to wield a one-handed or light weapon. It also takes one resource point to use a shield to get the AC bonus. This means that you can either TWF or "sword and board". In either of these cases, you expend 2 resource points.

If you're a "sword and board" character, but decide to TWF (either by attacking with the shield or another weapon such as a boot blade), you lose the AC bonus from the shield because your two resource points were expended making the attacks and you have none left to get the AC from the shield.

If you stop worrying about "secret rules" and think about this from an intuative perspective, it does make sense.

Liberty's Edge

@mdt - It is stated exactly like that.

And you can make and iterative attack with armor spikes. When you have two iterative attacks.

What you can't do is use your off-hand to get an extra attack and also use your off-hand to do something else.

Off-hand is not a literal hand. It has never been a literal hand. Nowhere in the rules did it ever say having an extra hand gives you another off-hand.

If off-hand were an actual hand, you could never use armor spikes, kicks, or anything else not actually in your hand.

You read something into the rule that wasn't in the rule.


Ok, soooo..... If I am wielding a double weapon, and I make my primary attack with a single end of the weapon at 1.0x Strength bonus, can I still make my "Off-Hand Attack" with a non-handed weapon like armor spikes?

I think the answer has to still be "Yes"... which seems like it must invalidate the FAQ.

Liberty's Edge

The Crusader wrote:

Ok, soooo..... If I am wielding a double weapon, and I make my primary attack with a single end of the weapon at 1.0x Strength bonus, can I still make my "Off-Hand Attack" with a non-handed weapon like armor spikes?

I think the answer has to still be "Yes"... which seems like it must invalidate the FAQ.

Why?

You aren't wielding it two-handed. Your off-hand attack is still available.

Holding with two hands (or even using it with two hands) is not wielding two handed.


What he has stated has no effect on iterative attacks. None what so ever. It only affects two weapon fighting with a two handed weapon. It isn't a change, it's a clarification. It's the same clarification made by the buckler description.

Everyone seems to be forgetting that light, one handed, and two handed have never indicated the number of physical hands required for wielding a weapon. They have always resembled the amount of effort required to wield a weapon.

Primary hand is an effort resource.
Off hand is an effort resource.

Nothing to do with hands. Typically a weapon requires the same number of hands as effort, but this is different in many cases (UAS, Armor Spikes, etc.).

For a weapon to be usable with a two handed weapon (two handed weapons requires both hands of effort, primary and of), it has to specifically state it like the barbazu beard or sea-knife.

Both of those weapons work with two weapon fighting, but come with serious limitations (AoO provokes or inability to walk/run).

Lastly, let's take a look at bows again. Bows are not technically two handed weapons. The light, one handed, two handed designations are for melee weapons only. Bows are just ranged weapons that require two hands to use. Now, you are using your off hand to wield the bow, so it isn't available to two weapon fight, but there is a difference between a two handed weapon and a ranged weapon that requires two hands to use.

Look at the buckler description for example. This is the reason you do not take a penalty with bows or crossbows.


ciretose wrote:
The Crusader wrote:

Ok, soooo..... If I am wielding a double weapon, and I make my primary attack with a single end of the weapon at 1.0x Strength bonus, can I still make my "Off-Hand Attack" with a non-handed weapon like armor spikes?

I think the answer has to still be "Yes"... which seems like it must invalidate the FAQ.

Why?

You aren't wielding it two-handed. Your off-hand attack is still available.

Holding with two hands (or even using it with two hands) is not wielding two handed.

Except you can't not wield it two-handed. There is no way to wield a double weapon one-handed, even if you are only making a single attack with it. You must have your primary hand and your off-hand on the weapon to wield it. Period.


HangarFlying wrote:

For those that don't understand this ruling that clarifies the rules, it might help to think of things visually.

A normal 1st level standard race character has resource points that can be used. Visualize these points as apples, balls, dollar bills, or whatever suits you best. The number of resource points available is predicated on the number of arms—for a standard race character, that is 2.

It takes two resource points to wield a 2HW. Thus, there are no more points available to make additional attacks.

It takes one resource point to wield a one-handed or light weapon. It also takes one resource point to use a shield to get the AC bonus. This means that you can either TWF or "sword and board". In either of these cases, you expend 2 resource points.

If you're a "sword and board" character, but decide to TWF (either by attacking with the shield or another weapon such as a boot blade), you lose the AC bonus from the shield because your two resource points were expended making the attacks and you have none left to get the AC from the shield.

If you stop worrying about "secret rules" and think about this from an intuative perspective, it does make sense.

Unless there is a feat, ability, or trait that accompanies the extra arms, the resources are always at 2 regardless of number of arms.

Liberty's Edge

The Crusader wrote:


Except you can't not wield it two-handed. There is no way to wield a double weapon one-handed, even if you are only making a single attack with it. You must have your primary hand and your off-hand on the weapon to wield it. Period.

Wielding two-handed is not the same as using two hands to use a weapon.

If it were, both attacks with a double weapon would do 1.5 damage.

Period.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
HangarFlying wrote:

For those that don't understand this ruling that clarifies the rules, it might help to think of things visually.

A normal 1st level standard race character has resource points that can be used. Visualize these points as apples, balls, dollar bills, or whatever suits you best. The number of resource points available is predicated on the number of arms—for a standard race character, that is 2.

It takes two resource points to wield a 2HW. Thus, there are no more points available to make additional attacks.

It takes one resource point to wield a one-handed or light weapon. It also takes one resource point to use a shield to get the AC bonus. This means that you can either TWF or "sword and board". In either of these cases, you expend 2 resource points.

If you're a "sword and board" character, but decide to TWF (either by attacking with the shield or another weapon such as a boot blade), you lose the AC bonus from the shield because your two resource points were expended making the attacks and you have none left to get the AC from the shield.

If you stop worrying about "secret rules" and think about this from an intuative perspective, it does make sense.

Cool rules! I wish you all the best in writing your own game system.

But these are not the rules of Pathfinder.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:

For those that don't understand this ruling that clarifies the rules, it might help to think of things visually.

A normal 1st level standard race character has resource points that can be used. Visualize these points as apples, balls, dollar bills, or whatever suits you best. The number of resource points available is predicated on the number of arms—for a standard race character, that is 2.

It takes two resource points to wield a 2HW. Thus, there are no more points available to make additional attacks.

It takes one resource point to wield a one-handed or light weapon. It also takes one resource point to use a shield to get the AC bonus. This means that you can either TWF or "sword and board". In either of these cases, you expend 2 resource points.

If you're a "sword and board" character, but decide to TWF (either by attacking with the shield or another weapon such as a boot blade), you lose the AC bonus from the shield because your two resource points were expended making the attacks and you have none left to get the AC from the shield.

If you stop worrying about "secret rules" and think about this from an intuative perspective, it does make sense.

Cool rules! I wish you all the best in writing your own game system.

But these are not the rules of Pathfinder.

Malachi is right. The "you lose the AC bonus from the shield because your two resource points were expended making the attacks and you have none left to get the AC from the shield." is stated nowhere in the book, it is not even a logcally conclusion from the FAQ since the FAQ only spakcs about THF.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:

For those that don't understand this ruling that clarifies the rules, it might help to think of things visually.

A normal 1st level standard race character has resource points that can be used. Visualize these points as apples, balls, dollar bills, or whatever suits you best. The number of resource points available is predicated on the number of arms—for a standard race character, that is 2.

It takes two resource points to wield a 2HW. Thus, there are no more points available to make additional attacks.

It takes one resource point to wield a one-handed or light weapon. It also takes one resource point to use a shield to get the AC bonus. This means that you can either TWF or "sword and board". In either of these cases, you expend 2 resource points.

If you're a "sword and board" character, but decide to TWF (either by attacking with the shield or another weapon such as a boot blade), you lose the AC bonus from the shield because your two resource points were expended making the attacks and you have none left to get the AC from the shield.

If you stop worrying about "secret rules" and think about this from an intuative perspective, it does make sense.

Cool rules! I wish you all the best in writing your own game system.

But these are not the rules of Pathfinder.

No matter how much you're going to be a cry baby about it, it doesn't change the fact that if you wield a 2HW you don't get to make an extra attack.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
HangarFlying wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:

For those that don't understand this ruling that clarifies the rules, it might help to think of things visually.

A normal 1st level standard race character has resource points that can be used. Visualize these points as apples, balls, dollar bills, or whatever suits you best. The number of resource points available is predicated on the number of arms—for a standard race character, that is 2.

It takes two resource points to wield a 2HW. Thus, there are no more points available to make additional attacks.

It takes one resource point to wield a one-handed or light weapon. It also takes one resource point to use a shield to get the AC bonus. This means that you can either TWF or "sword and board". In either of these cases, you expend 2 resource points.

If you're a "sword and board" character, but decide to TWF (either by attacking with the shield or another weapon such as a boot blade), you lose the AC bonus from the shield because your two resource points were expended making the attacks and you have none left to get the AC from the shield.

If you stop worrying about "secret rules" and think about this from an intuative perspective, it does make sense.

Cool rules! I wish you all the best in writing your own game system.

But these are not the rules of Pathfinder.

No matter how much you're going to be a cry baby about it, it doesn't change the fact that if you wield a 2HW you don't get to make an extra attack.

...based on rules that aren't in the book...!


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

I still don't think I've gotten an answer to the question that really matters. Most of this discussion I could care less about, but I really would like to know for what reason beyond these "unwritten rules" this was thrown out?

To you, it was thrown out.

For them, it was never allowed.

We can not read the Devs mind, we can only read what they print. In this case there is nothing in the rule that give the slightless hint that this option is disallowed.

It is somewhat annoying that the attitude is "yeah that was the clear rule from the beggining" instead of "Yeah, we do nt like that option so no".

Liberty's Edge

Nicos wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:

For those that don't understand this ruling that clarifies the rules, it might help to think of things visually.

A normal 1st level standard race character has resource points that can be used. Visualize these points as apples, balls, dollar bills, or whatever suits you best. The number of resource points available is predicated on the number of arms—for a standard race character, that is 2.

It takes two resource points to wield a 2HW. Thus, there are no more points available to make additional attacks.

It takes one resource point to wield a one-handed or light weapon. It also takes one resource point to use a shield to get the AC bonus. This means that you can either TWF or "sword and board". In either of these cases, you expend 2 resource points.

If you're a "sword and board" character, but decide to TWF (either by attacking with the shield or another weapon such as a boot blade), you lose the AC bonus from the shield because your two resource points were expended making the attacks and you have none left to get the AC from the shield.

If you stop worrying about "secret rules" and think about this from an intuative perspective, it does make sense.

Cool rules! I wish you all the best in writing your own game system.

But these are not the rules of Pathfinder.

Malachi is right. The "you lose the AC bonus from the shield because your two resource points were expended making the attacks and you have none left to get the AC from the shield." is stated nowhere in the book, it is not even a logcally conclusion from the FAQ since the FAQ only spakcs about THF.

If you make an attack with an arm that has a buckler shield attached to it, do you keep the AC bonus?

If you make a shield bash, do you keep the AC bonus?

You have to advance from a rote understanding of the rules and apply smaller parts to the bigger whole.


The Crusader wrote:
ciretose wrote:
The Crusader wrote:

Ok, soooo..... If I am wielding a double weapon, and I make my primary attack with a single end of the weapon at 1.0x Strength bonus, can I still make my "Off-Hand Attack" with a non-handed weapon like armor spikes?

I think the answer has to still be "Yes"... which seems like it must invalidate the FAQ.

Why?

You aren't wielding it two-handed. Your off-hand attack is still available.

Holding with two hands (or even using it with two hands) is not wielding two handed.

Except you can't not wield it two-handed. There is no way to wield a double weapon one-handed, even if you are only making a single attack with it. You must have your primary hand and your off-hand on the weapon to wield it. Period.

The character can also choose to use a double weapon two-handed, attacking with only one end of it. A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can’t use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.

351 to 400 of 1,428 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Two Handed Weapon and Armor Spikes Resolved by the Design Team? All Messageboards