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


Rules Questions

401 to 450 of 1,428 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

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

And where are the rules that have you the assumption that it was allowed in the first place?

Liberty's Edge

Well of course when you hold a weapon in two hands you always do 1.5 damage, I mean look at double weapons...oh...


HangarFlying wrote:
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.

Your answer do not anser anything. If I have a lonngswod and a shield and I TWF with the sword and a kick then there is nothing in the rule that state that I lost my AC bonus.

It is not in the rule

It is just plain inferior than the longsword + shield bash combo (the same number of feat, but the shield is cheaper to enchant).

There is no reason for this unwriten rule of yours.


ciretose wrote:

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.

A side issue, and one worthy of a thread in and of itself.

You can contend that double weapons, being two-handed weapons, do just that as nothing contradicts the normal rules therein.

But if you want to debate that, I would suggest starting another thread.

-James


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
ciretose wrote:
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...

Double weapons are called out specifically as being treated like a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. When you wield a double weapon in that manner, you don't have two hands on the same weapon, technically speaking. When you wield a Greatsword, you do. (That said, if Double weapons did work that way, there might be a reason to actually use them, but that's beside the point.)


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 3 people marked this as a favorite.

I propose a bit more of an "encompassing" change to the Devs to clear up both this issue, and future issues regarding two-weapon fighting, two-handed weapons, etc.

First involves a pretty major errata; Replace every instance of "main-hand attack" regarding TWF with "Primary Attack" and "off-hand attack" with "Auxiliary Attack". This clearly and explicitly divorces attacks from "hands" and having or losing individual "hands" no longer has an affect on the ability to make attacks. Hands will, forevermore, only be a resource for wielding "hand-associated" weapons; ie. you can't wield a shortsword if you've lost both your hands, you can't wield a greatsword if you've lost one of your hands, etc.

Second, clarify that an attack with a 2-h weapons uses both a Primary and an Auxiliary attack (If you have one remaining). What this means is, if you have a potential Auxiliary attack, it's "eaten" by making an attack with a 2-h weapon, but you can still attack with a 2-h weapon even if you have no more Auxiliary attacks. The basic example is, at lvl 1, having 1 Primary and 1 Auxiliary attack, making an attack with a 2-h weapon (or a weapon wielded in 2 hands) eats both the Primary and the Auxiliary attack, thus you have no remaining Auxiliary attacks to make with another weapon. If you have, lets say, 4 Primary Attacks and 3 auxiliary attacks, you could make 2 primary attacks (eating 2 Auxiliary attacks) with a 2-h weapon and then the remaining Primary Attacks with a 1-h weapon which leaves you with 1 Auxiliary Attack (the one offered by GTWF at Bab-10) which you may take with an Auxiliary weapon (ie. Armor Spikes, UAS, Boot Blade, Quickdrawn weapon). For example, if you have a Longsword and Spiked Gauntlet, 4 Primary Attacks, and 3 Auxiliary Attacks, you could make two attacks with the Longsword wielded in 2 hands, 2 more attacks with the Longsword wielded in 1 hand, and have 1 remaining Auxiliary Attack to make with the Spiked Gauntlet.

Third, allowance to make a Primary Attack with a 2-h weapon without the extra 0.5x Str bonus that doesn't eat an Auxiliary attack. This, furthermore, streamlines Double Weapons such that, if you attack with them as a 2-h weapon for 1.5x Str to damage, it eats an Auxiliary attack whereas, if you make your Primary attack at 1.0x Str to damage, it doesn't eat the Auxiliary and you can use the "other end" as your Auxiliary weapon. This also somewhat streamlines and clarifies the Lance in that, since its category as a 2-h weapon doesn't change even when you wield it in 1 hand, it can still be used to deal 1.5x Str and 2-h weapon Power Attack, but it still eats your Auxiliary Attack. This also mitigates mounted dual-lance tactics in that, to get an Auxiliary Attack with the second lance, you need to drop your Str bonus down to 1.0x.

The only real remaining issue is the potential to use a 2-h weapon to make an Auxiliary Attack. By the aforementioned changes, you could, potentially, expend 2 Auxiliary Attacks to make one Auxiliary Attack with a 2-h weapon at a net of 1x Str to damage (1.5x 2-h bonus + (1 - 0.5x off-hand) = 1.5x - 0.5x = 1.0x). I'm not sure if this should or shouldn't be permissible and, if it is permissible, should the attack be executed at the higher bonus and eat the lower one or vice versa?

I think these are the most utilitarian changes that can be made, creating the greatest appeal to the greatest number of people and leaving a far smaller minority who would feel compelled to "waive away" a default rule in favor of a houserule.

Liberty's Edge

james maissen wrote:
ciretose wrote:

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.

A side issue, and one worthy of a thread in and of itself.

You can contend that double weapons, being two-handed weapons, do just that as nothing contradicts the normal rules therein.

But if you want to debate that, I would suggest starting another thread.

-James

Dude, that is the entire point you seem to be not getting.

The off-hand is not a hand. It is a mechanic. Otherwise you couldn't use armor strikes with your off hand.

Having something in both hands is not the same as wielding two handed. Wielding two-handed is investing your off-hand mechanic to add damage rather than investing it in a shield, extra attack, etc.

Physical limbs are not off-hands any more than they are extra attacks.

That was the point Sean was making with adding the kick attack. Just because the limb is there, doesn't make it an attack option.

Just because you don't have something in your hand, doesn't mean that armor spike attack wasn't an off-hand attack.

Liberty's Edge

Revan wrote:


When you wield a double weapon in that manner, you don't have two hands on the same weapon, technically speaking.

Or having two hands on a weapon doesn't mean you are wielding it two-handed, technically speaking...

Which is exactly what the FAQ is saying.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

While i do think the intention of double weapons is to be 1.5 x STR total, the wording does say:
"A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons, but he incurs all the normal attack penalties associated with two-weapon combat, just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon (see page 202)."

A careful look at this wording will reveal that it never says that the ends are treated as a one handed and light weapon. It says that the character takes penalties as though he were wielding a one handed and light weapon and references page 202 for two weapon fighting (which has no mention of damage on it).

James has a point here. By the RAW they would work just like a two handed weapon for damage on each end unless I'm missing a separate entry somewhere.

As for shield bonuses, you can't point to shield bash or buckler. They have special rules associated with them. Unless the shield requires the off hand, nothing prevents you from gaining the AC bonus. The shield doesn't require the off hand. No AC bonus is lost by RAW. Now, I could easily see them actually changing this, but that actually is RAW right now. There isn't any ambiguity to it.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kazaan wrote:

I propose a bit more of an "encompassing" change to the Devs to clear up both this issue, and future issues regarding two-weapon fighting, two-handed weapons, etc.

First involves a pretty major errata; Replace every instance of "main-hand attack" regarding TWF with "Primary Attack" and "off-hand attack" with "Auxiliary Attack". This clearly and explicitly divorces attacks from "hands" and having or losing individual "hands" no longer has an affect on the ability to make attacks. Hands will, forevermore, only be a resource for wielding "hand-associated" weapons; ie. you can't wield a shortsword if you've lost both your hands, you can't wield a greatsword if you've lost one of your hands, etc.

Second, clarify that an attack with a 2-h weapons uses both a Primary and an Auxiliary attack (If you have one remaining). What this means is, if you have a potential Auxiliary attack, it's "eaten" by making an attack with a 2-h weapon, but you can still attack with a 2-h weapon even if you have no more Auxiliary attacks. The basic example is, at lvl 1, having 1 Primary and 1 Auxiliary attack, making an attack with a 2-h weapon (or a weapon wielded in 2 hands) eats both the Primary and the Auxiliary attack, thus you have no remaining Auxiliary attacks to make with another weapon. If you have, lets say, 4 Primary Attacks and 3 auxiliary attacks, you could make 2 primary attacks (eating 2 Auxiliary attacks) with a 2-h weapon and then the remaining Primary Attacks with a 1-h weapon which leaves you with 1 Auxiliary Attack (the one offered by GTWF at Bab-10) which you may take with an Auxiliary weapon (ie. Armor Spikes, UAS, Boot Blade, Quickdrawn weapon). For example, if you have a Longsword and Spiked Gauntlet, 4 Primary Attacks, and 3 Auxiliary Attacks, you could make two attacks with the Longsword wielded in 2 hands, 2 more attacks with the Longsword wielded in 1 hand, and have 1 remaining Auxiliary Attack to make with the Spiked Gauntlet.

Third, allowance to make a Primary Attack with a 2-h weapon...

Quite a huge errata.

How they expect the players to derive all this from the single word 'no' is beyond me...!

Liberty's Edge

My point being that people assumed if you put two physical hands on a weapon, that you were then wielding the weapon two handed.

That assumption was wrong and has now been clarified. Off-hand is not the same as a limb. When you understand that, it all makes sense.

James is legitimately trying to understand, many others are just throwing a fit.

Silver Crusade

ciretose wrote:
Revan wrote:


When you wield a double weapon in that manner, you don't have two hands on the same weapon, technically speaking.

Or having two hands on a weapon doesn't mean you are wielding it two-handed, technically speaking...

Which is exactly what the FAQ is saying.

Following this logic, you could still wield a greatsword even if you had lost both hands. You would still use up that much 'effort' to make the attack.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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?

You must not have read this part of the rulebook then.

Buckler wrote:

Buckler

Price 5 gp

Shield Bonus +1

This small metal shield is worn strapped to your forearm. You can use a bow or crossbow without penalty while carrying it. You can also use your shield arm to wield a weapon (whether you are using an off-hand weapon or using your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon), but you take a –1 penalty on attack rolls while doing so. This penalty stacks with those that may apply for fighting with your off hand and for fighting with two weapons. In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you lose the buckler's AC bonus until your next turn. You can cast a spell with somatic components using your shield arm, but you lose the buckler's AC bonus until your next turn. You can't make a shield bash with a buckler.

Gee right there where I bolded, using your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon, I guess it never was part of the rulebook.

Liberty's Edge

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Revan wrote:


When you wield a double weapon in that manner, you don't have two hands on the same weapon, technically speaking.

Or having two hands on a weapon doesn't mean you are wielding it two-handed, technically speaking...

Which is exactly what the FAQ is saying.

Following this logic, you could still wield a greatsword even if you had lost both hands. You would still use up that much 'effort' to make the attack.

My point illustrated...

Liberty's Edge

Vod Canockers wrote:
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?

You must not have read this part of the rulebook then.

Buckler wrote:

Buckler

Price 5 gp

Shield Bonus +1

This small metal shield is worn strapped to your forearm. You can use a bow or crossbow without penalty while carrying it. You can also use your shield arm to wield a weapon (whether you are using an off-hand weapon or using your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon), but you take a –1 penalty on attack rolls while doing so. This penalty stacks with those that may apply for fighting with your off hand and for fighting with two weapons. In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you lose the buckler's AC bonus until your next turn. You can cast a spell with somatic components using your shield arm, but you lose the buckler's AC bonus until your next turn. You can't make a shield bash with a buckler.

Gee right there where I bolded, using your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon, I guess it never was part of the rulebook.

That awkward moment when the weak argument doesn't even hold up anymore...


Nicos wrote:
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".

Ironically, the "that's how it was all along!" thing is identical to what they said during the entire "you can't flurry with the same weapon" debacle. Of course, that was a more specific claim and thus people could pull blatant contradiction examples right from paizo's own modules. The end result was them walking it back and hoping no one would care or remember about how vehemently they told others that they were wrong and the rules never worked like that.

Liberty's Edge

Just as an aside, in the flurry debate that was how it always was. Jason changed flurry from 3.5 to just be more or less full bab Two-Weapon fighting.

It said as much.

When he clarified it, people freaked the hell out because they assumed it had not changed from 3.5.

They were wrong.

He then actually changed the rule to go with the 3.5 ruling, even though it created (and still creates) a lot of confusion.

That was a change. The second time, not the first.


ciretose wrote:
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.

So, there are now three distinctions instead of two (or one, if we eliminate this FAQ). Holding a weapon is not the same as wielding a weapon is not the same as using a weapon.

Let me see if I've understood: A shortsword can be held and not wielded, while a doubleweapon can be wielded and not used, while armor spikes can be used and not held... But, all of that combined = "No." -FAQ, the Paizo Staff

Liberty's Edge

You can hold or wield your shortsword and not use it, yes.

Just as you can hold a shield, wear a shield or bash with a shield.

Could you not hold things and not use them before in your game?

Liberty's Edge

If I have a Longsword a shield and spiked armor I can:

Wield the Shield in my off-hand and attack adding 1X my strength (Get shield ac for off-hand)

Or I can attack with my shield and sword, adding 1X strength for one attack and .5 Str for the other (net gain .5 str for off hand)

Or I can drop the shield and attack two handed adding 1.5 X strength (net gain .5 strength)

Or I can attack with my sword and use my off hand to shoulder bump an enemy for .5 strength. (losing use of my offhand)

Or I can attack with my primary and not use my off-hand at all...which isn't really a smart option, but ok...


ciretose wrote:


Or I can attack with my sword and use my off hand to shoulder bump an enemy for .5 strength. (losing use of my offhand)

Wich is never stated in the book nor in the FAQ (that only concenrs about THF).

It may be a good suposition, it may be the dev intention but it definitely not in the rules as they are now.


My point is, if nothing in the rules precludes you from using armor spikes as your off-hand attack, while wielding a double weapon...

....then it is blatantly contradictory of the rules to preclude using armor spikes to make an off-hand attack while wielding a two-handed weapon.

In both cases, no matter how you parse it, the off-hand is equally engaged.

This FAQ eliminates a problem that didn't exist (as in, there is no appreciable benifit to TWF'ing with a 2H and 0H weapons versus just single wielding a 2H weapon), while creating numerous complications and contradictions.

I don't see the point of this ruling.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Crusader wrote:

My point is, if nothing in the rules precludes you from using armor spikes as your off-hand attack, while wielding a double weapon...

....then it is blatantly contradictory of the rules to preclude using armor spikes to make an off-hand attack while wielding a two-handed weapon.

In both cases, no matter how you parse it, the off-hand is equally engaged.

This FAQ eliminates a problem that didn't exist (as in, there is no appreciable benifit to TWF'ing with a 2H and 0H weapons versus just single wielding a 2H weapon), while creating numerous complications and contradictions.

I don't see the point of this ruling.

There is nothing in the rules that prohibits a dead character from moving around or making attacks.


I don't think you can actually pull off a double weapon + armor spikes attack in hindsight. Reading over the double weapon rules more closely, you can only fight with both ends of a double weapon as though they are one handed and light. If you only attack with one end, then you aren't fighting with both ends, and it would be a two handed weapon.

As to you other point. It equates to an extra 5.5 pts. of damage on an average round where both weapons hit when compared to a normal weapon + light weapon TWFer at first level. That is a distinct benefit. I would certainly appreciate a +5 damage.

The point of the ruling is to make everything work the same mechanically. Off hand = .5, one hand = 1, two hand = 1.5. Two weapon fighting, two handed fighting, it doesn't matter. You cap at 1.5 x str without other character resources being spent on your style.


Which just continues the contradictions.

If you can not make a primary attack with one end of a double weapon, and an off-hand attack with armor spikes, then it stands to reason that you can not make an off-hand attack with armor spikes if you are wielding two shortswords. However, the Paizonians have already "clarified" that you can use the armor spikes while wielding two shortswords, provided you only use one of the swords as your primary and the armor spikes as the sole secondary weapon. The intent, of course, being that "off-hand" doesn't necessarily denote an actual hand.

That said, by rule, you treat a double weapon as a 1H and a light weapon. So, if you make a primary attack with only one end of a double weapon, by rule, you should be able to attack with armor spikes as your sole off-hand weapon.

But, and this is the big "but", you can NOT wield a double weapon in one hand. It must be wielded with two hands. So, by rule, you are allowed to wield a weapon in two hands and wield armor spikes as your off-hand weapon, unless you are wielding the weapon in two-hands as a two-handed weapon...

Which is a ridiculous and pointless contradiction.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Carrying a quarterstaff in two hands and thwopping someone with only one end of it, then kicking someone else is a contradiction?

It's also kind of silly, since the staff does more dmg then the kick, but still.

==Aelryinth


The contradiction is that you can wield two different weapons that each requires two hands to wield, and one will allow you to attack with armor spikes while the other will not. And the only explanation for why one works and the other doesn't is... "No." and some randomness about a gauntlet.

Liberty's Edge

Nicos wrote:
ciretose wrote:


Or I can attack with my sword and use my off hand to shoulder bump an enemy for .5 strength. (losing use of my offhand)

Wich is never stated in the book nor in the FAQ (that only concenrs about THF).

It may be a good suposition, it may be the dev intention but it definitely not in the rules as they are now.

Actually as was shown, it said that two handed fighting use the off-hand under buckler.

Liberty's Edge

Aelryinth wrote:

Carrying a quarterstaff in two hands and thwopping someone with only one end of it, then kicking someone else is a contradiction?

It's also kind of silly, since the staff does more dmg then the kick, but still.

==Aelryinth

I think you can use the quartstaff and kick. But you don't get 1.5 on the quarter staff and the kick is for .5 str.

And of course, the whole thing is subject to TWF penalties, unless you have +6 BaB or are a monk.


Quandary wrote:
ThatEvilGuy wrote:
This is pretty easy to simplify: when you are using a two-handed weapon, or a one-handed weapon with two hands, you are forgoing your ability to use "off-hand" attacks (via such things as TWF) since it's being used to increase your STR bonus to damage by 1.5
Maybe you should write the FAQs!!!!

I'd love to but, alas, I do not work for Paizo.

That's for another year. :3


The Crusader wrote:

Which just continues the contradictions.

If you can not make a primary attack with one end of a double weapon, and an off-hand attack with armor spikes, then it stands to reason that you can not make an off-hand attack with armor spikes if you are wielding two shortswords. However, the Paizonians have already "clarified" that you can use the armor spikes while wielding two shortswords, provided you only use one of the swords as your primary and the armor spikes as the sole secondary weapon. The intent, of course, being that "off-hand" doesn't necessarily denote an actual hand.

That said, by rule, you treat a double weapon as a 1H and a light weapon. So, if you make a primary attack with only one end of a double weapon, by rule, you should be able to attack with armor spikes as your sole off-hand weapon.

But, and this is the big "but", you can NOT wield a double weapon in one hand. It must be wielded with two hands. So, by rule, you are allowed to wield a weapon in two hands and wield armor spikes as your off-hand weapon, unless you are wielding the weapon in two-hands as a two-handed weapon...

Which is a ridiculous and pointless contradiction.

Your big "but" is not true.

PRD wrote:
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.

Since you can only use one end of of a double weapon when wielding it in one hand, and either as a 1 Hand and light or 2 Handed Weapon with both hands, you can use it one handed and make an off hand attack with Armor Spikes.

The Exchange

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Why are people so emotionally invested in using a two handed weapon and TWF with a weapon not in hand?

Liberty's Edge

Good question.


Why are so many people arguing this FAQ is unclear?

It's perfectly, crystal clear unless you're willfully trying to misunderstand it.

What ISN'T clear, and is more important than obtuse arguing of rules that are supposedly unclear because you're using examples that barely even tangentially relate to it, is WHY IT WAS MADE.

Why was it ruled in this particular manner? Why do these unwritten rules exist, exactly?

And why aren't they written somewhere, at the very least in the Gamemaster's Guide or something?


Rynjin wrote:

Why are so many people arguing this FAQ is unclear?

It's perfectly, crystal clear unless you're willfully trying to misunderstand it.

What ISN'T clear, and is more important than obtuse arguing of rules that are supposedly unclear because you're using examples that barely even tangentially relate to it, is WHY IT WAS MADE.

Why was it ruled in this particular manner? Why do these unwritten rules exist, exactly?

And why aren't they written somewhere, at the very least in the Gamemaster's Guide or something?

Because then the rulebook would be twice as long and three times as much money. These "unwritten" rules weren't included so other things could be, and likely because the designers saw them as common sense, such as cackling means you have to make noise.

Liberty's Edge

I don't think that it was some crazy ruling that came out from left field. There weren't any crazy secret rules. It doesn't take a lot to see how this is has been implied in the rules the whole time, people just chose to look around it or ignore it.


HangarFlying wrote:


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

Unless you use a Beard, the Beard is written to be used even if off hand taken up but Provokes an Attack of Opportunity.


I had forgotten that it was possible to use a double weapon one-handed. [/admitted]

Nevertheless, all that demonstrates is that you can wield a double weapon in two hands, and for some reason, if you only swing at 2/3 potential strength, you can choose to make another attack with a non-hand weapon like armor spikes. But, if you swing away, your armor spikes quit working for a round.

The bottom line is that they have added a rule, that may or may not have existed unwritten before, limiting the total STR bonus you can receive for your iteratives to 1.5x. This should be errata, not FAQ.


The Crusader wrote:

I had forgotten that it was possible to use a double weapon one-handed. [/admitted]

Nevertheless, all that demonstrates is that you can wield a double weapon in two hands, and for some reason, if you only swing at 2/3 potential strength, you can choose to make another attack with a non-hand weapon like armor spikes. But, if you swing away, your armor spikes quit working for a round.

The bottom line is that they have added a rule, that may or may not have existed unwritten before, limiting the total STR bonus you can receive for your iteratives to 1.5x. This should be errata, not FAQ.

I'm confused now. If you are wielding a double weapon with two hands, it either counts as a 1 Hand and Light Weapon (1xStr + .5xStr) or as a 2 Handed Weapon (1.5xstr). If you are wielding it one handed it counts as a 1 Hand Weapon (1xStr) and you can wield a second weapon in your other hand (.5xStr). Where does the 2/3 potential come from?

Dark Archive

I think the rocket tag nature if the game where offense greatly out races defense encourages people to look for ways to get 2hw damage bonus and still get additional offense after that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HangarFlying wrote:
I don't think that it was some crazy ruling that came out from left field. There weren't any crazy secret rules. It doesn't take a lot to see how this is has been implied in the rules the whole time, people just chose to look around it or ignore it.

The whole "1.5x Str limit" rule is not clear, no. Not in the slightest.

Even if you say Flurry is the exception (2x Str at 1st level), any race/class that can get natural attacks bypasses this rule as well. Catfolk, Tieflings, and any Ranger with the Natural Weapon style can get 2 claw attacks at 1st level, that's 2x Str.

Hell, said Ranger could be a Half-Orc with Toothy (and heyo, this bypasses the "standard race" clause SKR was touting) and Aspect of the Beast and get 3x Str.

Even discounting Flurry, a Master of Many Styles Monk can have 3x Str to damage at 1st level with Dragon Style and Two-Weapon Fighting.

An unwritten rule with so many exceptions is not a clear rule, ya feel me?

Liberty's Edge

Rynjin wrote:


Even discounting Flurry, a Master of Many Styles Monk can have 3x Str to damage at 1st level with Dragon Style and Two-Weapon Fighting.

An unwritten rule with so many exceptions is not a clear rule, ya feel me?

With unarmed strike, only getting the 1.5 bonus on the first attack, and .5 penalty on the off-hand attack since it is TWF and not flurry of blows means X2 not times three.

Add to that 0 BaB bonus, need for 15 Dex to get the TWF and a need for both Str and Wis, not to mention Con

So basically rather than getting flurry, which is 1 and 1, you get Dragon Style which is 1.5 and .5.

Both of which add up to 2. Which, considering it is only with a 1d6 weapon with a 20 crit range...

It is almost as if there is math behind these decisions.


Vod Canockers wrote:
The Crusader wrote:

I had forgotten that it was possible to use a double weapon one-handed. [/admitted]

Nevertheless, all that demonstrates is that you can wield a double weapon in two hands, and for some reason, if you only swing at 2/3 potential strength, you can choose to make another attack with a non-hand weapon like armor spikes. But, if you swing away, your armor spikes quit working for a round.

The bottom line is that they have added a rule, that may or may not have existed unwritten before, limiting the total STR bonus you can receive for your iteratives to 1.5x. This should be errata, not FAQ.

I'm confused now. If you are wielding a double weapon with two hands, it either counts as a 1 Hand and Light Weapon (1xStr + .5xStr) or as a 2 Handed Weapon (1.5xstr). If you are wielding it one handed it counts as a 1 Hand Weapon (1xStr) and you can wield a second weapon in your other hand (.5xStr). Where does the 2/3 potential come from?

You can wield it one handed, but there's no need to. It is now well established that simply holding an object in your physical non-primary hand does not preclude you "wielding" a non-handed weapon like armor spikes. So, why even disengage your off-hand from the weapon?

The point is, the 1.5x limit is not stated or implied anywhere until this FAQ. If it's a hard and fast rule, then it needs to be explicitly stated (and then we can begin the arguments over unarmed, flurry, and natural attacks). If not, then they need to explain why this is a special case.


A Monk's Unarmed Strike always adjudicates as a main-hand weapon; it always gets 1x Str to damage by default, even if it's used as a secondary weapon with TWF. So a Monk using normal TWF (sans flurry) and Dragon Style would give your first unarmed strike 1.5x Str and your extra attack from normal TWF would get 1x Str, yielding a net of 2.5x Str for the round. It'd still be at mid-BAB, though, if you're not using Flurry and relying on "rebuilding" flurry with the TWF feats and manufactured weapons would still get penalized; a dagger as off-hand, for example, would still get 0.5x Str to damage.


HangarFlying wrote:
There is nothing in the rules that prohibits a dead character from moving around or making attacks.

Actually, the Dying condition stops you from taking any action. And nothing in the Dead condition says you lose the Dying condition, so yes, there is a rule stopping a dead character from moving or making attacks.

Liberty's Edge

The Crusader wrote:


You can wield it one handed, but there's no need to. It is now well established that simply holding an object in your physical non-primary hand does not preclude you "wielding" a non-handed weapon like armor spikes. So, why even disengage your off-hand from the weapon?

Clearly it is not well established. If you use your off-hand (the mechanic, not an actually limb) for anything, you then cannot use your off-hand to fight two-handed.

It is that simple.

Liberty's Edge

Kazaan wrote:
A Monk's Unarmed Strike always adjudicates as a main-hand weapon; it always gets 1x Str to damage by default, even if it's used as a secondary weapon with TWF. So a Monk using normal TWF (sans flurry) and Dragon Style would give your first unarmed strike 1.5x Str and your extra attack from normal TWF would get 1x Str, yielding a net of 2.5x Str for the round. It'd still be at mid-BAB, though, if you're not using Flurry and relying on "rebuilding" flurry with the TWF feats and manufactured weapons would still get penalized; a dagger as off-hand, for example, would still get 0.5x Str to damage.

That is for flurry. Master of many styles loses flurry.

That is why he has to take TWF


ciretose wrote:


With unarmed strike, only getting the 1.5 bonus on the first attack, and .5 penalty on the off-hand attack since it is TWF and not flurry of blows means X2 not times three.

Add to that 0 BaB bonus, need for 15 Dex to get the TWF and a need for both Str and Wis, not to mention Con

So basically rather than getting flurry, which is 1 and 1, you get Dragon Style which is 1.5 and .5.

Both of which add up to 2. Which, considering it is only with a 1d6 weapon with a 20 crit range...

It is almost as if there is math behind these decisions.

Not .5, just regular 1x Str. My bad, 2.5 not 3 until Ferocity comes in at 2nd. Well at 2nd it's 3.5 but whatever.

And there must NOT be any math behind these decisions, since the math has been run on TWF-ing with Armor Spikes and a 2H weapons (which is 2x Str) and it even out to something like 1 damage above a 2H attack with Power Attack after factoring in the to-hit penalty and likely lower Str (if you want a balanced character with decent Con and Wis at least), so it's not a balance issue there.


ciretose wrote:

So basically rather than getting flurry, which is 1 and 1, you get Dragon Style which is 1.5 and .5.

Both of which add up to 2. Which, considering it is only with a 1d6 weapon with a 20 crit range...

Dragon style would give you 1.5 + 1 (2.5) instead of 1 + 0.5. (1.5.). You already get half your Str bonus to your off-hand attack anyway, Dragon Ferocity gives you an additional 0.5.

Then he can grab Double Slice and get 1.5 + 1,5

Silver Crusade

You can't wield a double weapon sized for you in one hand; it's a two-handed weapon.

You could wield a double weapon sized for a creature one or two sizes smaller than you in one hand (so it would be one-handed or light for you), but if you do then you can't use it as a double weapon.

401 to 450 of 1,428 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Two Handed Weapon and Armor Spikes Resolved by the Design Team? All Messageboards