Hm, I am not sure what to make of this now. You say you're referring specifically to low-level options, and "it quickly goes away" at higher levels. I guess you do not mean that 2HF + TWF amor spikes (or unarmed strike or blade boot or ...) is disallowed at low levels but allowed at high levels, but you mean that this is true at all levels and that there are just more options to gain extra damage anyway, right?
The bulleted points I listed above specifically referred to 1st-level standard-race PCs. As you gain levels (and have access to iterative attacks, special feats, and so on) you're going to get ways to easily break that 1st-level guideline, at which point the guideline becomes irrelevant. The guideline is just for the lowest-level characters (as in, "we want to have a reasonable limit for what a 1st-level character should be able to do, otherwise they can just pile on additional attacks from headbutts, knees, elbows, fists, and so on, as much as the player can talk the GM into allowing, until a 1st-level character is making 20 or more attacks per round and dealing ridiculous amounts of damage, and we can't balance 1st-level monster encounters when we expect 1 or 2 attacks per round and the crazy player is making 20 attacks per round).
Also, regarding my specific question with the longsword, I assume that would be OK then? I have a character in mind who does something like that... I don't mind if I have to wait to level 6 or 11 to do it, just want to make sure I can do it at all ;-)
Honestly, it's late and I've had a long week, and I only skimmed what you're talking about. I'll have to look at the other FAQs later to see if there's anything ruling that out.
How does the 'un-written rule' impact on, e.g. Tengu, who have Bite Attacks and can even start out with Bite/Claw/Claw?
• A 1st-level standard-race PC can either make one melee attack without TWF or you can make two melee attacks with TWF.
So the Tengu CAN 2WF with a 2-Handed weapon and off-hand (whatever doesn't interfere with the hands wielding the 2Hander)?
Since that isn't outside the # of attack/dmg dynamic for them?
I understood that the Tengu was somehow outside those rules, but I was trying to clarify exactly how.
So the Tengu CAN 2WF with a 2-Handed weapon and off-hand (whatever doesn't interfere with the hands wielding the 2Hander)?
Since that isn't outside the # of attack/dmg dynamic for them?
I understood that the Tengu was somehow outside those rules, but I was trying to clarify exactly how.
Well, you're mixing natural attacks into it here which is an entirely different matter and mechanic, so you cannot infer anything for your specific case from this FAQ and his explanations IMO :-)
So the Tengu CAN 2WF with a 2-Handed weapon and off-hand (whatever doesn't interfere with the hands wielding the 2Hander)?
Since that isn't outside the # of attack/dmg dynamic for them?
I understood that the Tengu was somehow outside those rules, but I was trying to clarify exactly how.
No. but a Tengu can TWF with a one-handed and light weapon and get a secondary bite attack.
As you pointed out up thread, it is only by virtue of their natural attack that they are able to exceed the 1.5x damage cap.
No one disagrees that you need two weapons to TWF
The Monk has no text exempting it from that restriction.
Yet,it is clearly exempt.
FoB is not TWF.
|
It was exempt in that you could two weapon fight with one weapon.
It is not exempt from the new one handed or light weapon only restriction.
Flurry still has off hand attacks, but without penalty.
As no off hand attacks can be made with any two handed weapon, then the Monk cannot Flurry with a two handed weapon.
Why not just have the two handed weapon only deal x1 strength to damage when two weapon fighting?
That makes more sense, and balances, well, whatever they felt needed balancing.
I think this is excellent advice, and that the Pathfinder Design team should really consider this instead, ignoring blackbloodtroll's somewhat antagonistic attitude.
The ruling would in that case be worded something like this:
"Primary hand and off-hand refers to whether it's a main attack or the attack gained from two-weapon fighting (and the related feats). They are not connected to physical hands and may be thought about as "primary attack and off-attack" instead if one wishes.
Damage bonuses while two-weapon fighting: When two-weapon fighting, two-handed weapons are treated like one-handed for the purposes of bonuses from for example high strength, power attack and abilities tied to handedness."
This would mean it's:
1. Simple to understand.
2. Doesn't have any far-reaching consequences. At most you can get a bit higher damage on your main attack and a bit lower on your off-hand attack; 2d6+1d4(x2) instead of 1d8+1d6(19+x2).
3. Allow players to do the fighting styles they like without making odd combinations more powerful than the more common ones.
BBT: With the monk errata's that's been out, FoB is basically it's own thing. Your advice may be sound at times but come on, don't go looking for inconsistencies when the purpose is clear. FoB has been gone through so much and so many times and has been very explicitly clarified.
Specific overrides general, and there's been pretty specific talk about how monks work. The specifics are even in the Flurry of Blow description, since it states the damage bonus you get when flurrying with a weapon wielded in both hands.
The Monk Flurry FAQ was another case of not clearly resolving what parts of RAW were being over-ridden/negated.
I don't know why the RAW itself wasn't updated in the latest Errata.
The specifics are even in the Flurry of Blow description, since it states the damage bonus you get when flurrying with a weapon wielded in both hands.
That itself didn't lead to the Flurry FAQ ruling, since there's no reason you couldn't 2WF with a 2H-wielded weapon and UAS (at least before this latest FAQ, and the current 2WF/2H weapon FAQ was never provided as a reason for the Monk FAQ).
Although that begs the question: Is Flurry in any way related to 2WF anymore?
Is it still "as if" 2WF but receiving exemptions (to what?) Is it NOT 2WF, which means you could stack it with 2WF?
Those are both valid inferences from the FAQs and RAW (on Flurry and 2WF/2H weapons).
That is kind of why it's a good idea to state what RAW is being changed.
If you TWF with a double weapon, you wield it as a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. One hand goes to each, so you'd get STR bonus with one and 1/2 STR bonus with the other. You're not wielding it as a two-handed weapon at that point, so you shouldn't get the higher STR bonus.Why couldn't they do this with the two handed weapon and Armor Spikes?
x1 strength to Primary, and x0.5 strength to off hand.
Because you're actually normally incapable of wielding a two-handed weapon with one hand.
If you TWF with a double weapon, you wield it as a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. One hand goes to each, so you'd get STR bonus with one and 1/2 STR bonus with the other. You're not wielding it as a two-handed weapon at that point, so you shouldn't get the higher STR bonus.Not really. The 2WF/Double Weapon rules state that you:
make an extra attack with the off-hand end of the weapon as if you were fighting with two weapons. The penalties apply as if the off-hand end of the weapon was a light weapon.Not that you are wielding it as two separate weapons IN GENERAL, but that the extra (off-hand) attack is resolved as if you were 'fighting with two weapons'. There are no 'penalties' to damage for main-hand attacks from the 2WF rules, it never mentions main-hand damage.
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 weaponAgain, talking about 'fighting with' not addressing your status of how you are wielding it per se. It specifically refers to 'attack penalties' for the main-hand, which does not affect damage, and again, the normal 2WF rules don't apply any 'penalty' to main-hand damage.
If you want to claim the intent is otherwise, FEEL FREE. At least with archetypes like 2WF/Mobile Fighter, I think that is a good idea to enforce 1x STR on main-hand (without those archetypes, I don't really see a problem, personally). But if we are supposed to derive official function from the RAW, I don't see a basis for your claim. If there is Errata issued, or a FAQ specifying a new rule that over-rides the RAW, that can change things, but until then the RAW for 2WF including Double Weapons doesn't seem to care about how you wield the main-hand attack, or the STR damage multiplier on that attack.
SKR's post demonstrated all this. There's a 1.5 STR cap on damage (generally speaking).
Because you're actually normally incapable of wielding a two-handed weapon with one hand.If you TWF with a double weapon, you wield it as a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. One hand goes to each, so you'd get STR bonus with one and 1/2 STR bonus with the other. You're not wielding it as a two-handed weapon at that point, so you shouldn't get the higher STR bonus.Why couldn't they do this with the two handed weapon and Armor Spikes?
x1 strength to Primary, and x0.5 strength to off hand.
Unless you are mounted.
How does the 'un-written rule' impact on, e.g. Tengu, who have Bite Attacks and can even start out with Bite/Claw/Claw?
Are they not supposed to be able to attack with all of those natural attacks at once?
(even if they're limited to only two at one time, it's still outside the baseline by not having attack penalty, and doing 2x STR total)
What if they substitute one Claw with UAS or weapon attacks, both at level 1 and when they have normal iteratives?
What if they want to 2WF with e.g. Punch/Kick? Is the baseline adjusted to THEIR baseline, so they could make 2 natural attacks on top?
Would that allow such Tengu to pull off a 2-Handed weapon/UAS(etc) 2WF setup, since the baseline is different?
Natural attacks and the like are separate. They don't later get iteratives and all that. Plus, they're stronger races than the core races, which is why allowing them is up to GM discretion. In PFS, for many of these races you need a character sheet. Beyond that, for most of these races, you have to expend resources (feats) to develop those abilities.
So they're not really analogous situations. It's a good question though.
Unless you are mounted.Because you're actually normally incapable of wielding a two-handed weapon with one hand.If you TWF with a double weapon, you wield it as a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. One hand goes to each, so you'd get STR bonus with one and 1/2 STR bonus with the other. You're not wielding it as a two-handed weapon at that point, so you shouldn't get the higher STR bonus.Why couldn't they do this with the two handed weapon and Armor Spikes?
x1 strength to Primary, and x0.5 strength to off hand.
That's not "normal" in the sense that you're not presumed to be mounted and it only applies to the Lance.
The whole point is that you have choices to make. With a light weapon, you're limited to getting STR bonus at most, whether it's wielded in one hand or two. With a two-handed weapon, you're limited to getting 1.5 STR bonus, because you're required to use both hands to do it. They're bigger weapons, require more exertion to use properly and so by using one you "eliminate" the choice to wield a weapon more easily and do less damage. With a one-handed weapon, you have the choice to get STR or 1.5 STR. But, if you choose 1.5 STR, you're similarly limited as if you were wielding a two-handed weapon.
Allowing two-handed weapons with TWF means you'd get to treat the two-handed weapon (for STR purposes and the like) as if it were a one-handed weapons. A lot of people didn't like the effort analogy that was being put forth by a few people, but that's basically how the PDT resolved this, if in not so many words.
Either you get one chance at more damage, or you can get two chances as less damage. Either way, the sum should essentially be the same in the end (1.5 STR and the like).
|
It was exempt in that you could two weapon fight with one weapon.
It is not exempt from the new one handed or light weapon only restriction.
Flurry still has off hand attacks, but without penalty.
As no off hand attacks can be made with any two handed weapon, then the Monk cannot Flurry with a two handed weapon.
The monk is specifically called out as being able to still make unarmed attacks even though his hands may be otherwise occupied. It says so in the monk's unarmed attack section.
What happens if you have double slice and thus get 2xStr damage per round?Double Slice has a mechanical cost (you have to pay a feat for it), so that's not just flavor giving you better mechanical results.
So... how's that really different from wielding a two-handed weapon and making an off-hand kick or headbutt using the two-weapon fighting rules? You may not have to purchase the TWF feat to do it, but if you don't you're facing a huge penalty and even if you do, you're still paying a mechanical penalty.
|
What was the reason for the 'no' to armour spikes?Because the game has an unwritten rule which essentially states the following:
'Unwritten rule', eh? Think about how that sounds to the people who buy your rulebooks in order to learn how to play the game.
• A 1st-level standard-race PC can either make one melee attack without TWF or you can make two melee attacks with TWF.
• The most damage you can do without TWF is using a 1H or 2H weapon in two hands for x1.5 Str damage, and the most damage you can do with TWF is x1 in the main hand and x.5 in the off-hand (for a total of x1.5 Str added to your weapons), so optimally you're getting no more that x1.5 Str no matter which attack mode you choose.
• While the game doesn't explicitly limit your attacks to "hands," that's the basic assumption, and you shouldn't be able to pile on additional attacks per round just because you can think up additional or alternative body parts to attack with.
No-one is trying to claim extra attacks based on 'additional or alternative body parts'! The only extra attacks are the ones from TWF, and are obeying all the written rules to do so!
Of course, we didn't know about the unwritten rules. How could we?
• Because if one character uses 2H weapon and is NOT allowed to make an additional attack with armor spikes or a metal gauntlet because his hands are occupied by his 2H weapon, and a different character uses a 2H weapon and IS allowed to make an additional attack with a metal boot because he's not using his hand, that second character is gaining a game mechanics advantage simply by changing the flavorful description of his extra attack's origin from, and that is not good game design.
And yet, this is how the game was designed, since the last millennium. Well, by the rules that were actually written down, at least. During the decade it was legal, why didn't we see 'normal TWF' disappear, to be replaced by a plethora of greatswords and armour spikes?
There is a hard (but not-explicity-stated-in-the-rules) limit to what a standard-race PC should be able to do in one round of combat. Even though it's not stated in the rules, it is a real limit (in the same way that there's no printed rule that says "don't make a first-tier feat that gives more than +3 to one skill for a 1st-level character," or "don't make a first-tier feat that gives more than a +1 to attack rolls with one type of weapon," but it's still a rule we follow), and you shouldn't be allowed to break that limit.
I totally get that, from a game design standpoint, you shouldn't allow new monsters that have 500 hit points per hit dice, or new feats without pre-reqs that are more powerful than existing feats with high pre-reqs, or new special abilities that would be overpowered for their level.
But these 'secret, unwritten rules' are for game designers who are writing new (written) rules into the game. Guidelines are needed, and the players don't need to know the design guidelines.
But this is not the case here. These players aren't writing new rules, just following the existing rules as written in the CRB to make their character.
No part of this process should be secret and unwritten!
Can you explain how the designers of the rules upon which you base your FAQ say that you can use a two-handed weapon in conjunction with armour spikes, and can go through the (written) rules and work out the rules consequences for doing so?
Can you wield the weapon in two hands and still make an off-hand attack with the spikes?
When you fight with more than one weapon, you gain an extra attack. (Improved Two-Weapon Fighting and greater Two-Weapon Fighting give you more attacks with the extra weapon.) Armor spikes are a light weapon that can be used as the extra weapon.
If you attack only with your armor spikes during your turn (or use the armor spikes to make an attack of opportunity), you use them just like a regular weapon. If you use the full attack action, you can use armor spikes as either a primary light weapon or as an off-hand light weapon, even if you're using a shield or using a two-handed weapon. ****In these latter two cases, you're assumed to be kicking or kneeing your foe with your armour spikes.****
Whenever you use armor spikes as an off-hand weapon, you suffer all the penalties for attacking with two weapons (see Table 8-10 in the Player's Handbook). When using armor spikes along with a two-handed weapon, it is usually best to use the two-handed weapon as your primary attack and the spikes as the off-hand weapon. You can use the armor spikes as the primary weapon and the two-handed weapon as the off-hand attack, but when you do so, you don't get the benefit of using a light weapon in your off hand. You cannot, however, use your armor spikes to make a second off-hand attack when you're already fighting with two weapons. If you have a weapon in both hands and armor spikes, you can attack with the weapons in your hands (and not with the armor spikes) or with one of the weapons in your hands and the armor spikes.
Unwritten rule, sure. But it was implied in the rules (which is why some of us were able to pick up on it).
But again Malachi, I find your reliance on 3.5 for this matter curious, since you were pretty dismissive of using 3.5 results in regards to the Bastard Sword et al. Completely analogous situations, except in one it supports your argument and one it doesn't.
It's not "secret". That something wasn't explicitly delineated in the rules does not make it secret. It makes it an implied, but not secret. Contrary to your insistence in this and other threads, something not being explicit does not mean it isn't RAW, particularly if that implication is determinable from that which is explicitly written.
But by all means, keep fighting this fight.
|
|
Unwritten rule, sure. But it was implied in the rules (which is why some of us were able to pick up on it).
But again Malachi, I find your reliance on 3.5 for this matter curious, since you were pretty dismissive of using 3.5 results in regards to the Bastard Sword et al. Completely analogous situations, except in one it supports your argument and one it doesn't.
It's not "secret". That something wasn't explicitly delineated in the rules does not make it secret. It makes it an implied, but not secret. Contrary to your insistence in this and other threads, something not being explicit does not mean it isn't RAW, particularly if that implication is determinable from that which is explicitly written.
But by all means, keep fighting this fight.
Thank you, this is what I have been trying to convey.
I think I'm more Win98 than NT.That would make you a Guardian type... they like historical relics.
Actually it just makes me old yet functional, in a simple sort of way.
That Win98 pun really ran though, didn't it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
SKR as ever gives a nice rational take on why things are the way they are.
Cheers Sean! Into the Lion's den and all that.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Similarly, the fact that the beard requires no hands gives the reasoning behind the exception.
It's not a note that it doesn't take physical hands, otherwise things like armor spikes would have that in their text. It's a note that it actually requires no hands (mechanically) to use.
Design wise, the AoO pays the price for this exception.
So does that mean that when I use an unarmed strike WITHOUT the improved unarmed strike feat that I get to attack while wielding a 2H weapon since it not only also provokes but only does nonlethal damage, thus I pay (twice) for it?
After all, unarmed strike does not use hands either.Or do you mean to say that it has to say explicitely that it does not use the (abstract) "hands" even though it provokes to be eligible for use?
Similarly, the fact that the beard requires no hands gives the reasoning behind the exception.
It's not a note that it doesn't take physical hands, otherwise things like armor spikes would have that in their text. It's a note that it actually requires no hands (mechanically) to use.
Design wise, the AoO pays the price for this exception.
So does that mean that when I use an unarmed strike WITHOUT the improved unarmed strike feat that I get to attack while wielding a 2H weapon since it not only also provokes but only does nonlethal damage, thus I pay (twice) for it?
After all, unarmed strike does not use hands either.Or do you mean to say that it has to say explicitely that it does not use the (abstract) "hands" even though it provokes to be eligible for use?
No. That may be part of the reasoning behind the exception, but ultimately it doesn't matter. What matters is that the entry for Barbazu Beard explicitly says you can use it to make an offhand attack even while wielding a two-handed weapon.
What about a Dwarf with a Boulder Helmet, Armor spikes, and a Dwarven Longhammer?
Am I right in thinking the Barbazu Beard only appears in the "Pathfinder Companion: Cheliax, Empire of Devils"?
Because I can't find it in UE or the PRD but only on the d20 PFSRD.
It's not real you know. If you think of it in the terms of the real world it'll not make sense. It's a game and needs balance to make it fun.
So sometimes things that don't take hands become the equivalent of something that does in order to make the rules sensible and fairly simple. Just insert "equivalent of" and whatever description fits in the appropriate places and forget about hands themselves.
Loads of the rules are a bit of a bodge to make things work, is the fact you could do it in 3.5 the sticking point with this particular one?
|
|
Nothing in any written rules, or FAQ, notes that you need a free hand to make an attack with a weapon that does not utilize hands.
Attacks, with two handed weapons, whilst two weapon fighting as part of full attack, are not allowed.
This is true, even if you have a free hand, like through the Vestigial Arm Discovery.
Free hands, and attacks with non-hand weapons, are not related.