Is there evidence for an off-hand outside of two weapon fighting?
I think the point is that the _off_ness of the hand is only relevant in TWF. Like, you always have two hands, but in TWF one of them is designated as off-hand.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Yes, Blackblood.
Two Handed Fighting.
There are several other references to Off Hand throughout the book, but most of them don't actually have as much of an effect.
For example, a Buckler Gun is always used as an off hand weapon. This doesn't have any effect on your damage (unless you happen to be a thunderstriker and are making a shield bash with the buckler) due to it being a firearm, and there is no penalty for attacking with just your off hand in Pathfinder. It is still a weapon that is always considered an off hand weapon though. Even if you are not two weapon fighting.
The importance in this case is that the shield AC bonus is lost if you use a weapon in the off hand. Since the buckler gun is considered an off hand weapon, you always use it with the off hand, and you always lose the AC bonus (baring some special ability).
Just thought I would throw this out there for everyone to consider. From the Advanced Race Guide: Gillmen, quoted directly from the Paizo PRD::
Sea-Knife: A sea-knife is a long-handled weapon with a short blade. It is designed to be strapped to the ankle or foot of the wielder, pointing downward and jutting out beyond the wearer's leg. Donning or removing a sea-knife is a full-round action. The wearer cannot use a leg with a sea-knife strapped to it for walking or running. A sea-knife can be used as a light melee weapon when the wielder is swimming, flying, or prone. This allows the wielder to use a two-handed weapon, or wield a weapon with one hand and carry a shield, and still make off-hand attacks with the sea-knife. Attacks made with a sea-knife take a –2 circumstance penalty on attack rolls in addition to all other attack penalties.
I'm not willing to fully reenter this conversation. But, inconsistencies with the FAQ continue to surface, and I do feel obliged to point them out.
The Crusader wrote: Just thought I would throw this out there for everyone to consider. From the Advanced Race Guide: Gillmen, quoted directly from the Paizo PRD::
Sea-Knife: A sea-knife is a long-handled weapon with a short blade. It is designed to be strapped to the ankle or foot of the wielder, pointing downward and jutting out beyond the wearer's leg. Donning or removing a sea-knife is a full-round action. The wearer cannot use a leg with a sea-knife strapped to it for walking or running. A sea-knife can be used as a light melee weapon when the wielder is swimming, flying, or prone. This allows the wielder to use a two-handed weapon, or wield a weapon with one hand and carry a shield, and still make off-hand attacks with the sea-knife. Attacks made with a sea-knife take a –2 circumstance penalty on attack rolls in addition to all other attack penalties.
I'm not willing to fully reenter this conversation. But, inconsistencies with the FAQ continue to surface, and I do feel obliged to point them out.
This isn't an inconsistency with the FAQ. The FAQ clarifies the general rule regarding TWF. The sea-knife (and barbazu beard) are specific exceptions overriding the general rule that allows TWF with a 2 hander and that specific weapon.
Okay.
Why is there an off-hand outside of two weapon fighting?
How do you know what is your off-hand, outside of two weapon fighting?
How do you determine an off-hand on creatures without hands, if the outside two weapon fighting off-hand is not represented by an actual hand?
Is the off-hand outside of two-weapon fighting represented by an actual hand?
Oops. No -4, of course. But the half Str bonus to damage applies to 'off hand' however we choose to define 'off hand'.
If 'off hand' refers only to the extra attack gained from TWF, then the half damage rule only applies to that attack, regardless of how many actual hands (if any) are holding the weapon during that extra 'off hand' attack.
If 'off hand' applies whether TWF is being used or not (and that is the asserted reason why a 2HW can't be used in TWF: because 2HW use the off hand), then 2HW use the off hand therefore only get half Str bonus.
With the buckler, if you say that you lose the AC bonus even if you kick as the off hand attack (on the grounds that it says you lose the AC bonus when using the off hand), then it follows that you don't lose the AC bonus if you strap the buckler to your primary hand.
Yes, these things are absurd. If there are two ways to read the RAW, and one way leads to absurdity, then read it the sane way.
I find no purpose for there to exist an off-hand outside of two weapon fighting.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
bbangerter wrote: This isn't an inconsistency with the FAQ. The FAQ clarifies the general rule regarding TWF. The sea-knife (and barbazu beard) are specific exceptions overriding the general rule that allows TWF with a 2 hander and that specific weapon. Yeah, no, the FAQ establishes a new rule, and that created inconsistencies that are now being written off as exceptions where there weren't any before.
As I said, the two-weapon fighting rules haven't actually had their wording changed since 3.5, and in 3.5 these things were allowed. These items were clearly written by people who understood that, and now that the design team has decided they don't like it and are instituting their design assumption as an "unwritten rule", they're being retconned as "exceptions".
Don't you know?
The first rule of Pathfinder's unwritten rules, is you don't talk about Pathfinder's unwritten rules.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
blackbloodtroll wrote: Don't you know?
The first rule of Pathfinder's unwritten rules, is you don't talk about Pathfinder's unwritten rules.
One of the few things I loath about Pathfinder.
Ravingdork wrote: blackbloodtroll wrote: Don't you know?
The first rule of Pathfinder's unwritten rules, is you don't talk about Pathfinder's unwritten rules.
One of the few things I loath about Pathfinder. But we can't talk about that either. :P
SCPRedMage wrote: bbangerter wrote: This isn't an inconsistency with the FAQ. The FAQ clarifies the general rule regarding TWF. The sea-knife (and barbazu beard) are specific exceptions overriding the general rule that allows TWF with a 2 hander and that specific weapon. Yeah, no, the FAQ establishes a new rule, and that created inconsistencies that are now being written off as exceptions where there weren't any before.
As I said, the two-weapon fighting rules haven't actually had their wording changed since 3.5, and in 3.5 these things were allowed. These items were clearly written by people who understood that, and now that the design team has decided they don't like it and are instituting their design assumption as an "unwritten rule", they're being retconned as "exceptions". They were allowed in 3.5 based on a 3.5 FAQ, which while an interesting point, doesn't carry a lot of weight with pathfinder (this is not the first, nor will it be the last, deviation from what a 3.5 FAQ says) - especially when the PF devs have FAQ'd it to work differently. I can see both interpretations that have been argued ad naseum in this and the other threads. The actual written rules for pathfinder were not sufficiently clear to say which way it should work. (Incidentally the original 3.5 rules also were not sufficiently clear, or there would have been no need for a 3.5 FAQ on it).
So the PF FAQ is clarifying how it was always meant to work according to the PF devs (not the 3.5 devs obviously). This is not a new rule. This is a clarification of the rule. Some people were right on how this was intended to work (according to PF devs), some people were wrong (according to PF devs).
Given all that though, hopefully a future blog or lengthy errata will clear this up, I think its still a mess.
bbangerter wrote: Yeah, no, the FAQ establishes a new rule, and that created inconsistencies that are now being written off as exceptions where there weren't any before.
As I said, the two-weapon fighting rules haven't actually had their wording changed since 3.5, and in 3.5 these things were allowed. These items were clearly written by people who understood that, and now that the design team has decided they don't like it and are instituting their design assumption as an "unwritten rule", they're being retconned as "exceptions".
They were allowed in 3.5 based on a 3.5 FAQ, which while an interesting point, doesn't carry a lot of weight with pathfinder (this is not the first, nor will it be the last, deviation from what a 3.5 FAQ says) - especially when the PF devs have FAQ'd it to work differently. I can see both interpretations that have been argued ad naseum in this and the other threads. The actual written rules for pathfinder were not sufficiently clear to say which way it should work. (Incidentally the original 3.5 rules also were not sufficiently clear, or there would have been no need for a 3.5 FAQ on it).
So the PF FAQ is clarifying how it was always meant to work according to the PF devs (not the 3.5 devs obviously). This is not a new rule. This is a clarification of the rule. Some people were right on how this was intended to work (according to PF devs), some people were wrong (according to PF devs).
Given all that though, hopefully a future blog or lengthy errata will clear this up, I think its still a mess. My point was that they took a 3.5 rule, with an established, clarified meaning, brought it over into the new edition with no changes, and are now saying it was changed all along.
Yes, this DOES constitute a fundamental change to the rules, which shouldn't be done via a FAQ.
If I have experience in 3.5, and I see that a rule hasn't been changed since then, I should be able to expect that it works the same way. I shouldn't need to look for a re-interpretation of every little thing.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote: Oops. No -4, of course. But the half Str bonus to damage applies to 'off hand' however we choose to define 'off hand'.
If 'off hand' refers only to the extra attack gained from TWF, then the half damage rule only applies to that attack, regardless of how many actual hands (if any) are holding the weapon during that extra 'off hand' attack.
If 'off hand' applies whether TWF is being used or not (and that is the asserted reason why a 2HW can't be used in TWF: because 2HW use the off hand), then 2HW use the off hand therefore only get half Str bonus.
With the buckler, if you say that you lose the AC bonus even if you kick as the off hand attack (on the grounds that it says you lose the AC bonus when using the off hand), then it follows that you don't lose the AC bonus if you strap the buckler to your primary hand.
Yes, these things are absurd. If there are two ways to read the RAW, and one way leads to absurdity, then read it the sane way.
-A) Yes, half strength applies to the off hand in all cases unless a specific rule states otherwise (two handed weapons, double slice, etc.). You're ignoring the fact that a specific rule trumps a generic rule.
-B) There are rules for using multiple hands on weapons. Each rule is a specific rule for the weapon category. Off Hand does not refer only to the attack from TWF, the devs have already stated this, Off Hand Attack only refers to the attack from TWF. They are two different terms.
-C) Again, specific rule trumps the general rule. Is there a specific rule for two handed fighting and for using weapons in two hands? Yes. That trumps the rule for using a weapon in the off hand. Why? Using a weapon in the off hand is a generic rule that covers any weapon in the off hand (light, one handed, two handed). The rules for using two hands on the weapons only refer to using two hands (one of which is the off hand) on the weapon. They are specific rules.
-D) Strap it to whatever arm you want, the text still reads that you lose the bonus if you're attacking with a weapon in the off hand. The text does not care which arm you attach the buckler to or how many arms you have to begin with. Attacking with a weapon in the off hand causes the bonus to go poof. That is, unless you see some text that gives a specific rule for strapping the buckler to a different arm, but it isn't in my CRB.
-E) I see the current ruling as perfectly sane as long as you pay attention to the rules instead of ignoring half of them. It is much more sane that a person having his off hand on two weapons at the same time (whether the hand is physical or not).
Quote: Okay.
Why is there an off-hand outside of two weapon fighting?
How do you know what is your off-hand, outside of two weapon fighting?
How do you determine an off-hand on creatures without hands, if the outside two weapon fighting off-hand is not represented by an actual hand?
Is the off-hand outside of two-weapon fighting represented by an actual hand?
-A) Design.
-B) It is whatever you assign it to be. If you're wielding a two handed weapon, it's on the two handed weapon. If you aren't using it, then it's not being used. How do you know what is your primary hand outside of fighting?
-C) The rules tell us you have a primary hand and an off hand. That's one of each. Creatures with multiple natural arms get more off hands, but nothing tells us that you lose your off hand if you lose an arm/don't have an arm.
-D) No. Off Hand is not a physical hand. Neither is Primary Hand outside of fighting. They are just a measure of effort you can put forth. Horrible terms for a simple concept. Is there no reason for your shield hand or primary hand to exist outside of combat?
Quote: Yeah, no, the FAQ establishes a new rule, and that created inconsistencies that are now being written off as exceptions where there weren't any before.
As I said, the two-weapon fighting rules haven't actually had their wording changed since 3.5, and in 3.5 these things were allowed. These items were clearly written by people who understood that, and now that the design team has decided they don't like it and are instituting their design assumption as an "unwritten rule", they're being retconned as "exceptions".
No. It does not establish a new rule. The rules have always said this. 3.5 did it wrong the last time. They should have stuck with their original ruling instead of caving into the community.
Crash_00 wrote: -A) Yes, half strength applies to the off hand in all cases unless a specific rule states otherwise (two handed weapons, double slice, etc.). You're ignoring the fact that a specific rule trumps a generic rule. Let's say I'm holding a longsword in my right hand and a shortsword in my left hand.
1. I attack with both weapons. Which weapon does the half-Strength damage?
2. I attack with only the longsword. How much of my Strength bonus do I add?
3. I attack with only the shortsword. How much of my Strength bonus do I add?
3.5 started to get worse towards the end, but it is important to understand why.
The geometric progression of feats and prestige classes created unintended combinations that could easily break the game.
But there was absolutely nothing wrong with the game engine itself.
When Pathfinder cut & pasted the rules that they left unchanged, they sometimes missed some words, words which they must have thought inconsequential or 'obvious' in context.
The '3.5 exception' to the reach weapon rules, allowing a reach weapon to threaten a circle of squares, was missed out, leaving us with being able to charge reach weapon wielders diagonally (on a grid which doesn't exist in the game world) and avoid AoOs and prevent reach weapons being useable in 5-foot wide diagonal corridors.
The Spellcraft table specifying the DC to 'identify a spell being cast' missed out the line about 'you must see or hear the somatic/verbal component', leading to pathfinder spellcasting being identifiable even if stilled/silenced/eschewed, leaving us to wonder what is being observed. Even the PF devs don't know.
In 3rd ed. 'attack action' meant any (weaponlike) attack; each element of a full attack was an 'attack action'. But in PF, to support the wording of the feat Vital Strike, 'attack action' was changed to mean 'attack as a standard action' specifically. This led to three or four years of PF players wondering whether you could sunder as one attack of you full attacks (like you could in 3rd) or if it could only be done as a standard action. Eventually, the description of sunder was changed so that there was no doubt, but even now 'attack action' means something different than it did in 3rd.
Don't get me wrong; I absolutely love most of the non 'game engine' changes PF made, especially to the classes, but these unnecessary and usually inadvertent changes to the game engine itself has made the game worse, mechanics-wise.
And now we have a change to the basics of combat itself. Now, a single attack with a two-handed weapon actually consumes two attacks, all just to prevent a 2HW being used in TWF.
SCPRedMage wrote: Crash_00 wrote: -A) Yes, half strength applies to the off hand in all cases unless a specific rule states otherwise (two handed weapons, double slice, etc.). You're ignoring the fact that a specific rule trumps a generic rule. Let's say I'm holding a longsword in my right hand and a shortsword in my left hand.
1. I attack with both weapons. Which weapon does the half-Strength damage?
2. I attack with only the longsword. How much of my Strength bonus do I add?
3. I attack with only the shortsword. How much of my Strength bonus do I add? 1. Whichever attack you designate as the primary gets full STR bonus, the other gets half.
2. It is the Primary attack and gets full STR bonus.
3. It is the Primary attack and gets full STR bonus.
Vod Canockers wrote: SCPRedMage wrote: Crash_00 wrote: -A) Yes, half strength applies to the off hand in all cases unless a specific rule states otherwise (two handed weapons, double slice, etc.). You're ignoring the fact that a specific rule trumps a generic rule. Let's say I'm holding a longsword in my right hand and a shortsword in my left hand.
1. I attack with both weapons. Which weapon does the half-Strength damage?
2. I attack with only the longsword. How much of my Strength bonus do I add?
3. I attack with only the shortsword. How much of my Strength bonus do I add? 1. Whichever attack you designate as the primary gets full STR bonus, the other gets half.
2. It is the Primary attack and gets full STR bonus.
3. It is the Primary attack and gets full STR bonus.
Precisely my point; off-hand only exists when it needs to.
Crash_00 wrote: -D) Strap it to whatever arm you want, the text still reads that you lose the bonus if you're attacking with a weapon in the off hand. The text does not care which arm you attach the buckler to or how many arms you have to begin with. Attacking with a weapon in the off hand causes the bonus to go poof. That is, unless you see some text that gives a specific rule for strapping the buckler to a different arm, but it isn't in my CRB. That's not the situation. If I only make one attack, that attack is your primary (we agree on this). There is no off hand attack nor is any off hand doing anything. The buckler is strapped to that primary arm. According to your interpretation, the AC bonus is lost when the off hand attack is made, or the off hand is used. Neither is the case here, therefore you don't lose your AC bonus.
According tho the interpretation you shared with us even before the latest FAQ, p141 details a previously unknown game quantity called 'effort'. According to you, the weapon categories of light/1H/2H require an amount of this 'effort', and you only have so much 'effort' for each 'pair of attacks'. Ignoring the fact that the devs shot down the 'pair' part, your assertion is that a 2HW uses up the 'effort' of both the 'primary' hand and the 'off' hand, while being absolutely clear that 'hand' isn't referring to an actual physical hand, but is just an unfortunate name for the 'units' of 'effort'.
An analogy is that in one round you can take a move action AND a standard action, OR you can take a full round action. You can't take a full round action AND a move action, because a full round action is equal to a standard and move added together.
Similarly, you assert that the 'effort' required to use a 2HW (the weapon category; the number of hands you actually use on it is irrelevant for this purpose) is the effort of both the primary AND off hand worth of 'effort'.
But my original question asked about a longsword/spiked gauntlet combo; my primary is a one-handed weapon and my off hand is a light weapon. According to your interpretation, the number of actual, real hands you use on it is not relevant, only the 'effort' required to use a one-handed weapon! This means that your rule allows me to use a longsword (primary, one-handed) and a spiked gauntlet (off hand, light) together in TWF, and the number of actual, real hands I have on the longsword doesn't matter for this purpose.
So I'll use two hands on my one-handed weapon! I'm golden!
You wrote: -E) I see the current ruling as perfectly sane as long as you pay attention to the rules instead of ignoring half of them. It is much more sane that a person having his off hand on two weapons at the same time (whether the hand is physical or not). In my longsword/spiked gauntlet combo, the two attacks are not simultaneous, as confirmed (to your surprise and disappointment) by the devs. I attack with the longsword in two hands, remove one hand as a free action, then attack with the gauntlet (or vice versa). This makes perfect sense. In fact, even you agree that this is possible in a single full attack, but you think that them being iteratives makes it possible while being TWF somehow paralyses your hands.
I never claimed that you lose the bonus anytime you do anything with your off hand. There are very specific things that cause you to lose the bonus, but they are all done with the Off Hand. The rules are very clear on that. If you only make a primary attack, it doesn't matter which arm your shield is on, you don't lose the bonus.
You may still take the penalty, but that's up to the GM. The examples of using your shield arm to wield a weapon refer to the off hand, but nothing says that it's all inclusive.
If it doesn't make sense, that's fine. The RAW often doesn't make sense.
You are still making a mistake Malachi. That second hand you are putting on your one handed weapon isn't a physical hand, it's your "off hand." You're still using the weapon in both your hands effort-wise. You are using the one handed weapon in two hands.
You are still trying to change between physical hand and non-physical hand in the middle of your combo. The weapon category is how much effort the weapon requires to use, not how much it uses when you decide to put more into it. The only two hands you have to use on weapons are Primary and Off.
Reread Jason's post. The Off Hand and Primary Hand are paired for THF. He said they weren't for two weapon fighting, but they are for THF. He failed to clarify the further questions, but it doesn't change the fact that two handing your one handed weapon pairs your off hand to it for that iteration. If you disagree, quote the whole thing on here and I'll pick the relevant parts out for you.
Quote: Precisely my point; off-hand only exists when it needs to. It is only used when it needs to be.
If you have a wand of lesser restoration does it only exist when you need it to? Off Hand is no different. It's always there, it just isn't always used.
Crash, in our discussion about TWF, you claimed that the extra (1st, 2nd, 3rd) attacks granted by TWF are paired with the specific (1st, 2nd, 3rd) iterative attack, This being why a hand couldn't be in two places at the same time. I said that they weren't, and that each attack in TWF is taken one after another, so the hands are not in different places at the same time.
Jason Bulmahn then wrote:-
Quote: Its true, that TWF does not link attacks in pairs He then went on to say:-
Quote: but what we are saying... ...and then told us that two-handed weapons consume two attacks.
Despite similarities, what Jason said and what you said are not identical. It's you that decided that 'effort' was a secret game mechanic, and following your rules (not Jason's) then using a one-handed weapon uses that much 'effort', and according to your rules this 'effort' is independent of how many real hands are on the weapon.
Following your reasoning, I can use a 1HW in TWF.
You wrote: You are still making a mistake Malachi. That second hand you are putting on your one handed weapon isn't a physical hand, Yes it bloody well is? Are you saying that a one-armed man can use a two-handed weapon just so long as he uses enough 'effort'?
Quote: it's your "off hand." You're still using the weapon in both your hands effort-wise. You are using the one handed weapon in two hands. So, using a one-handed weapon in two hands turns it into a two-handed weapon? Where were you in the bastard sword threads?
Quote: The rules are very clear on that. If you only make a primary attack, it doesn't matter which arm your shield is on, you don't lose the bonus. So, if you only take one attack, and the buckler is strapped to the arm that makes the attack, you keep the AC bonus? FAQ that!
Quote: If it doesn't make sense, that's fine. The RAW often doesn't make sense. Despite the fact that any rules we use to simulate reality will be imperfect, the goal is to be as realistic as possible while still being playable.
The rules we are discussing can very easily be interpreted as making sense, so to deliberately choose the way that doesn't is not a design goal for the game!
You are seriously telling us that you lose the buckler's bonus to AC if you kick as an off hand attack, but keep the AC bonus if you only make one attack and that attack is made with the buckler arm!
Compare that with the other interpretation, that you lose the buckler bonus to AC if you use the arm to which it is strapped to make an attack, but keep the AC if you don't use that arm.
One makes sense. The other doesn't. But you desperately hold on to this misinterpretation of this item whose description you know has been unchanged since 3.0 when 'off-hand' meant something else, because you assert that the secret rules to Pathfinder TWF are found in the 3.0 description of the buckler.
So, if the off-hand exists outside two weapon fighting, then must you continually declare this off-hand weapon, prior to any attack at all?
What mechanical effects are represented by this off-hand, that exists outside of two weapon fighting?
To what purpose must an off-hand be declared outside of two weapon fighting?
|
1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
|
Crash_00 wrote: You are still making a mistake Malachi. That second hand you are putting on your one handed weapon isn't a physical hand, it's your "off hand." You're still using the weapon in both your hands effort-wise. You are using the one handed weapon in two hands.
You are still trying to change between physical hand and non-physical hand in the middle of your combo. The weapon category is how much effort the weapon requires to use, not how much it uses when you decide to put more into it. The only two hands you have to use on weapons are Primary and Off.
Why, oh why am I letting myself be drawn back into this...?
So, does this mean that any time I attack with a 1H weapon in my right hand, I can declare that I am wielding it two-handed even if my actual left hand is holding a shield or a wand or whatever, because I can put my meta-physical "off-hand" on the weapon?
Two handed fighting black blood.
As for Malachi, nice one. It's almost like I forgot to say quote the whole thing...oh wait.
"Its true, that TWF does not link attacks in pairs, but what we are saying is that a two-handed weapon does"
What did I just say that you responded to?
"Reread Jason's post. The Off Hand and Primary Hand are paired for THF. He said they weren't for two weapon fighting, but they are for THF."
You are ignoring things again. Your way makes perfect sense when you ignore things, I've never argued agains that.
This is how he stated it works:"So, when you attack with a THW, you are using both your primary and off hand to make the attack. You cannot then swap into two weapon fighting and use the off hand (or your primary for that matter, since the THW rules do not state which hand you are using at all, because you are using both) to make additional attacks."
His talk about it consuming two attacks was to explain it to all the people that just simply can't seem to get it (or refuse to at this point since you've already shown you do understand it).
Quote: Yes it bloody well is? Are you saying that a one-armed man can use a two-handed weapon just so long as he uses enough 'effort'? Just because it isn't a physical hand doesn't mean it can't also be a physical hand. A rectangle doesn't have to be a square, but it can be.
As for the one handed = two handed argument, you're going to have to break down your logic there because I can't seem to find a single way for that to apply to what I stated. The book has a specific rule for wielding a one handed weapon in two hands. It's right after how it talks about wielding the one handed weapon in the Primary Hand and in the Off Hand. Those are your two hands to use.
Quote: So, if you only take one attack, and the buckler is strapped to the arm that makes the attack, you keep the AC bonus? FAQ that! Yes, unless it's a weapon that is always an off hand weapon (like the buckler gun).
Quote: Despite the fact that any rules we use to simulate reality will be imperfect, the goal is to be as realistic as possible while still being playable.
The rules we are discussing can very easily be interpreted as making sense, so to deliberately choose the way that doesn't is not a design goal for the game!
How do you interpret Off Hand to mean anything other than the Off Hand. Even with your interpreted weapon wielding rules, the case still works exactly as I said it did.
If you only make one attack with a one handed weapon in only your primary hand, is the weapon in your off hand?
No.
In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you lose the buckler’s AC bonus until your next turn.
The rule cannot apply to the case proposed.
Balance rules trump realism every day.
3.0 has nothing to do with this. Whether these rules are intentional or not has nothing to do with this. The Devs and I have both just shown how the rules read. That would be the RAW. If they don't change the wording, and definitions of terms used in that wording change, then what the wording means changes as well.
The Crusader wrote:
Why, oh why am I letting myself be drawn back into this...?
So, does this mean that any time I attack with a 1H weapon in my right hand, I can declare that I am wielding it two-handed even if my actual left hand is holding a shield or a wand or whatever, because I can put my meta-physical "off-hand" on the weapon?
The rules imply that your Primary Hand and Off Hand also use physical hands unless otherwise noted (such as the armor spikes that can be wielded despite not being in physical hands).
Here is where his logic fails:
He grips the longsword in two physical hands and wants to also punch with a physical hand in the same action.
So we change it to Primary and Off Hand terminology like RAW uses.
He grips a longsword in his Primary and Off Hand then also wants to punch with his Off Hand in the same action.
Still a contradiction in how many hands he has.
So what he proposes is, he attacks with a longsword in the Primary Hand and an unnamed physical hand then punches with his Off Hand, but he gains damage as if the Off Hand were also on the longsword.
He is switching terminology in the middle of his tactic despite being told by the devs and the rulebook that it doesn't work that way.
Crash_00 wrote: The rules imply that your Primary Hand and Off Hand also use physical hands unless otherwise noted (such as the armor spikes that can be wielded despite not being in physical hands). And exactly where would that be noted?
-James
Same place as the rest of the weapon wielding rules. Pg. 141 of the CRB.
Crash_00 wrote: Same place as the rest of the weapon wielding rules. Pg. 141 of the CRB. Really, where does it say that armor spikes do not require a hand in which to wield them?
From there I see that they should be wielded in 'one hand', and by your reasoning I am to believe that they need to be drawn into a physical hand in order to make such attacks with them.
Right?
-James
Honestly, I think this has gone far beyond what the rules support on both sides. Regardless of which interpretation the FAQ had sided with, there would have been some weirdness and loopholes and things that need DM ruling (or that can become a general consensus but isn't really explicitly supported, as was the case with some weirdness arising from the 3.5 ruling) - it's better to just accept that "yes, this is weird" than trying to rationalize it with poorly supported wording and extreme extrapolation as Crash is doing right now.
james maissen wrote: Crash_00 wrote: Same place as the rest of the weapon wielding rules. Pg. 141 of the CRB. Really, where does it say that armor spikes do not require a hand in which to wield them?
From there I see that they should be wielded in 'one hand', and by your reasoning I am to believe that they need to be drawn into a physical hand in order to make such attacks with them.
Right?
-James I guess if you don't bother to read the text thoroughly then you are right.
"You can have spikes added to your armor."
It doesn't say the gauntlet of your armor (which would be a spiked gauntlet, it specifically states that they are on the armor itself. Do you have to draw a weapon that is already readied to attack normally?
Read on further and it clarifies that Armor Spikes can be used as a light weapon for normal (or Off Hand) melee attacks. What rules do Light weapons use? Well they require you to wield them in the primary hand or the off hand for beginners. So, even though the weapon is not in a physical hand (which is implied by the Primary Hand and Off Hand terms) it still requires either the Off Hand or Primary Hand to use it. Theoretically, you could two hand the armor spikes, but it wouldn't do you any good since they are Light weapons and don't benefit from having both hands used on them.
If it helps you make sense of the rules to vision your character picking himself up by the boot and slamming his armor spiked body onto the enemy, then by all means do so. The rules never state that is happening, it's just how it works mechanically.
Quote: Crash has been right pretty much every step along the way... Well Jason said that TWF attacks weren't paired. So I was wrong there, technically, but the clarification that THF does pair the hands makes it fundamentally the same. Either way you lose the equivalent BAB off hand attack which was the whole point of the paired argument.
I wouldn't say the wording is "poorly supported" at all Ilja. Misleading, definitely, but support is there for their unanimous decision on this ruling. It has been all along.
Crash_00 wrote: I guess if you don't bother to read the text thoroughly then you are right. So you are saying that Mark Moreland didn't read the text thoroughly? Or when he was on the same page as Jason, that Jason also did not?
Crash_00 wrote: "You can have spikes added to your armor."
It doesn't say the gauntlet of your armor (which would be a spiked gauntlet, it specifically states that they are on the armor itself. Do you have to draw a weapon that is already readied to attack normally?
That's great, but it does not say any such thing in regards to already readied to attack normally. Meanwhile, Mark's post clearly says otherwise and requires a hand free like any such weapon.
Crash_00 wrote: Read on further and it clarifies that Armor Spikes can be used as a light weapon for normal (or Off Hand) melee attacks. What rules do Light weapons use? Well they require you to wield them in the primary hand or the off hand for beginners. So, even though the weapon is not in a physical hand (which is implied by the Primary Hand and Off Hand terms) it still requires either the Off Hand or Primary Hand to use it. Theoretically, you could two hand the armor spikes, but it wouldn't do you any good since they are Light weapons and don't benefit from having both hands used on them. And again, where is it expressly noted as you have claimed? Nowhere?
And beginners? Like Jason you mean?
Crash_00 wrote: If it helps you make sense of the rules to vision your character picking himself up by the boot and slamming his armor spiked body onto the enemy, then by all means do so. The rules never state that is happening, it's just how it works mechanically.
I know it never notes this, and it is how I pictured it.. which would obviate the need for a hand to use it.. physical or imaginary... much like a Barbazu beard or monk's unarmed strike.
-James
What did Mark state at the end of the post you are referring to?
"This isn't necessarily clear in the rules, but I just discussed it with Jason, and we're both on the same page about the intent."
I'm not debating intent. I'm talking about what the rules actually say, which is what the devs based the FAQ on.
You're right though. How did we not see this. Obviously you are meant to put armor spikes on a suit of armor that you are going to wield as a light weapon in you hand, not on the suit your are wearing.
If the spikes are on your armor, and you are wearing your armor, are the spikes not equipped?
Do you need to draw a sword that is equipped in your hand?
You're reaching for straws at this point.
Seriously though, are armor spikes treated as a Light weapon?
Do light weapons require a hand (Primary or Off) to use?
Does anything state this isn't the case for Armor Spikes?
Are Armor Spikes wielded in your physical hands?
All these can be answered by reading the rules.
I didn't mean to say the FAQ's ruling was poorly supported - I think the handedness descriptions on p. 141 where pretty solid support, and Crash advocated that before - ze was right, I did not mean to imply anything else.
But I think apart from that - a lot of the talk of how off-hands work outside of TWF/THF, the relation between physical hands and "mechanical" hands etc etc is reliant on pretty hefty assumptions and extrapolations. I'm not saying they're wrong, just that the support in the rules for those specifics is kinda vague. Not that it matters that much, I just don't think it's constructive when discussing slim slim corner cases to just assume a lot of things and act like it's an obvious 100% RAW case.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Removed some posts and locking. Again, personal insults and sniping should be left out of the discussion.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
