|
Oh man. I knew someone would try to bring the "hands" thing in.
Two weapon fighting is not a "hands only" thing.
You don't even need hands.
By the way, the Four-armed Alchemist works best with two Sawtooth Sabres, each wielded in two hands.
Sure, TWF doesn't require the use of hands, but it is predicated on the fact that a "normal" character only has two hands, whereas if a character had three or more hands, they would be able to have more than one off-hand attack.
|
Sure, TWF doesn't require the use of hands, but it is predicated on the fact that a "normal" character only has two hands, whereas if a character had three or more hands, they would be able to have more than one off-hand attack.Oh man. I knew someone would try to bring the "hands" thing in.
Two weapon fighting is not a "hands only" thing.
You don't even need hands.
By the way, the Four-armed Alchemist works best with two Sawtooth Sabres, each wielded in two hands.
Just to clarify, if a creature had three or more hands it may have a greater choice of which weapon to designate as the 'off-hand' weapon for that full attack, but it could still only use one 'off-hand' weapon, no matter how many arms/weapons it has available.
|
|
Characters with two hands can have more than one available off-hand attack.
Armor Spikes and unarmed strikes are good examples.
Yes, I'm not arguing that. I am merely saying that the fact that there are not more off-hand attacks is because the attack paradigm is predicated on a "normal" character having only two hands.
|
|
Just to clarify, if a creature had three or more hands it may have a greater choice of which weapon to designate as the 'off-hand' weapon for that full attack, but it could still only use one 'off-hand' weapon, no matter how many arms/weapons it has available.Sure, TWF doesn't require the use of hands, but it is predicated on the fact that a "normal" character only has two hands, whereas if a character had three or more hands, they would be able to have more than one off-hand attack.Oh man. I knew someone would try to bring the "hands" thing in.
Two weapon fighting is not a "hands only" thing.
You don't even need hands.
By the way, the Four-armed Alchemist works best with two Sawtooth Sabres, each wielded in two hands.
No. Look at any creature with more than two arms and they are allowed to make additional off-hand attacks for each arm above two. The marilith (sp) is a prime example.
While the attacks don't HAVE to be made with the hands, the number of off-hand attacks are predicated on how many hands the creature has.
|
|
They way your primary weapon is wielded has no effect on how two weapon fighting functions.
One hand, two hands, no hands, it means nothing.
Source?
I've shown a source that specifically states a character uses his off hand to help use a two-handed weapon. Two handed weapons are primary weapons that use the Primary and Off hands. It doesn't matter that you intended to use your off hand as a foot, or leg, or spike. If you've used a two-handed weapon, you've already used your off hand because it requires both.
Off hand can refer to the type of attack option, or it can refer literally to the characters off hand. You can't pick and choose, it has to be one or the other.
???
Wait a minute!
Are you saying that, if you use an off-hand weapon that doesn't use a hand (armour spikes, boot blade, boulder helmet), then you can't use a two-handed weapon on the grounds that your 'off-hand' has been used up?
Are you saying that if you use a two-handed weapon then you can't use armour spikes on the grounds that your 'off-hand' has been used up?
|
|
Just to clarify, if a creature had three or more hands it may have a greater choice of which weapon to designate as the 'off-hand' weapon for that full attack, but it could still only use one 'off-hand' weapon, no matter how many arms/weapons it has available.Sure, TWF doesn't require the use of hands, but it is predicated on the fact that a "normal" character only has two hands, whereas if a character had three or more hands, they would be able to have more than one off-hand attack.Oh man. I knew someone would try to bring the "hands" thing in.
Two weapon fighting is not a "hands only" thing.
You don't even need hands.
By the way, the Four-armed Alchemist works best with two Sawtooth Sabres, each wielded in two hands.
No. Look at any creature with more than two arms and they are allowed to make additional off-hand attacks for each arm above two. The marilith (sp) is a prime example. ** spoiler omitted ** Instead of two-weapon fighting, it is called multi-weapon fighting.
While the attacks don't HAVE to be made with the hands, the number of off-hand attacks are predicated on how many hands the creature has.
Out of your own mouth! It is called multi-weapon fighting.
Which is a different thing to two-weapon fighting, with its own rules.
|
|
Cheers, BBT!
A barbazu beard can be used as an off-hand weapon that requires no hands to use; thus, a warrior could combine use of a barbazu beard with a two-handed weapon.
The 'thus' shows that since the barbezu beard doesn't require hands to use this allows both hands to use something else! It doesn't 'use up' the off hand!
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.
And yet again, conclusive proof that the designers of the game do not think that your actual hand is 'used up' when you use a weapon which doesn't require hands.
|
|
You don't have to have a free hand to kick someone. You can be holding a two handed weapon. You can be holding a one handed weapon and a shield, lantern, halfling, etc.
You just can't kick if you've used your primary and off hand already.
I just thought I'd leave this here.
Out in the open.
Where everyone can see it.
Also where is the limitation of one off hand weapon coming from? If you have more than one off hand attack you can use more than one offhand weapon.
|
|
No... your off hand is committed in your two hand longsword attack. You're going to need to grow a third hand to get what you want.Dear Pathfinder Design Team,
Is it a legal Two-Weapon Fighting combination to use a longsword in two hands (to get 1.5 x Str bonus to damage) as my main weapon, and a spiked gauntlet as my off-hand weapon?
There seems to be some confusion about how the PF combat rules work.
Let's put the TWF rules to one side for the moment, to promote clarity.
A sixth level fighter has two attacks by dint of having a BAB of +6. For the purposes of this really easy example (no trick questions), assume that his only relevant feat is Quick Draw.
He has a longsword in his right hand and a heavy steel shield on his left arm, making his left hand unavailable to do anything else.
He uses a full attack action, and hits a black pudding using his first attack at +6 and his blade melts. He Quick Draws his light mace with his (now free) right hand and attacks the black pudding with the mace in his right hand with his second attack at +1.
Is there anything wrong with this sequence of events? Because it seems to me that you're saying that his right hand was somehow 'used up' with his longsword and now cannot use it to attack with the mace!
Is this your position?
|
|
Out of your own mouth! It is called multi-weapon fighting.Which is a different thing to two-weapon fighting, with its own rules.
No, multiweapon fighting is two-weapon fighting for creatures with more than two arms. The penalties are the same, the concept is the same, the only difference is that there are extra off-hand attacks for the third, fourth, fifth, etc. hands.
Don't be obtuse.
|
|
Prerquisites: Dex 13, three or more hands
Despite the similarity, there are differences. One major difference is that Multi-Weapon Fighting requires hands! Two-Weapon Fighting doesn't.
TWF doesn't require hands to qualify for the feat, nor to execute any attack when using it. Any particular weapon might or might not require hands, but 'attack's' themselves don't.
No... your off hand is committed in your two hand longsword attack. You're going to need to grow a third hand to get what you want.Dear Pathfinder Design Team,
Is it a legal Two-Weapon Fighting combination to use a longsword in two hands (to get 1.5 x Str bonus to damage) as my main weapon, and a spiked gauntlet as my off-hand weapon?
There seems to be some confusion about how the PF combat rules work.
Let's put the TWF rules to one side for the moment, to promote clarity.
A sixth level fighter has two attacks by dint of having a BAB of +6. For the purposes of this really easy example (no trick questions), assume that his only relevant feat is Quick Draw.
He has a longsword in his right hand and a heavy steel shield on his left arm, making his left hand unavailable to do anything else.
He uses a full attack action, and hits a black pudding using his first attack at +6 and his blade melts. He Quick Draws his light mace with his (now free) right hand and attacks the black pudding with the mace in his right hand with his second attack at +1.
Is there anything wrong with this sequence of events? Because it seems to me that you're saying that his right hand was somehow 'used up' with his longsword and now cannot use it to attack with the mace!
Is this your position?
The two examples are not analogous.
The Longsword+Gauntlet example is using two-weapon fighting, the Longsword+Mace example is not.
Take this example instead.
Consider your Fighter and give him the Two-Weapon Fighting feat as well. He can make two attacks at +4 (longsword and shield bash) plus a second attack with his longsword at -1.
He attacks the pudding as per your example and his longsword is dissolved. He doesn't want to lose his shield, so can he draw his mace with his now empty right as a free action, and make his off-hand attack with that?
|
|
The two examples are not analogous.
The Longsword+Gauntlet example is using two-weapon fighting, the Longsword+Mace example is not.
Take this example instead.
Consider your Fighter and give him the Two-Weapon Fighting feat as well. He can make two attacks at +4 (longsword and shield bash) plus a second attack with his longsword at -1.
He attacks the pudding as per your example and his longsword is dissolved. He doesn't want to lose his shield, so can he draw his mace with his now empty right as a free action, and make his off-hand attack with that?
Of course he can.
But I chose my example carefully. It is asserted that a hand is 'used up' when used to attack with a weapon. That would be true whether you were using TWF or not.
Does a hand get 'used up'? Yes or no? The answer is independent of TWF.
|
|
Prerquisites: Dex 13, three or more handsDespite the similarity, there are differences. One major difference is that Multi-Weapon Fighting requires hands! Two-Weapon Fighting doesn't.
TWF doesn't require hands to qualify for the feat, nor to execute any attack when using it. Any particular weapon might or might not require hands, but 'attack's' themselves don't.
*sigh*
I'm not talking about the feat. I'm talking about the concept. Multiweapon fighting IS two-weapon fighting for those with three or more arms. Heck, at the very bottom of the feat that you quoted, it says this very thing. They are the same damned thing. Why are you being so dense about this?
|
|
Stumpy McDragon has five heads and one claw; accidents happen even to descendants of Tiamat. Can he take Multi-Weapon Fighting? No. He does have a Dex of 13 (14 actually), but he doesn't have three or more hands.
Can he take TWF? No, because he needs a Dex of 15. Another difference.
Can his friend Giant McSquid take Multi-WF? No, because he doesn't have three or more hands. Ten tentacles are not relevant; tentacles are not hands. Can he take TWF if he has Dex 15? Yes. Hands aren't required for TWF.
Lefty McPirate has lost an entire arm. Can he take TWF, despite not having two or more hands? Yes. Hands/limbs/whatever are not required; just a Dex of 15. He can swing a sword with his one hand and attack with armour spikes as his 'off-hand' weapon (which doesn't need hands!).
Another lost fight and Lefty becomes Stumpy McPirate. Can he TWF with no arms? Yes, if he can use at least two weapons, neither of which needs hands; say, armour spikes and boulder helmet.
No matter how similar the concepts are, you can't ignore the rules, nor the differences in the rules for TWF and MWF.
Stumpy McDragon has five heads and one claw; accidents happen even to descendants of Tiamat. Can he take Multi-Weapon Fighting? No. He does have a Dex of 13 (14 actually), but he doesn't have three or more hands.
Can he take TWF? No, because he needs a Dex of 15. Another difference.
Can his friend Giant McSquid take Multi-WF? No, because he doesn't have three or more hands. Ten tentacles are not relevant; tentacles are not hands. Can he take TWF if he has Dex 15? Yes. Hands aren't required for TWF.
Lefty McPirate has lost an entire arm. Can he take TWF, despite not having two or more hands? Yes. Hands/limbs/whatever are not required; just a Dex of 15. He can swing a sword with his one hand and attack with armour spikes as his 'off-hand' weapon (which doesn't need hands!).
Another lost fight and Lefty becomes Stumpy McPirate. Can he TWF with no arms? Yes, if he can use at least two weapons, neither of which needs hands; say, armour spikes and boulder helmet.
No matter how similar the concepts are, you can't ignore the rules, nor the differences in the rules for TWF and MWF.
Stumpy cannot take MWF, but he can take MultiAttack, the same with Giant McSquid. Neither of them need MWF, they aren't wielding weapons, they are using Natural Attacks.
Now Lefty can take MWF, but he is limited to those weapons for his "off hand" that don't require a hand or arm to wield. He can't attack with his sword, drop it and quick draw a dagger for his off hand attack, nor can he drop the sword and attack with the cestus he has on his hand.
The two examples are not analogous.
The Longsword+Gauntlet example is using two-weapon fighting, the Longsword+Mace example is not.
Take this example instead.
Consider your Fighter and give him the Two-Weapon Fighting feat as well. He can make two attacks at +4 (longsword and shield bash) plus a second attack with his longsword at -1.
He attacks the pudding as per your example and his longsword is dissolved. He doesn't want to lose his shield, so can he draw his mace with his now empty right as a free action, and make his off-hand attack with that?
Of course he can.
But I chose my example carefully. It is asserted that a hand is 'used up' when used to attack with a weapon. That would be true whether you were using TWF or not.
Does a hand get 'used up'? Yes or no? The answer is independent of TWF.
Wait, wait, wait!
Your stance is you can use the same hand for all you TWF attacks?
Do you also think you can use the same weapon for all your TWF attacks?
This longsword gauntlet punch thing is reminding me of Siegfried on soul calibur. Sometimes he chops, sometimes he punches or kicks, you can string them together.
|
|
The two examples are not analogous.
The Longsword+Gauntlet example is using two-weapon fighting, the Longsword+Mace example is not.
Take this example instead.
Consider your Fighter and give him the Two-Weapon Fighting feat as well. He can make two attacks at +4 (longsword and shield bash) plus a second attack with his longsword at -1.
He attacks the pudding as per your example and his longsword is dissolved. He doesn't want to lose his shield, so can he draw his mace with his now empty right as a free action, and make his off-hand attack with that?
Of course he can.
But I chose my example carefully. It is asserted that a hand is 'used up' when used to attack with a weapon. That would be true whether you were using TWF or not.
Does a hand get 'used up'? Yes or no? The answer is independent of TWF.
Wait, wait, wait!
Your stance is you can use the same hand for all you TWF attacks?
Do you also think you can use the same weapon for all your TWF attacks?
You haven't been paying attention. You need at least two different weapons to take your TWF attacks: one which you designate as your 'off-hand' weapon for this full attack (and which is the only weapon that can take your off-hand attacks), and at least one other to take all your other attacks (main, iterative, bonus from haste etc.), and your designated off-hand weapon is the only weapon which cannot take any of these attacks.
|
|
Stumpy cannot take MWF, but he can take MultiAttack, the same with Giant McSquid. Neither of them need MWF, they aren't wielding weapons, they are using Natural Attacks.
True. Natural weapons follow different rules than manufactured weapons. But if they were inclined to use manufactured weapons, what I wrote applies.
Now Lefty can take MWF, but he is limited to those weapons for his "off hand" that don't require a hand or arm to wield.
Lefty can't take MWF because he doesn't have three or more hands: he only has one. If he ever had three hands then he could, but if he lost one then he couldn't use the feat until he got up to at least three again.
....or did you mean to write 'TWF' not 'MWF'?
He can't attack with his sword, drop it and quick draw a dagger for his off hand attack, nor can he drop the sword and attack with the cestus he has on his hand.
Why not?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the PC is only getting the allowed extra attacks, and taking the appropriate penalties, then what's the issue?
Is there a balance issue?
No. Same penalties, same amount of extra attacks, and same damage.
What is one trying to achieve with these extra restrictions?
Solving a problem that doesn't exist?
Creating confusion?
Stumpy cannot take MWF, but he can take MultiAttack, the same with Giant McSquid. Neither of them need MWF, they aren't wielding weapons, they are using Natural Attacks.True. Natural weapons follow different rules than manufactured weapons. But if they were inclined to use manufactured weapons, what I wrote applies.
Now Lefty can take MWF, but he is limited to those weapons for his "off hand" that don't require a hand or arm to wield.Lefty can't take MWF because he doesn't have three or more hands: he only has one. If he ever had three hands then he could, but if he lost one then he couldn't use the feat until he got up to at least three again.
....or did you mean to write 'TWF' not 'MWF'?
Yes I meant TWF.
He can't attack with his sword, drop it and quick draw a dagger for his off hand attack, nor can he drop the sword and attack with the cestus he has on his hand.Why not?
Because he doesn't have an off hand, he only has a primary hand. He could use the Barbazu Beard or similar type weapon.
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in two ways. First, if your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light. Second, the Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6.
Because his primary hand can't be his off hand. He can if he has iterative attacks, drop the sword and use either a cestus or quickdraw a weapon to make those attacks, but your primary attacks and off hand attacks cannot be made by the same limb.
One-Handed: A one-handed weapon can be used in either the primary hand or the off hand. Add the wielder's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with a one-handed weapon if it's used in the primary hand, or 1/2 his Strength bonus if it's used in the off hand. If a one-handed weapon is wielded with two hands during melee combat, add 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls.
Now according to this, you have a primary hand and an off hand, creatures with two hands. Now when you attack with a weapon using two hands, you have used your primary hand and your off hand to attack. You can't then release your off hand and make a second attack with that off-hand, anymore than you could release the weapon and make another attack with the primary hand, iterative attacks not counting.
If the PC is only getting the allowed extra attacks, and taking the appropriate penalties, then what's the issue?
Is there a balance issue?
No. Same penalties, same amount of extra attacks, and same damage.
What is one trying to achieve with these extra restrictions?
Solving a problem that doesn't exist?
Creating confusion?
It's not the same damage. It is Str x 1.5 + Str x .5 = Str x 2.
With every other attack combination the best you can do is Str x 1.5 (either two-handed or two weaponed).
You haven't been paying attention. You need at least two different weapons to take your TWF attacks: one which you designate as your 'off-hand' weapon for this full attack (and which is the only weapon that can take your off-hand attacks), and at least one other to take all your other attacks (main, iterative, bonus from haste etc.), and your designated off-hand weapon is the only weapon which cannot take any of these attacks.
Ok, you agree that you need minimum two weapons.
But you say you can TWF with only one hand? i.e. you can attack with your primary hand sword in your right hand, drop it, quick draw a second sword with your right hand, and make your off-hand attack with the second sword in your right hand.
Alternately, wield a shield and throw daggers using only one hand and still get a full TWF routine?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Who needs Quick Draw? Glove of Storing!
But a person with Quick Draw could
Or, at lower the levels, the fantastic spring-loaded wrist sheath.
_every_ martial character should have two spring-loaded wrist sheaths.
If the PC is only getting the allowed extra attacks, and taking the appropriate penalties, then what's the issue?
Is there a balance issue?
No. Same penalties, same amount of extra attacks, and same damage.
What is one trying to achieve with these extra restrictions?
Solving a problem that doesn't exist?
Creating confusion?
It's not the same damage. It is Str x 1.5 + Str x .5 = Str x 2.
With every other attack combination the best you can do is Str x 1.5 (either two-handed or two weaponed).
To be perfectly fair, you can do almost exactly what Malachi is suggesting using a two-handed weapon and armour spikes as your off-hand weapon.
In Malachi's case, he wants to use a Gauntlet instead of Armour Spikes, admittedly a sub-optimal weapon. What worries me is the precedent for further abuse.
If you say you can use the same hand for your primary and off-hand attacks, people are going to take this as far as they can and break it.
It violates the basic idea of 2 weapon and comes off as cheese. why do people feel the need to see how far they can push things? One handed and light weapons are the clear intent so why keep looking for more? Is the next step going to be "can i weapon cord 2 greatswords and make an attack then dropit and attack with the other as TWF?"People that do not see how far to push things are the people who don't invent airplanes when there is already cars. We are naturally innovators. Without innovation we would still be playing cowboys and Indians with sticks! Which by the way is awesome!
Case in point.
Who needs Quick Draw? Glove of Storing!
But a person with Quick Draw couldOr, at lower the levels, the fantastic spring-loaded wrist sheath.
_every_ martial character should have two spring-loaded wrist sheaths.
Now they are going to want have multiple sheaths on each wrist.
The need to have each weapon in one hand, or in any hand, is false.
You don't even need limbs.
By RAW you have to have a primary hand and an off hand. So you have to have two hands, whether they are attached to limbs or not I can't say. But RAW uses those two names.
By RAW, nothing says the primary hand or off-hand has to be an actual physical hand (otherwise you could only do unarmed strikes or possibly gauntlets, right?). And if we wanna get _REALLY_ RAW, nothing in the rules state an elf/dwarf/whatever has two hands ;)
Thus it's better to look at probable intent of the rules:
We know for a fact that there are a sh*tload of legal ways to make attacks that are not in any way connected to hands, including kicks, headbutts, armor spikes, shield spikes (light shields do not utilize a hand), blade boots, tail weapons, monk elbows and knees, hair etc etc etc.
I believe there are also published NPC's making use of such attacks.
There is also a tradition of being able to TWF with non-hand weapons, and in 3.5 it was even clarified in the FAQ that it is possible.
Due to these reasons, I find it extremely unlikely that you can't TWF with weapons that don't utilize hands.
Now, whether you can use a single limb for several weapons is a bit of a different question and might get a different answer, but I'm fully in favor of it - otherwise shurikens would be really really sucky at mid-to-high levels (more than they already are).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
God.
The dang "hands" argument.
Every time this comes up, I can't help but groan.
Even two weapon fighting with unarmed strikes has no "hands" restriction.
Fluff text can be so aggravating sometimes.
By your definition, one can't even hold a two handed weapon, and two weapon fight.
Heck, by your definition, one can't two weapon fight with Hook Hands, because or the lack of actual hands.