^agreed^
Armor spikes et al generally don't have language specifying an exception to the handedness rules. Armor spikes says the following:
Armor Spikes
Armor spikes deal extra piercing damage (see “spiked armor” on Table: Weapons) on a successful grapple attack. The spikes count as a martial weapon. If you are not proficient with them, you take a –4 penalty on grapple checks when you try to use them. You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case. (You can't also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.) An enhancement bonus to a suit of armor does not improve the spikes' effectiveness, but the spikes can be made into magic weapons in their own right.
Nothing like "You may treat your body as a hand for this purpose" or similar, just "you can attack with them and they're a light martial weapon", as well as a reminder that you cannot combine them with other off-hand weapons.
Unarmed attacks says:
Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:Attacks of Opportunity: Attacking unarmed provokes an attack of opportunity from the character you attack, provided she is armed. The attack of opportunity comes before your attack. An unarmed attack does not provoke attacks of opportunity from other foes, nor does it provoke an attack of opportunity from an unarmed foe.
An unarmed character can't take attacks of opportunity (but see “Armed” Unarmed Attacks, below).
“Armed” Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks).
Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity).
Unarmed Strike Damage: An unarmed strike from a Medium character deals 1d3 points of bludgeoning damage (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). A Small character's unarmed strike deals 1d2 points of bludgeoning damage, while a Large character's unarmed strike deals 1d4 points of bludgeoning damage. All damage from unarmed strikes is nonlethal damage. Unarmed strikes count as light weapons (for purposes of two-weapon attack penalties and so on).
Dealing Lethal Damage: You can specify that your unarmed strike will deal lethal damage before you make your attack roll, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll. If you have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, you can deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike without taking a penalty on the attack roll.
Nothing about being an exception in terms of handedness. Does that mean you have to hold your head in your hand to headbutt? Or is it just the opponents to the argument that have their heads in their butts? (hehe, jk, couldn't resist ;))
I have seen no "proof" that the interpretation is wrong, especially not any proof that would weigh more heavily than all the evidence in favor of it (including the fact that the designers of 3.5 explicitly said it was allowed).
Also, a weapons handedness designation (one-handed, two-handed or light) has nothing at all to do with TWF (other than light affecting damage).
The situation by the rules is the same with dagger+armor spikes and greatsword+armor spikes.
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.
Indeed. And if you roll 1 on a diplomacy roll, you shoot the unhappy party in the eye.
Indeed. And if you roll 1 on a diplomacy roll, you shoot the unhappy party in the eye.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.
They're also great for stuffing away smokesticks, tanglefoot bags (if ruled to be small enough) and nets (small if the DM doesn't allow normal-sized).
|
I understand the aversion to 'cheese'. Of course, we each have a different idea of what it smells like, exactly.
For me, I would smell cheese at any weapon style that relies upon (as a continuing, round after round after round style) littering the ground with dropped weapons. I also smell cheese on every single swift action weapon cord ever made.
But the fighting style I asked about in the OP has no dropped weapons, no using the same weapon for 'main' and 'off-hand' attacks (impossible anyway), and uses two hands. I envision a right/left combo, with the left helping the right do more damage, seeing as how it's free to do so at that moment.
In the game system, the number of attacks with manufactured weapons a creature gets per round in not a function of how many hands they have or how many weapons they can get in hand in that round. The number of attacks a creature gets is a function of their BAB and any feats they have which grant extra attacks (although you can TWF without a feat at crippling penalties).
Where 'hands' come into it is that (most) weapons require one or two hands to use them, and what the game system means by 'use them' is 'execute an attack with' them. If your weapon requires one hand to use, then that hand cannot be holding anything except that weapon as the attack is executed! Not before the attack, not after the attack, but during the attack. Having done so, that hand is not somehow expended for the rest of your turn!
A weapon that requires two hands to use does not require you to grip it with both hands throughout the round, only when you execute attacks with it. Neither hand is 'used up' for the rest of the round.
There are logistical problems with getting a plethora of weapons in hand during a single round, but these can be solved with the rules that already exist: Quick Draw and weapons that don't need to be held. However, logistical problems are not the same as rules problems. The rules do not require hands to be spent like $2 bills(?), just to be available to use the weapon as an attack is made.
|
|
Stumpy McGruff who has lost his arms still has two "hands" by the rules. He has a primary and off hand. Seriously mull that over for a moment.
I will, I will. You cause me to do a lot of mulling. Or at least shaking of my head in disbelief.
You also believe that you need a hand to use armour.
I'll never stop 'mulling' that one.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You've explained your POV clearly, Crash.
But you made it all up. This 'expendable effort' thing is no part of the D&D, D20 or Pathfinder rules sets.
What the rules do have is Action Economy, and the number of attacks to which you are entitled in a full attack, which is based on BAB and certain feats.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where in the rules does it specify how much effort a creature has per round?
Are there any feats which give you more uses of 'effort'?
Where do I write the amount of 'effort' I have on my character sheet?
Can you direct me to the 'Effort Per Round' section of the combat chapter?
|
|
They also state that your off hand is "used" to help wield a two handed weapon. If you ignore that, then everything works as you seem to think it does, but only if you ignore that fact. I guess my rulebook is the only one that has page 141 in it.You've explained your POV clearly, Crash.
But you made it all up. This 'expendable effort' thing is no part of the D&D, D20 or Pathfinder rules sets.
What the rules do have is Action Economy, and the number of attacks to which you are entitled in a full attack, which is based on BAB and certain feats.
You 'use' your hand to attack with a weapon, but the hand isn't 'used up', or expended, in the process. This 'expendable effort' construct appears only in your own mind, so is very easy for the rest of us to ignore.
If you're going to ignore how using effort works though, then at least do it the right way. Smack someone with your spiked gauntlet in your main hand Str * 1, then use that hand to two-hand the sword for another Str * 1.5.
After all, if you can use your off hand as many times during the same phase as you want, then you can use you primary hand just as many times as well.
Yes, you can absolutely use either or both hands as many times as you want during your turn, but ACTION ECONOMY sets the limits on what you can actually do, and the number of attacks you can take in a full attack.
Gripping or letting go of a weapon are free actions, taking an attack is a standard action (usually), and taking a full attack is a full-round action (usually). Any exceptions to the 'usually's above have a defined action cost of their own.
Since 're-gripping' is a free action, I can use my left hand to help my right to swing the sword and get 1.5 x Str bonus to damage, and let go again (free action) to punch you in the face with my spiked gauntlet. Then do the same again when I'm high enough level to get more attacks.
Being able to shift my grip as a free action doesn't give me more attacks than I'm entitled to take!
How you wield a weapon, effects two weapon fighting in no way.Not being able to use a weapon because you've already used your primary and off-hands is a fairly obvious effect.
Only to you. Just because I've used my right hand to punch you in the face doesn't mean that I can't do it again.
This imaginary 'expendable effort' is not in the rules, nor does it need to be. Action economy works fine.
If the evidence in favor of "off-hand does not equal actual hand" is dozens of no-hands weapon without exception clauses, published NPC statblocks, and right out statements by the developers of the game that's the basis of this game, and your "proof" of the opposite is a single mention of "offhand" in a weird circumstance in a single item description, then yeah, I'm not going to weight your argument that heavily.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even if you used two hands to wield a longsword, I'd rule that you treat the attack as if it were made with one hand for purposes of determining damage if you were also making an off-hand attack that round.
Essentially, you forfeit the extra damage for the opportunity to get an extra attack (as per two-weapon fighting).
In this, I value the rules for two-weapon fighting over the rules for handedness for the sake of balance. By the rules, a case could be made, as others have pointed out, to allow for this tactic--I could not, however, allow it in one of my games. I'm aware that some folks would consider that restrictive, and I know I'm no pathfinder game designer, but that would be my ruling.
Cheers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The term "Hands" is used in the TWF rules because most weapon attacks you will make do, in fact, require hands. You can't ignore the rules and scream "Hands don't matter!" just because it's possible to make attacks, and even TWF, with weapons that do not require hands. If you're using weapons that don't require hands, then hands don't matter, but if you're using weapons that do require hands, then hands very much matter.
When you TWF you have to use a "Primary Hand" and an "Off Hand". These refer not only to the weapon that is being used, but also to the hand that is using it. If you're using a weapon that doesn't require hands you can mostly ignore that second part, but if you're not, you can't ignore it.
If your Primary Weapon is in your right hand, then your right hand is you Primary Hand. That means your Off Hand has to be your other hand (unless you use an off hand weapon that doesn't use hands.) The take away from this is you can't make your Primary Hand attacks with the same hand as your Off Hand attacks (if you're using hands).
Now, here's where things get slightly less clear and are more open to interpretation.
If you use two hands for your Primary Hand attack, are both hands now your Primary Hands?
If Yes, then you can't use either of those hands for your Off Hand attack, you either have to use a third hand, or a weapon that doesn't use hands.
If No, then that opens the door to dual wielding Greatswords with weapon cords and Gloves of Storing.
The only way I can see to get the best of both worlds is to say: "Yes, generally", but then houserule to allow a Longsword + Gaunlet since it's really not that cheesey.
It seems clear that a character intent on dealing damage (whether using a two-handed weapon or two-weapon fighting) is supposed to get 1-1/2 times their Strength modifier to their overall damage. There are exceptions to this "rule" of course (Two-Handed Fighters get "Overhand Chop" and "Backswing", whereas dual-wielding characters get "Double Slice", both of which increase this bonus to 2 times Strength modifier). Allowing a character access to this same benefit without spending a similar amount of resources seems... unbalanced.
Please show the rule that allows you to change the effort you are using on a weapon before your next attack with the weapon. I'm not seeing this anywhere on the action list.No such rule exists because there's no such mechanic regarding "effort". There are no rules concerning mechanics that don't exist, so of course we're not going to be able to present one. I cite you with the "Begging the Question" logical fallacy; -10 points.
Not to derail the thread, but how is that Begging the Question?
Begging the Question usually implies some sort of tautological premise or conclusion. I'm not seeing that in Crash's argument. Is there something I missed?
The term "Hands" is used in the TWF rules because most weapon attacks you will make do, in fact, require hands. You can't ignore the rules and scream "Hands don't matter!" just because it's possible to make attacks, and even TWF, with weapons that do not require hands. If you're using weapons that don't require hands, then hands don't matter, but if you're using weapons that do require hands, then hands very much matter.
When you TWF you have to use a "Primary Hand" and an "Off Hand". These refer not only to the weapon that is being used, but also to the hand that is using it. If you're using a weapon that doesn't require hands you can mostly ignore that second part, but if you're not, you can't ignore it.
If your Primary Weapon is in your right hand, then your right hand is you Primary Hand. That means your Off Hand has to be your other hand (unless you use an off hand weapon that doesn't use hands.) The take away from this is you can't make your Primary Hand attacks with the same hand as your Off Hand attacks (if you're using hands).
Now, here's where things get slightly less clear and are more open to interpretation.
If you use two hands for your Primary Hand attack, are both hands now your Primary Hands?
If Yes, then you can't use either of those hands for your Off Hand attack, you either have to use a third hand, or a weapon that doesn't use hands.
If No, then that opens the door to dual wielding Greatswords with weapon cords and Gloves of Storing.
The only way I can see to get the best of both worlds is to say: "Yes, generally", but then houserule to allow a Longsword + Gaunlet since it's really not that cheesey.
That does sound like a very valid and reasonable interpretation. +1 for you!
Begging the Question usually implies some sort of tautological premise or conclusion. I'm not seeing that in Crash's argument. Is there something I missed?He's asking for a rule regarding a mechanic that doesn't exist and claiming that the absence of such a rule supports the (non-existent) mechanic being valid.
'Cause that wasn't staring me in the face. Jeez!
Not so much "not B then A" as "not not A then A" Yeah that's a textbook example.
Thanks.
Also, on the effort part, it's worth noting that the first sentence or two in a rule section is often a descriptive part for what the rule is meant to represent, not a mechanic sentence. It's not always that way but it's very common, especially when the first sentence doesn't include any strictly mechanical (as in, otherwise defined in mechanical terms like "attack bonus").
For example, the "bloodline" section starts with:
"Each sorcerer has a source of magic somewhere in her heritage that grants her spells, bonus feats, an additional class skill, and other special abilities. "
This cannot be used to argue that my 1st level sorcerer should have bloodline bonus feats because it says "each sorcerer"; it's simply a description/summary of the actual rules that will follow.
EDIT: Took a much clearer example.
I guess the next edition of Pathfinder, or next printing, will just have to include a copy of the OED to define every word of the English language to prevent arguments such as this, and whether or not you can cackle silently.
Malachi: Generally I would disagree. In most cases it's very reasonable to require hands to use a one-handed weapon, otherwise we'd have oozes with falcatas in no time!
As far as the rules go, a 'one-handed' weapon no more requires an actual hand than a 'light' weapon requires an actual light!
*rimshot*
Oozes can two weapon fight.
They can use unarmed strikes
No hands!
Oozes cannot two weapon fight with longswords or gauntlets.
No hands!
Unarmed strikes for oozes are fair IMO. An ooze TWF'ing with large mancatchers would be really nasty though.
Especially the combination of grapple, paralyze and engulf.
I guess the next edition of Pathfinder, or next printing, will just have to include a copy of the OED to define every word of the English language to prevent arguments such as this, and whether or not you can cackle silently.Who are you directing this at?
Anyone that feels a need to redefine common English words.
Even if you used two hands to wield a longsword, I'd rule that you treat the attack as if it were made with one hand for purposes of determining damage if you were also making an off-hand attack that round.
Essentially, you forfeit the extra damage for the opportunity to get an extra attack (as per two-weapon fighting).
In this, I value the rules for two-weapon fighting over the rules for handedness for the sake of balance. By the rules, a case could be made, as others have pointed out, to allow for this tactic--I could not, however, allow it in one of my games. I'm aware that some folks would consider that restrictive, and I know I'm no pathfinder game designer, but that would be my ruling.
Cheers.
I agree with this stance. Yes, you can barge, head-butt, kick, elbow, but you are not going to do two handed damage and then stack a spiked gauntlet on top.
|
|
The OP in this case wants his cake and he wants to eat it too. He wants to have the two handed damage bonus for his longsword and still get the off hand attack with his spiked gloves. The essential trade off in this game has always been either using a weapon with both hands for more damage, or using two things in two hands, whether it be two weapons, a weapon and a shield, or a weapon and a wand, ad nauseum.
I can certainly understand the dislike of someone trying to get something for nothing, and my 2H/off-hand idea obviously seems that way to some.
But there is a price to pay. The spiked gauntlet does 1d4 damage with a crit of 20/x2. You'd have to actually try to get a worse off-hand light weapon.
A kukri does the same 1d4 damage, but has a crit range of 18-20, well worth keen or Improved Critical to make it 15-20; almost 1 in 3 attacks a crit threat!
A light pick does the same 1d4 but a crit multiplier of x4. Also worth increasing the crit range to 19-20.
A dagger can be thrown.
The classic off-hand weapon, the short sword, does more damage and has a better crit range.
What you gain on the swings you lose on the roundabouts. So I do slightly more damage with my 'main' weapon. I do slightly less, all told, with my off-hand weapon.
Not something for nothing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The OP in this case wants his cake and he wants to eat it too. He wants to have the two handed damage bonus for his longsword and still get the off hand attack with his spiked gloves. The essential trade off in this game has always been either using a weapon with both hands for more damage, or using two things in two hands, whether it be two weapons, a weapon and a shield, or a weapon and a wand, ad nauseum.I can certainly understand the dislike of someone trying to get something for nothing, and my 2H/off-hand idea obviously seems that way to some.
But there is a price to pay. The spiked gauntlet does 1d4 damage with a crit of 20/x2. You'd have to actually try to get a worse off-hand light weapon.
A kukri does the same 1d4 damage, but has a crit range of 18-20, well worth keen or Improved Critical to make it 15-20; almost 1 in 3 attacks a crit threat!
A light pick does the same 1d4 but a crit multiplier of x4. Also worth increasing the crit range to 19-20.
A dagger can be thrown.
The classic off-hand weapon, the short sword, does more damage and has a better crit range.
What you gain on the swings you lose on the roundabouts. So I do slightly more damage with my 'main' weapon. I do slightly less, all told, with my off-hand weapon.
Not something for nothing.
I'm inclined to agree, and provided I trusted a player not to abuse it, I would totally houserule to allow this fighting style using a longsword and gauntlet.