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 Torch is a worse off hand light weapon! -4 non-proficient penalty and deals 1d3 blunt+ Str +1 fire.
Those are special Buckler rules.
Again, you answer with .
No more silly than answering with "NO HAAAAAAAAAAAAANDS!!!"
What is more likely, that they stealth change the rules from 3.5e (though the language is pretty much the same), and publish tons of items as if the 3.5 rules still worked without any note on the contrary, and ignore all threads asking about it...
or that they simply forgot to change a bad wording that was present already in the 3.5 buckler description?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
None of this really describes the real reason it is not allowed. While a hand may be involved in multiple tasks during combat (ie. throwing several knives), it cannot be dedicated to two tasks which work simultaneously, in this case being switching between swinging a two-handed longsword, to reel around and punch someone in the face. The obvious real reasoning behind this would be that after throwing your entire body into a swing, without having the help of an off-hand to balance, it is near to impossible to retain enough power to reverse directions, and punch with your non-dominant hand. It simply takes all the power to swing, and the only reason it can be repeated in the case of iterative attacks, is that momentum would help fuel the force of the blade. Now, if you were swinging the longsword single-handed, your off-hand would easily allow you to counterweight your body enough to alterante between swinging and punching.
Hope it helps.
|
None of this really describes the real reason it is not allowed. While a hand may be involved in multiple tasks during combat (ie. throwing several knives), it cannot be dedicated to two tasks which work simultaneously, in this case being switching between swinging a two-handed longsword, to reel around and punch someone in the face. The obvious real reasoning behind this would be that after throwing your entire body into a swing, without having the help of an off-hand to balance, it is near to impossible to retain enough power to reverse directions, and punch with your non-dominant hand. It simply takes all the power to swing, and the only reason it can be repeated in the case of iterative attacks, is that momentum would help fuel the force of the blade. Now, if you were swinging the longsword single-handed, your off-hand would easily allow you to counterweight your body enough to alterante between swinging and punching.
Hope it helps.
No, it doesn't.
|
|
You can also use your shield arm to wield a weapon (whether you are using an off-hand weapon or using your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon), but you take a –1 penalty on attack rolls while doing so. This penalty stacks with those that may apply for fighting with your off hand and for fighting with two weapons.
What are the penalties for 'fighting with your off-hand'?
None. There is no such thing as an 'off-hand' in the PF rules set outside of TWF, nor was there in 3.5.
But there was such a thing as an 'off-hand' in 3.0!
AMBIDEXTERITY[General]
You are equally adept at using either hand.
Prerequisite: Dex 15+.
Benefit: You ignore all penalties for using an off hand. You are neither left-handed nor right-handed.
Normal: Without this feat, a character who uses his or her off hand suffers a -4 penalty to attack rolls, ability checks, and skill checks. For example, a right-handed character wielding a weapon in her left hand suffers a -4 penalty to attack rolls with that weapon.
Special: This feat helps offset the penalty for fighting with two weapons. See the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, page 86, and Table 8-2: Two-Weapon Fighting penalties, page 125.
A ranger wearing light or no armour can fight with two weapons as if he had the feats Ambidexterity and Two-Weapon Fighting.
The entire concept of being left or right handed disappeared in 3.5, and with it the need for the Ambidexterity feat, whose TWF benefit was rolled into the Two-Weapon Fighting feat. In 3.5 and PF, there is no -4 penalty for using a weapon or skill with your off hand. There is no off hand, outside of TWF!
The buckler description, unchanged from 3.0 to 3.5 and cut&paste into PF, refers to a rule which no longer exists. It clearly refers to penalties associated with 'fighting with your off hand AND for fighting with two weapons', both of which were true in 3.0 but true no longer.
In 3.0 everyone had an 'off hand' whether they were TWFing or not. Thus the reference to the off hand in the buckler description which says you need your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon.
However, that hasn't been true for over ten years.
Used to support an 'expendable effort' argument, the buckler description is the archetypal 'dead horse'.
That assumes that the wording is bad instead of intentional. It also assumes that two handed weapons are not meant to make use of your "off hand."
It cannot be an intentional since it's the same wording as in 3.5, where it was EXPLICITLY allowed to TWF with greatsword/armor spikes.
Since it's mentioned _nowhere else in the rules at all_, including the sections that actually deal with the matter rather than some off comment on a specific item, and since it's the same wording as used in 3.5 where the devs went ahead and said "yeah you can TWF with GS/AS" - and not in errata but in FAQ - it's ludicrous to assume that it was written that way intentionally. What was the intention? To prevent something that they themselves say is allowed? To confuse players?
James Jacobs wrote:
Tracking right or left handedness isn't something we bother with in Pathfinder. The ONLY time an attack is considered an off-hand attack is when you make an attack with a second weapon in the same round you make an attack with a first weapon.
If you have a longsword in your right hand and a shield in your left, and you only attack with a shield bash in a round, that shield bash is NOT considered an off-hand or secondary attack for that round.
As an extension of that if you had a long sword in one hand and a mace in the other. You can make either one into the primary weapon on a round by round basis. This is why you can't use an off-hand weapon and a two-handed weapon without it being iterative or an AO.
The OP in this case wants his cake and he wants to eat it too.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.
You're ignoring the fact that a gauntlet cannot be disarmed. That alone makes up for the reduced critical range. In short, give the gauntlet the credit it deserves :P
|
|
The 'effort' required to attack with a weapon is just that, the effort required to attack with a weapon. It is not required before the attack, nor after the attack. Once the attack has been executed both your hands are free to take whatever attacks to which you are entitled, using whatever 'effort' is required to make an attack with the weapon you are now holding.
The hands don't 'remember' what they were doing an attack ago!
Even without TWF, with two iteratives at +6 and +1, I can attack with a greataxe at +6, drop it as a free action, Quick Draw my greatsword and attack with it at +1. The fact that I already used both hands for one attack has absolutely no effect on my ability to use either or both my hands on any other attack I make afterward, even in the same round.
A common misconception is that the 'main' and 'off-hand' TWF attacks are taken simultaneously, and therefore both weapons must be 'wieldable' at the same time. As common as this misconception is, it is simply untrue. Each attack is taken consecutively, and TWF does not change that. Indeed, one way to take your TWF attacks is to take all of your 'main' attacks, followed by (or preceded by) all of your 'off-hand' attacks. There is no 'simultaneity'.
I don't think effort is a relevant word in this circumstance at all. I think it's purely descriptive and doesn't have any mechanical relevance.
|
|
I don't think effort is a relevant word in this circumstance at all. I think it's purely descriptive and doesn't have any mechanical relevance.
Oh, I agree completely!
I couched it in those terms for the benefit of Crash_00, who does think in those terms.
The truth of what I put remains untouched by the use (or lack of use) of the 'effort' terminology.
If "off-hand" meant "off-weapon" the rules wouldn't say "off-hand"
The rules use the word hand because they're talking about hands.
When you TWF with weapons held in you hands you have a primary hand and an off hand. Logically, you can't make off hand attacks with yourprimary hand, nor can you make primary attacks with your off hand, else they wouldn't need to be designated as such.
I think I may agree with you steve, except I don't think it refers to actual physical hands - I just think it's used that way because it's the most common way to use weapons.
Note that "hand" not always refers to physical hands in real life either - if I kick someone to death I can still say "he died by my hand", and others can say "his blood is on your hands". I'm not saying that's any evidence by itself, just that hand can be used loosely.
I think it's fair to have "primary hand" and "off-hand" refer to limbs/body parts used to make the primary hand attacks/off hand attacks (though I don't think it's the only possible interpretation), but I don't think "hands" would have to be actual hands (otherwise you would have to have hands free to make an unarmed attack (headbutt) on your opponents), though in some cases it'd be fair to rule it is (otherwise gray oozes could use mancatchers, much like how horses can climb ropes by RAW).
I think it's important to remember that the rules are designed to cover the most common cases, and the more unusual or niche a case is, the larger amount of ruling is up to the DM or play group. In the case of two-handed weapon+non-handed weapon I think it's fairly clearly allowed, in the case of two-handed weapon+one-handed weapon it's much more vague. Gauntlets are weird in that they feel inbetween weapons requiring a hand and no-hand weapons.
If "off-hand" meant "off-weapon" the rules wouldn't say "off-hand"
The rules use the word hand because they're talking about hands.
When you TWF with weapons held in you hands you have a primary hand and an off hand. Logically, you can't make off hand attacks with yourprimary hand, nor can you make primary attacks with your off hand, else they wouldn't need to be designated as such.
By that reasoning, an off-hand comment can only be made via sign language.
*rimshot*
They left it as off-hand but simply changed what off-hand refers to. That takes a lot less effort to change the rules because you don't have to go to each instance of off-hand when copy-pasting the rules to replace it with off-weapon. It also makes it more readily accessible to people who may stumble over a concept like "off-weapon" while "off-hand" is more readily understood as to what it means if more implicit than explicit.
So, they changed the rules, but these changes aren't reflected in the rules. Yeah, I don't follow.
The only problem occurs when you have pedantic arguments like yours by people who can swallow an elephant, but choke on a fly. That saying is also a metaphor, by the way, so don't think it's a valid retort to criticize the implausibility of being able to swallow an elephant with ease. Someone actually tried to pull that on me once.
Ad Hominem, nice touch. How many points is that?
|
|
The hands don't remember what they were doing, they remember what they are still doing. Until you make another attack with that weapon, you are still wielding it with your off hand as well as primary hand. Nowhere does it state that letting go with one hand actually changes the effort being used on that weapon.
With 18 Str my damage bonus is +4, +6 when using a weapon in two hands (so long as it's not a light weapon for you). I attack with my greatsword with both hands on the weapon, as required. After the attack is executed, I remove one hand as a free action. Does this mean my damage retrospectively did 2 less damage? Does the foe heal 2 points as soon as I let go? Or, since I now no longer have two hands on the two-handed weapon, did the attack retroactively never take place at all?
After I remove a hand, it is free (the other is still holding the greatsword). I then use it to punch you in the face with my spiked gauntlet. Since I declared it as my off-hand weapon before I attacked in this turn, and since I took all TWF penalties when I attacked with my sword, the attack is legitimate. By what mechanism would this be halted? Is it magically glued to the sword until you say it's okay to let go?
The rules are completely unsupportive to this nature of fighting. Take a look at double weapons for a moment. If I strike with a double weapon held in one hand I can't even use actions to flip it around and use the other end. No amount of let go and grip will let me flip around a weapon in hands. The character is stuck with the choice he made when he started.
Double weapons have special rules which apply to them, detailed in the equipment chapter. Although they have to abide by the rules of TWF (when used that way), they also have to abide by the special rules for double weapons.
But if you are not using a double weapon, you don't have to abide by double weapon rules.
The question, at this point, boils down to a very simple one:
Are you able to use your off hand to make more than one attack in the same iteration of attacks?
This phrase you made up, 'same iteration of attacks', shows that you consider each 'main' attack to be paired with an 'off-hand' attack; an 'iteration'. But you made that up! That's not in the rules, and attacks are taken individually whether using TWF or not! There is no such thing as a paired 'iteration' of attacks.
Everything in the game that i have read says flat out no. One off-hand attack at a time.
A two-handed attack uses both hands, physical and non-physical. Both are needed to wield the weapon according to the rules. So how are you getting the extra use of the off hand in the same iteration of attacks?
Here you go again! 'Physical and non-physical' hands! 'Same iteration' of attacks! All made up rules.
There is no 'extra' uses of a hand, because the use of hands is not a limited resource in the rules! Limited resources do exist. Actions are limited: two moves or one standard plus one move, with one swift/immediate per round. Free actions aren't limited in number (although a reasonable limit can be imposed by the DM) but can only be taken in your own turn. Attacks of Opportunity are limited to one per round, but this can be increased with feats/abilities.
The number of weapon attacks to which you are entitled in a full attack is a limited resource. Once you've taken an attack it is gone! If you have four attacks because your BAB is +16, three from the TWF feat tree, and one from haste, then you have eight attacks. When you take one, you only have seven left. A limited resource.
But 'hands', whether real or imaginary, are not an expendable round-by-round (or 'iteration' by 'iteration') resource. If you have two hands, then you can only use two hands at any instant in time. But, between the attacks of a full attack, you can use free actions to move your hands wherever they need to be, and Quick Draw allows you to use free actions to draw weapons and more free actions to drop them.
Those are the rules. 'Same iterations' and 'expendable hands' are not.
RAW, probably. However I wouldn't allow it as a DM, since I view two handed attacks as using both your main and off hand attacks.
The Thunderstriker Archetype seems to actually be built on this idea.
Take a look at that 13th level ability. If you can't two weapon fight with a buckler and a two-hander then the archetype doesn't seem to have much point.
Doomed Hero: That's because you can't use a buckler to shield bash without a special ability.
|
|
The thunderstriker adopts an unusual fighting style, gripping a heavy weapon with both hands and switching to a defensive posture with weapon and buckler, lashing out with the shield with surprising speed and power.
This is the focus of the archetype: Two-Weapon Fighting with two hands on the main weapon, then let go with one hand to take the off-hand attack with a light weapon (in this case a buckler).
At 13th level, a thunderstriker suffers only half the normal penalties for two-weapon fighting when using a buckler as his off-hand weapon.
Showing, definitively, that you can take your main attack with both hands on the weapon, then take a hand off to use it to make the off-attack.
At 17th level, a thunderstriker no longer suffers two-weapon fighting penalties when using a buckler as his off-hand weapon.
Not an accident. Not a misprint. TWF with two hands on the weapon for the main attack, letting go with one hand to take the off-hand attack.
Q. E. And, indeed, D.
Great find, Doomed Hero!
|
Umm... Wow.
Circular arguments and whatnot aside.
RAW=allowed.
RAI=not what was intended I'm sure.
would I allow it? depends on how it was approached.
If this thread was thrust on me first I'd probably say no.
However if it was suggested by the player in a way that put forth the roleplaying/cinematic ideas as the OP first said, then Yes.
I can see some really cool images of how this would play out.
Having seen ALL the changes from 1e to PF, I know that a lot was left in, taken out , changed or unchanged and even rearranged, I always find arguments like this silly. Unless I'm playing a PFS game I don't put up with this kind of rules lawyering. also I don't normally haunt the rules questions sections either so ignore or accept this as you see fit.
you would anyway.
XD
Doomed Hero: That's because you can't use a buckler to shield bash without a special ability.
What does that have to do with this argument?
The entire premise is that the Thunderstriker is Two Weapon Fighting with a Two Handed Weapon by removing a hand from the big weapon to make additional off-hand attacks.
Characters can already do that, the Thunderstriker just makes a special case to allow it to be done with a Buckler as well.
It's not as if the ability to two-weapon fight with a two-handed weapon is dependent on the buckler. What kind of sense would that make?
The Thunderstriker Archetype seems to actually be built on this idea.Take a look at that 13th level ability. If you can't two weapon fight with a buckler and a two-hander then the archetype doesn't seem to have much point.
The normal penalties for TWF is a -2 to your attacks (assuming you've taken the feats, light weapon in off hand, etc).
Half the penalty is -1.
Using a two handed weapon and an off hand weapon for your TWF doesn't change this. Nothing about this ability says 'TWF with a two-hander and buckler' anymore than it says 'TWF with a one-hander and buckler'. Its all just only -1 to hit instead of -2 to hit.
The thunderstriker adopts an unusual fighting style, gripping a heavy weapon with both hands and switching to a defensive posture with weapon and buckler, lashing out with the shield with surprising speed and power.This is the focus of the archetype: Two-Weapon Fighting with two hands on the main weapon, then let go with one hand to take the off-hand attack with a light weapon (in this case a buckler).
Fluff text. That looks it that *might* be the intent, but the rules are not clear on that.
At 13th level, a thunderstriker suffers only half the normal penalties for two-weapon fighting when using a buckler as his off-hand weapon.Showing, definitively, that you can take your main attack with both hands on the weapon, then take a hand off to use it to make the off-attack.
Shows nothing of the sort. Rather than taking a -2 penalty for TWF, you only take a -1 penalty for TWF - whatever form that TWF is legally allowed to be except that your off hand must be the buckler.
At 17th level, a thunderstriker no longer suffers two-weapon fighting penalties when using a buckler as his off-hand weapon.Not an accident. Not a misprint. TWF with two hands on the weapon for the main attack, letting go with one hand to take the off-hand attack.
Q. E. And, indeed, D.
Great find, Doomed Hero!
Again doesn't say anything about the form of TWF, only that if the buckler is your off hand you get no penalties for TWF rather than the usual -2 to hit.
Nothing in the thunderstriker archetype says this allowed (nothing in it says its not allowed either).
Doomed Hero: That's because you can't use a buckler to shield bash without a special ability.What does that have to do with this argument?
The entire premise is that the Thunderstriker is Two Weapon Fighting with a Two Handed Weapon by removing a hand from the big weapon to make additional off-hand attacks.
Characters can already do that, the Thunderstriker just makes a special case to allow it to be done with a Buckler as well.
It's not as if the ability to two-weapon fight with a two-handed weapon is dependent on the buckler. What kind of sense would that make?
Where is the rules part that makes this premise of the thunderstriker clear?
The thunderstriker adopts an unusual fighting style, gripping a heavy weapon with both hands and switching to a defensive posture with weapon and buckler, lashing out with the shield with surprising speed and power.This is the focus of the archetype: Two-Weapon Fighting with two hands on the main weapon, then let go with one hand to take the off-hand attack with a light weapon (in this case a buckler).
At 13th level, a thunderstriker suffers only half the normal penalties for two-weapon fighting when using a buckler as his off-hand weapon.Showing, definitively, that you can take your main attack with both hands on the weapon, then take a hand off to use it to make the off-attack.
At 17th level, a thunderstriker no longer suffers two-weapon fighting penalties when using a buckler as his off-hand weapon.Not an accident. Not a misprint. TWF with two hands on the weapon for the main attack, letting go with one hand to take the off-hand attack.
Q. E. And, indeed, D.
Great find, Doomed Hero!
I missed where it said that a Thunderstriker can make a two-handed attack and then a shield bash with a buckler. You are reading into those abilities what you want to see.
The thunderstriker adopts an unusual fighting style, gripping a heavy weapon with both hands and switching to a defensive posture with weapon and buckler, lashing out with the shield with surprising speed and power.
Nowhere does it say he does this in a single round, on the other hand.
There are those who spend their lives poring over ancient tomes and texts, unlocking the power of magic, and there are those who spend their time perfecting the use of individual weapons, becoming masters without equal. The magus is at once a student of both philosophies, blending magical ability and martial prowess into something entirely unique, a discipline in which both spell and steel are used to devastating effect. As he grows in power, the magus unlocks powerful forms of arcana that allow him to merge his talents further, and at the pinnacle of his art, the magus becomes a blur of steel and magic, a force that few foes would dare to stand against.
and then
Spell Combat (Ex): At 1st level, a magus learns to cast spells and wield his weapons at the same time. This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast. To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic components), while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand.
Note that here, the full ability to both melee and cast in the same round is defined. Which isn't allowed by other classes, so even that is the purpose of the Thunderstriker, you would have to be a Thunderstriker of 11th level to have the ability.
Honestly, if speaking about intent, it seems very very very weird that a class would be described as fighting with heavy weapon+buckler, have 5 abilities clearly intended for fighting with two-handed weapon and buckler, and then have two abilities thrown into the mix that are about fighting with a one-handed weapon and buckler.
I mean, if one considers the off-hand comment on the buckler description left over from 3.5 to have any value as evidence at all, it seems very weird to ignore a recently published whole archetype centered around this fighting style.
Do you really think that the thunderstriker is switching to a one-handed weapon when he wants to hit things with his buckler? Come on now.
When 3 or 4 paragraphs are needed to justify an interpretation of the rules then you are twisting the rules for advantage.
As per James Jacobs above if the term off-hand is only relevant if you are using a second weapon to give you an extra attack (and so should read "second-attack" not off-hand) - then could the gauntlet be primary and the Great Sword/long sword in 2 hands be off-hand?
How many hands are required to make my off-hand comment?
Three unless it's the weekend then two, a thumb and at least one other digit are all that is required...
Actually, there isn't a single rule showing that you have to use your off-hand on a two-handed weapon, ever. Not a single rule. The buckler kind of implies it, but does not state you do it.
If the off-hand is a physical hand, it can be removed from the two-handed weapon as a free action. If it is not a physical hand, there's no reason for it to be there in the first place.
The buckler just says "if you have it there", not "you have to have it there". Like, if there was a feat that read "if you use your eye to carry juice you this feat allows you to use your gaze attack anyway" doesn't mean that the only way to carry juice is in your eye, nor that if you carry juice you cannot use your gaze attack.
I mean, if you're so hard on grasping for straws in the rules as written, at least make sure the few straws you have are firm.