Absolutely, and if the OP wanted to use his long sword two handed and then make an attack with his head, chest, foot, back, butt, knee, toe or some other body part that isn't either hand, then I would agree that he could.Armless Joe fights with his head(unarmed strike) and a Spiked Breastplate(Armor Spikes).
He uses two weapon fighting.
He has no hands, and no arms.
Armless Joe breaks no rules.
Armless Joe fights, RAW style.
"Unarmed strikes count as light weapons (for purposes of two-weapon attack penalties and so on)." from RAW. So if it counts as a light weapon how can you use it with a weapon that can't be a primary weapon for TWF?
Unarmed Joe would break no rules if he head butted first, as the primary attack cf armour spike rules.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Interpreting PF rules using 3.X as precedent is ridiculous! It doesn't matter if nothing has changed, they're different systems! 3.X has nothing to do with PF!
Wait, what's that? Oh, 3.X supports my case now?
You need to interpret the rules of PF using 3.X as precedent! Nothing has changed, so clearly they meant it to function in the exact same way! It worked before, it should work again!
And vice versa.
Still makes me laugh.
Is this effort rule based off points?
Can I spend "effort points" to use three hands on an attack?
Is there a feat to acquire more "effort points"?
Where do I find these expendable effort rules?
No I think it's just a rule mechanic to help make sense of combat.
I think you would have to have an extra hand for 3 hands of effort cf multiattack rules
I don't believe you can acquire any more as they don't exist.
You find the effort "rules" Under the Weapons section.
"Light, One-Handed, and Two-Handed Melee Weapons: This designation is a measure of how much effort it takes to wield a weapon in combat"
|
Multiattack rules? The feat? Natural Weapons? That's something else entirely.
How does the designation of Light, One-Handed, and Two-Handed prevent, or allow weapons to be used in conjunction with two weapon fighting?
Where is this stated in the two weapon fighting rules?
All I see is the penalties in regards to the off-hand weapon.
In fact, it never puts any restriction on the primary weapon at all.
How does the designation of Light, One-Handed, and Two-Handed somehow "use up" the extra attack from two weapon fighting?
This is why I asked about this imaginary point system.
"Two-Weapon Fighting
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon"
Under the headings of light, one-handed and two-handed it specifies whether such weapons can be used in the off hand.
Under weapons which aren't specifically handweapons i.e. armour spikes and unarmed attacks it gives you the information you need i.e. unarmed attacks are counted as light weapons for TWF etc. Armour spikes can't be used before or after an off-hand weapon.
I still can't find anything that says the extra attack can be used up? Maybe you have misunderstood, the rule sets out the conditions for enabling you to have an extra attack. The normal amount being dictated by BAB or feats.
The only place I can find which mentions using a two handed attack and then an off hand attack is under double weapons:-
"...The character can also choose to use a double weapon two-handed, attacking with only one end of it. A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can't use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round."
Which would seem to say you can't.
|
Somewhere back up the thread a ways a point was made that you could hit with a weapon and then use quick draw to bring a two-handed weapon into play as your off-hand attack.
RAW states (by omission) that two-handed weapons don't have the choice of being a primary weapon or an off-hand weapon - as they need both hands to wield them.Light and one-handed weapons do have those options in their descriptions.
If a weapon can't be a primary (or an off-handed weapon) how can it be used for TWF?
Despite naming the extra attacks 'off-hand' attacks, no attacks are limited to hands, although some weapons require one or two hands to execute an attack with them.
Instead of the term 'off-hand', they could call it 'bonus TWF attack', and the rules would be unchanged, just as changing the names of the three weapon categories to 'light, medium and heavy' wouldn't change those rules either. The name is not the rule!
As for the weapons allowed in TWF, a weapon from any of the three categories may be designated as your 'off-hand' weapon, and weapons of any mix of categories can take any of your 'main' attacks during TWF.
The only part of TWF that even cares about weapon category is the designated 'off-hand' weapon, which is either 'light' (in which case the TWF penalties are -2, with the feat), or the designated weapon is NOT 'light' (in which case the penalties are -4)!
Also, whatever weapon category the 'off-hand' weapon is, and no matter how many hands wield it, you only apply 0.5 x your Str bonus to damage.
As to 3.5 wording there is nothing in PF to say you can do it, under armour spikes or any other weapon so why assume you can?
Exactly! The descriptions of individual weapons don't need to state that they may be used in TWF, while the lack of such text doesn't mean they can't! All weapons can be used in TWF, unless its description says that it can't!
Archetypes are specific rules for specific characters not general rules for all.
My point exactly! If the Thunderstriker had an ability which allowed them to TWF with 2H+1H, that would show that doing so was not something that could usually be done. That's what was required to allow them to shield bash with a buckler, which would not be possible otherwise.
But there is no such special ability to TWF with 2H+1H. Why? Because it's not a special ability! As you say, 'Archetypes are specific rules for specific characters not general rules for all.' TWF with 2H+1H is not a special archetype ability, it's a general rule for all.
Malachi I disagree both from RAW and RIA.
Whether weapons can be used for off-hand attacks is specifically mentioned in the descriptions so why wouldn't it matter?
Lack of such text for an item which is not covered by being a light or one-handed weapon does mean they can't, that's why it's specified.
Buckler's can't be used to shield bash by RAW. So the fact that the "Thunderstriker" has an ability to allow them to use a non-weapon as a weapon means nothing to any other class without that ability. I don't understand your logic behind that at all.
|
|
Under the headings of light, one-handed and two-handed it specifies whether such weapons can be used in the off hand.
Under 'light' weapons it states that it is easier to use in one's off hand than a one-handed weapon is.
This is true.
Under 'one-handed' weapons it states that they may be used in the primary hand or in the off hand.
This is also true.
Under both, it re-iterates that while using a weapon in the off hand the user adds 0.5 x his Str bonus to damage. 'Off hand' only applies when TWFing; it's not like 3.0, where the 'off hand' existed all the time and gave you a -4 penalty to every action made using it. This rule was deliberately removed. Any remaining reference to 'off hand' is either fluff or referring to TWF.
Under 'two-handed' weapons it doesn't mention TWF at all. It is silent on the issue.
This is not the same as being forbidden! 2H weapons follow the same rules re: TWF as 1H weapons, though of course they still require two hands so the 1 x Str never applies, unless you have a special ability that allows you to use a 2H weapon in one hand.
Interpreting PF rules using 3.X as precedent is ridiculous! It doesn't matter if nothing has changed, they're different systems! 3.X has nothing to do with PF!
Wait, what's that? Oh, 3.X supports my case now?
You need to interpret the rules of PF using 3.X as precedent! Nothing has changed, so clearly they meant it to function in the exact same way! It worked before, it should work again!
And vice versa.
Still makes me laugh.
I tend to do this in order to ascertain whether or not 3.5 rulings are a valid argument:
1. Is the rules language the same, or at least very very close to the same?If the answer is "no" then it's irrelevant. Assuming the answer is yes then:
2. Was this a known issue in 3.5 that got an official ruling?
If yes, it's strong evidence of the RAI, if no, then:
3. Was there a strong consensus on how it worked?
If yes, then it's weak evidence, if no, it's irrelevant.
I don't tend to be inconsistent with this, and if you can find a case where I am please point me to it.
In this case, the language is basically the same, it was a known issue and it got an official ruling. Thus, I see it as strong evidence of the RAI.
|
|
Buckler's can't be used to shield bash by RAW. So the fact that the "Thunderstriker" has an ability to allow them to use a non-weapon as a weapon means nothing to any other class without that ability. I don't understand your logic behind that at all.
Thunderstrikers absolutely need a special ability to bash with a buckler, because without it they couldn't bash with it at all.
If 2H+1H wasn't possible, then Thunderstikers would absolutely need a special ability to do so, just to do what the archetype says it does!
The fact that the archetype doesn't have such a special ability shows that they don't need that special ability, because it isn't a special ability, it's a 'general rule for all'.
(Whether you agree or not, do you understand what I'm saying now?)
Though I must question, was the constant "off-hand" really in 3.0? I seem to remember it not being there at all, and it being a remnant from 2E? However in 3.0 Ambidexterity and Two-weapon Fighting where different feats, where Ambidexterity reduced penalties by -0/-4 while TWF reduced them by -2/-2, where now TWF reduces by -2/-6.
I'll go searching for my 3.0 PHB but I might have given it away to a new player when we converted to 3.5 a decade back.
Buckler's can't be used to shield bash by RAW. So the fact that the "Thunderstriker" has an ability to allow them to use a non-weapon as a weapon means nothing to any other class without that ability. I don't understand your logic behind that at all.Thunderstrikers absolutely need a special ability to bash with a buckler, because without it they couldn't bash with it at all.
If 2H+1H wasn't possible, then Thunderstikers would absolutely need a special ability to do so, just to do what the archetype says it does!
The fact that the archetype doesn't have such a special ability shows that they don't need that special ability, because it isn't a special ability, it's a 'general rule for all'.
(Whether you agree or not, do you understand what I'm saying now?)
But it isn't 2H + 1H it's 2H + special. A buckler isn't a weapon of any number of hands because it isn't a weapon. That's why I don't understand.
Under the headings of light, one-handed and two-handed it specifies whether such weapons can be used in the off hand.Under 'light' weapons it states that it is easier to use in one's off hand than a one-handed weapon is.
This is true.
Under 'one-handed' weapons it states that they may be used in the primary hand or in the off hand.
This is also true.
Under both, it re-iterates that while using a weapon in the off hand the user adds 0.5 x his Str bonus to damage. 'Off hand' only applies when TWFing; it's not like 3.0, where the 'off hand' existed all the time and gave you a -4 penalty to every action made using it. This rule was deliberately removed. Any remaining reference to 'off hand' is either fluff or referring to TWF.
Under 'two-handed' weapons it doesn't mention TWF at all. It is silent on the issue.
This is not the same as being forbidden! 2H weapons follow the same rules re: TWF as 1H weapons, though of course they still require two hands so the 1 x Str never applies, unless you have a special ability that allows you to use a 2H weapon in one hand.
I'm afraid I don't get your logic on this either; so we go from "can be used as primary or off-hand" to "needs both hands to wield" yet that means exactly the same thing? If this is the case why can you only hit with one end if you choose to use a double weapon two-handed rather than TWF with it?
|
|
But it isn't 2H + 1H it's 2H + special. A buckler isn't a weapon of any number of hands because it isn't a weapon. That's why I don't understand.Buckler's can't be used to shield bash by RAW. So the fact that the "Thunderstriker" has an ability to allow them to use a non-weapon as a weapon means nothing to any other class without that ability. I don't understand your logic behind that at all.Thunderstrikers absolutely need a special ability to bash with a buckler, because without it they couldn't bash with it at all.
If 2H+1H wasn't possible, then Thunderstikers would absolutely need a special ability to do so, just to do what the archetype says it does!
The fact that the archetype doesn't have such a special ability shows that they don't need that special ability, because it isn't a special ability, it's a 'general rule for all'.
(Whether you agree or not, do you understand what I'm saying now?)
At 7th level, a thunderstriker may make shield bash attacks with a buckler as if it were a light shield.
When used to bash by a Thunderstriker, he uses it as if it were a light shield. A light shield is a 'light' weapon on the weapons tables, and:-
You strap a shield to your forearm and grip it with your hand.
This small metal shield is worn strapped to your forearm.
You need a hand to use it as a weapon, just like you need a hand to use a spiked gauntlet.
You can still wield weapons with the arm that has a buckler strapped to it, just like you can wield weapons in the hand wearing a spiked gauntlet.
|
|
Though I must question, was the constant "off-hand" really in 3.0? I seem to remember it not being there at all, and it being a remnant from 2E? However in 3.0 Ambidexterity and Two-weapon Fighting where different feats, where Ambidexterity reduced penalties by -0/-4 while TWF reduced them by -2/-2, where now TWF reduces by -2/-6.
I'll go searching for my 3.0 PHB but I might have given it away to a new player when we converted to 3.5 a decade back.
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 'normal' line shows what the 3.0 'off hand' rule was. This was removed in 3.5, leaving the term 'off hand' (in rules terms) only relevant in TWF.
|
|
Under 'two-handed' weapons it doesn't mention TWF at all. It is silent on the issue.
This is not the same as being forbidden!
The contention should not be that you cannot TWF with a 2handed weapon and another weapon. This was explicitly the case in 3.5 (where the FAQ spelled it out), and it is still the case here in PF.
Whether this is by an alchemist wielding a greatsword in 2hands and a dagger in their third hand, a monk wielding a polearm and then kicking, a character using a greatsword and armor spikes, etc it does not matter.
Your contention is essentially that a character could TWF with only one hand. They could equip a tower shield with the other hand (or be missing it entirely), and then use the first (or only) hand to switch between weapons. You couched it with a two handed weapon, but the crux of your argument is that there is no restriction that the same hand (et al) not be used in both the primary and offhand attacks.
So, as I understand it, you contend that a character could elect to TWF by attacking with a longsword, dropping it (free action), quick drawing another, identical longsword and making the 'offhand' attack with it all using the same hand. Am I correct here?
The complications arise and muddle the issue when you juggle hands, speak about two-handed weapons and the like. Is it acceptable to describe your contention as I have above?
And I still have unanswered my question on how your view of these rules meshes with the explicit rules detailing the combination of natural and manufactured weapons.
As an example- you would contend that it is reasonable for a character that has claws on their hands with one of those clawed hands covered by a spiked gauntlet to TWF using a polearm and the spiked gauntlet hand as the spiked gauntlet hand is 'free to attack' while the character could NOT make a claw attack with the other hand? Shouldn't that clawed hand be considered just as 'free to attack'?
-James
Although the usual vision of Two-Weapon Fighting is holding one weapon in one hand and another weapon in the other hand, by a creature with exactly two hands (and the names of the terms reflect this), this vision is not the only possibility. It does not forbid TWF if used another way; the rules themselves cope with other visions of TWF admirably, and that includes 2H+1H.
On the other topic, I am not even attempting to involve natural weapons in this debate, as they use completely different rules and do not help when discussing the rules on TWFing with manufactured weapons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The contention should not be that you cannot TWF with a 2handed weapon and another weapon. This was explicitly the case in 3.5 (where the FAQ spelled it out), and it is still the case here in PF.
This is what the 3.5 FAQ says:
Link
When using armor spikes along with a two-handed weapon, it is usually best to use the two-handed weapon as your primary attack and the
armor spikes as the off-hand weapon. You can use the armor spikes as the primary weapon and the two-handed weapon as the off-hand attack, but when you do so, you don't get the benefit of using a light weapon in your off hand.
The 'normal' line shows what the 3.0 'off hand' rule was. This was removed in 3.5, leaving the term 'off hand' (in rules terms) only relevant in TWF.
Oh, never noticed that. It's a really weird place to put that rule. Very well - my question was answered. :)
|
|
I'm afraid I don't get your logic on this either; so we go from "can be used as primary or off-hand" to "needs both hands to wield" yet that means exactly the same thing? If this is the case why can you only hit with one end if you choose to use a double weapon two-handed rather than TWF with it?Under the headings of light, one-handed and two-handed it specifies whether such weapons can be used in the off hand.Under 'light' weapons it states that it is easier to use in one's off hand than a one-handed weapon is.
This is true.
Under 'one-handed' weapons it states that they may be used in the primary hand or in the off hand.
This is also true.
Under both, it re-iterates that while using a weapon in the off hand the user adds 0.5 x his Str bonus to damage. 'Off hand' only applies when TWFing; it's not like 3.0, where the 'off hand' existed all the time and gave you a -4 penalty to every action made using it. This rule was deliberately removed. Any remaining reference to 'off hand' is either fluff or referring to TWF.
Under 'two-handed' weapons it doesn't mention TWF at all. It is silent on the issue.
This is not the same as being forbidden! 2H weapons follow the same rules re: TWF as 1H weapons, though of course they still require two hands so the 1 x Str never applies, unless you have a special ability that allows you to use a 2H weapon in one hand.
When TWFing, you have to obey the TWF rules.
When TWFing with a double weapon, you have to obey both the TWF rules AND the rules for double weapons. This limits you (in a way that normal TWFing does not) to fighting as if you were wielding a one-handed weapon in one hand and a light weapon in the other, for the duration of that full attack!
If you are not using a double weapon, you don't have to obey the rules on using double weapons, including the limit described above.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is the original text, in full.
'Can you wield the weapon in two hands and still make an off-hand attack with the spikes?
When you fight with more than one weapon, you gain an extra attack. (Improved Two-Weapon Fighting and greater Two-Weapon Fighting give you more attacks with the extra weapon.) Armor spikes are a light weapon that can be used as the extra weapon.
If you attack only with your armor spikes during your turn (or use the armor spikes to make an attack of opportunity), you use them just like a regular weapon. If you use the full attack action, you can use armor spikes as either a primary light weapon or as an off-hand light weapon, even if you're using a shield or using a two-handed weapon. ****In these latter two cases, you're assumed to be kicking or kneeing your foe with your armour spikes.****
Whenever you use armor spikes as an off-hand weapon, you suffer all the penalties for attacking with two weapons (see Table 8-10 in the Player's Handbook). When using armor spikes along with a two-handed weapon, it is usually best to use the two-handed weapon as your primary attack and the spikes as the off-hand weapon. You can use the armor spikes as the primary weapon and the two-handed weapon as the off-hand attack, but when you do so, you don't get the benefit of using a light weapon in your off hand. You cannot, however, use your armor spikes to make a second off-hand attack when you're already fighting with two weapons. If you have a weapon in both hands and armor spikes, you can attack with the weapons in your hands (and not with the armor
spikes) or with one of the weapons in your hands and the armor spikes.'
To bring a different perspective (since we've seen the same RAW/RAI discussion for the last 4 pages):
Honestly, "you can attack with a longsword held in one hand and armor spikes but not if you hold the longsword in two hands" is kind of verisimillitude-breaking for me. Likewise, "you can attack with a longsword held in two hands and spiked armor, but not a greatsword and spiked armor" gives the same feeling.
If a DM said "If you TWF, you'll only get 1x the Str modifier on your main attack", I'd not debate the point though. Not that I agree that it's either RAW or RAI, but it doesn't break verisimillitude and seems a reasonable house rule that I wouldn't care enough to discuss.
|
|
Under 'two-handed' weapons it doesn't mention TWF at all. It is silent on the issue.
The relevant text for two weapon fighting is actually right in the beginning of the Two-handed weapon description.
"Two hands are required to use a two handed melee weapon effectively."
Now, in the entire weapon description what two hands are mentioned?
If you guessed primary hand and off hand, then you are correct.
No, 'primary' hand hasn't existed at all since 3.0. 'Off hand' only exists in the context of TWF, and even then the term just means the extra attack(s) granted by TWF, not to any hands, real or imagined.
You need two hands to execute an attack with a 2H weapon. These hands don't have any further rules designation (such as 'main', 'primary', 'secondary', 'off', or anything else).
"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.)"
From Ultimate equipment, so they can't be a primary attack in two-weapon fighting. Only the off hand one.
If you use a 2H weapon or a 1H with two hands then you can't have another weapon in the other hand so you can't use TWF as per RAW.
Exceptions are stated in weapon descriptions i.e. armour spikes
I can't find anything in Thunderstriker to say he can shield bash whilst wielding a 2H weapon, where does it say that?
CountofUndolpho: You seem to have missed a lot of the discussion surrounding this topic. Not to be aggressive or rude, but the matter isn't nearly as simple as you seem to think it is. I suggest reading this and at least one other topic on the matter, and if you care to bother at least one from D&D 3.5.
Also, that quote doesn't in any way imply that it can't be a primary attack in two-weapon fighting. As you yourself quote (my bolding):
"You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack)
And there-in lies the essential contradiction here. The stance that you, Crash, and others share is that there's a certain amount of "effort" inherent to a particular body part such that, if you have 3 main-hand attacks and 2 off-hand attacks, you have 3 attacks worth of "effort" in your main hand and 2 attacks worth of "effort" in your off-hand. Why is it, then, that if I have an off-hand dagger, a boot blade, a barbazu beard, a boulder helmet, and a selection of other available weapons, I can't expend the effort of all those weapons? Wielding a Longsword in 2 hands consumes 1 attack worth of effort from both my right and left hand, but leaves the effort in my Unarmed Strike or Boot Blade? If that were the case, then using only 1 hand for a main-hand attack would mean I still have that effort in both my left hand and my boot blade. But, as we all know, that isn't mechanically valid. The rules limit you to a certain number of iterative attacks and, if you're using TWF to gain bonus attacks, a certain number of off-hand attacks and rules as to how off-hand attacks may be made. Full Stop.Absolutely, and if the OP wanted to use his long sword two handed and then make an attack with his head, chest, foot, back, butt, knee, toe or some other body part that isn't either hand, then I would agree that he could.Armless Joe fights with his head(unarmed strike) and a Spiked Breastplate(Armor Spikes).
He uses two weapon fighting.
He has no hands, and no arms.
Armless Joe breaks no rules.
Armless Joe fights, RAW style.
No, you are adding something I have never said.
Let's start with the simplest example. 1 Primary Hand attack and 1 Off Hand attack. When you are wielding a weapon with two hands (those physical things at the end of your arms) they are now your "Primary Hand," that means that your "Off Hand" has to be something else.
My contention is that your "Primary Hand" and "Off Hand" cannot be the same thing.
|
Armless Joe fights with his head(unarmed strike) and a Spiked Breastplate(Armor Spikes).
He uses two weapon fighting.
He has no hands, and no arms.
Armless Joe breaks no rules.
Armless Joe fights, RAW style.
I'm assuming that Armless Joe is a human (or at least humanoid). Thus, he is limited to only one off-hand attack because a humanoid normally only has two arms. Do those attacks HAVE to be made with the arms? No, of course not. But the number of attacks are predicated upon how many arms a "normal" version of that creature may get.
Granted, Three-Armed Bob might have some crazy mutation to give him an extra arm, thus allowing two off-hand attacks (i.e. multiweapon fighting), but really Armless Joe and Three-Armed Bob are exceptions to the norm, and you can always come up with some stupid corner-case example.
Though I must question, was the constant "off-hand" really in 3.0? I seem to remember it not being there at all, and it being a remnant from 2E? However in 3.0 Ambidexterity and Two-weapon Fighting where different feats, where Ambidexterity reduced penalties by -0/-4 while TWF reduced them by -2/-2, where now TWF reduces by -2/-6.
I'll go searching for my 3.0 PHB but I might have given it away to a new player when we converted to 3.5 a decade back.
The 'normal' line shows what the 3.0 'off hand' rule was. This was removed in 3.5, leaving the term 'off hand' (in rules terms) only relevant in TWF.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.
Then explain all the references I pointed out to "off hand" that were not part of two weapon fighting. Most importantly that of the Buckler Gun which is ALWAYS an off hand weapon.
Buckler Gun
The front of this buckler is fitted with a small, double-barreled gun that can be shot while wearing the buckler. Unlike with a double-barreled pistol, you can only shoot one barrel at a time.
You must remove the buckler to reload the gun. Each barrel of a buckler gun uses a bullet and 1 dose of black powder or single alchemical cartridge as ammunition. Because of its awkward construction, a buckler gun is always considered an off-handed weapon.
Emphasis mine.
Note that that is part of the rules section, not the fluff describing the weapon. There is no mention of two weapon fighting, just that it is always considered an off-handed weapon.
I sense there's a lot of confusion now, and in order to avoid discussing past each other I think it'd be great to state actual interpretations/opinions of the rules. I'll do that, at least, and if anyone else feel like they want to clarify their stance that'd be useful too.
"Do I think it's legal to use a two-handed weapon such as a greatsword in combination with a non-handed weapon such as armor spikes?"
Yes.
"Do I think it's legal to use a two-handed weapon such as a greatsword in combination with a clearly handed weapon such as a dagger?"
It's gray, and could be interpreted either way. I tend to think evidence favors "yes", but not by a huge margin.
"Do I think that gauntlets are handed weapons (like daggers) or non-handed weapons (like armor spikes)?"
It's gray, and could be interpreted either way.
CountofUndolpho: You seem to have missed a lot of the discussion surrounding this topic. Not to be aggressive or rude, but the matter isn't nearly as simple as you seem to think it is. I suggest reading this and at least one other topic on the matter, and if you care to bother at least one from D&D 3.5.
Also, that quote doesn't in any way imply that it can't be a primary attack in two-weapon fighting. As you yourself quote (my bolding):
"You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack)
I haven't missed it I just disagree with it, so to me it is that simple. None of the examples given so far have made me think I have misunderstood the RAW or RAI.
The armour spikes; the bit that makes me think they can't be the Primary in TWF is "(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.)" Which appears pretty definite.
I haven't missed it I just disagree with it, so to me it is that simple. Non of the examples given so far have made me think I have misunderstood the RAW or RAI.The armour spikes; the bit that makes me think they can't be the Primary in TWF is "(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.)" Which appears pretty definite.
Well you've not provided any arguments as to why all the arguments in each direction are wrong so it's hard to know you've read them, especially when they're so far from your interpretation!
And I don't see how that passage even implies it:
"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"
This means if you have attacked with a longsword (primary attack) and shortsword (off-hand attack) you cannot also attack with the armor spikes, and if you've attacked with longsword (primary attack) and armor spikes (off-hand attack) you cannot also attack with the short sword.
It's pretty explicit what it refers to and I don't see how it affect things further down the line than that.
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
And so vice versa makes it
You can't also make an attack with another off-hand weapon if you have already made an attack with armor spikes, and vice versa
There are over 400 posts in this thread which argument in particular do you want me to argue? I don't mind as I'm learning loads of rule specifics so far. I'd never read the armour spikes rule in Pathfinder before, interesting and eminently sensible.
More importantly I've realized that Armor Spikes are a really bad choice for things going to MWF
|
|
"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.)"
From Ultimate equipment, so they can't be a primary attack in two-weapon fighting. Only the off hand one.
On the contrary:-
If you attack only with your armor spikes during your turn (or use the armor spikes to make an attack of opportunity), you use them just like a regular weapon. If you use the full attack action, you can use armor spikes as either a primary light weapon or as an off-hand light weapon, even if you're using a shield or using a two-handed weapon. ****In these latter two cases, you're assumed to be kicking or kneeing your foe with your armour spikes.****
So, they can be used as either the 'main' weapon or the 'off hand' weapon. Also, you can use a 2H weapon in TWF.
But what are the rules for using a 2H weapon in TWF?
Whenever you use armor spikes as an off-hand weapon, you suffer all the penalties for attacking with two weapons (see Table 8-10 in the Player's Handbook). When using armor spikes along with a two-handed weapon, it is usually best to use the two-handed weapon as your primary attack and the spikes as the off-hand weapon. You can use the armor spikes as the primary weapon and the two-handed weapon as the off-hand attack, but when you do so, you don't get the benefit of using a light weapon in your off hand. You cannot, however, use your armor spikes to make a second off-hand attack when you're already fighting with two weapons. If you have a weapon in both hands and armor spikes, you can attack with the weapons in your hands (and not with the armor spikes) or with one of the weapons in your hands and the armor spikes.
Oh! So you can use the 2H weapon as EITHER the 'main' weapon OR the 'off hand' weapon! Who'da thunk it?
Wait! Me! I thunk it, the whole time!
The rules totally support it. There is no 'rule' that prevents it. The usual way of TWFing, with a weapon in each hand, is not the only way to do it!
: )
Also it doesn't say Primary it says regular melee attack or off-hand. Remembering that primary and off-hand only really pertain to TWF, (though off-hand in the sense of the Buckler gun would seem to be a way of penalising it rather than anything else.)
@Malachi Silverclaw where are you quoting those rules from? I'm getting the quotes I used from CRB and UE
Pathfinder doesn't have a Players Handbook?
Can Mr.Hands two weapon fight wielding a horse? ;)
In one hand or two?
CountofUndolpho: Now I see what you mean. It appears by RAW you would be correct, though I think this is not at all in the spirit of the rules/RAI.
Malachi: Those quotes your making, where are you quoting from? They seem to be from the 3.5 FAQ, and while I think it's relevant to use them as evidence of the intent of the rules, they aren't really in the pathfinder system, and using them to prove someone "incorrect" without noting they're from 3.5 seems a bit iffy. You know I agree with your point of view basically, but please try to use reasonable and legit ways to prove it.
|
|
@Malachi Silverclaw where are you quoting those rules from? I'm getting the quotes I used from CRB and UE
Pathfinder doesn't have a Players Handbook?
This is the 3.5 FAQ Ilja linked to above.
We must be careful when using a 3.5 FAQ as evidence; sometimes the rules have changed and sometimes the PF devs issue a contradictory FAQ.
That's not the case here. The wording of TWF, armour spikes, weapon categories, and lack of an 'off hand' rule (outside of TWF) are all unchanged, and although there have been FAQs from PF devs about TWF, none have contradicted the information given in the quoted FAQ.
It's still true. It will remain true, unless the PF devs specifically change it, and they have no reason to. The rules which support the conclusions in the 3.5 FAQ are unchanged, so the conclusion is unchanged.
Any arguments in this thread against this conclusion are based on specific rules unchanged between editions, and those arguments were found wanting in 3.5. Since nothing has changed in the relevant rules, there is nothing which changes the conclusions of the 3.5 FAQ, specifically, how 2H weapons in general and armour spikes in particular interact with the rules for TWF.
@Malachi Silverclaw where are you quoting those rules from? I'm getting the quotes I used from CRB and UE
Pathfinder doesn't have a Players Handbook?
This is the 3.5 FAQ Ilja linked to above.
We must be careful when using a 3.5 FAQ as evidence; sometimes the rules have changed and sometimes the PF devs issue a contradictory FAQ.
That's not the case here. The wording of TWF, armour spikes, weapon categories, and lack of an 'off hand' rule (outside of TWF) are all unchanged, and although there have been FAQs from PF devs about TWF, none have contradicted the information given in the quoted FAQ.
It's still true. It will remain true, unless the PF devs specifically change it, and they have no reason to. The rules which support the conclusions in the 3.5 FAQ are unchanged, so the conclusion is unchanged.
Any arguments in this thread against this conclusion are based on specific rules unchanged between editions, and those arguments were found wanting in 3.5. Since nothing has changed in the relevant rules, there is nothing which changes the conclusions of the 3.5 FAQ, specifically, how 2H weapons in general and armour spikes in particular interact with the rules for TWF.
You CAN'T use the 3.5 FAQ or any other 3.5 rules for Pathfinder, they are not the same game. You can't use 4.0 or AD&D or Rolemaster or Hero System or any other rules systems rules to determine what the Pathfinder rules are.
|
|
CountofUndolpho: Now I see what you mean. It appears by RAW you would be correct, though I think this is not at all in the spirit of the rules/RAI.
Malachi: Those quotes your making, where are you quoting from? They seem to be from the 3.5 FAQ, and while I think it's relevant to use them as evidence of the intent of the rules, they aren't really in the pathfinder system, and using them to prove someone "incorrect" without noting they're from 3.5 seems a bit iffy. You know I agree with your point of view basically, but please try to use reasonable and legit ways to prove it.
Ah, I see what you mean.
Earlier on this page, you provided a link to what you described as a '3.5 FAQ', then quoted an extract from it.
I clicked the link, read the whole thing, and realised that there were parts of that FAQ that you had not quoted, so I did my best to copy&paste the entire thing.
I then posted it saying, 'this is the entire FAQ', or words to that effect. To me, it was obvious what I was quoting and where it was from, but in hindsight I should have made sure to include that information.
I suppose not everyone clicked the link you provided, but no shenanigans were intended.
Apologies for any confusion.
Do you know I just went and looked in my First ed Players Handbook to check if it had anything in about this...it doesn't. I jumped 3 and only did a couple of campaigns of 3.5 and these rules never came up so thanks for the refresher.