I saw several people in multiple threads point to various rules in the book. Rules regarding effort, weapon categories, primary vs off-hand. This was largely ignored by people that disagreed. But my point was that BBT said he read it that way and had played that way for years and I pointed out others had read it differently and had played differently for years. I merely asked why his experience invalidated theirs.
|
If the ruling had come down on your side, and those people still argued against it, what would you think?Come on. Sean explicitly said the FAQ relied on secret "un-written rules", i.e. not the RAW.
HF has been asked to quote what parts of the RAW specifically supported his reading, yet can't do so, because they don't exist.
(that's why Paizo relied on un-written rules)
Saying that one side who relies on RAW and points to the exact wording is exactly equivalent to another that just ignores what the RAW says is pushing it. To my knowledge, nobody who was pointing to the RAW ever claimed that they have the pure knowledge of Paizo's (/WotC, although apparently there has been a shift here?) true intent independent of the RAW, it is just that discussion of true intent is just not objectively debatable.If you don't want every Rules Question to devolve to different camps of people claiming they each have pure knowledge of Paizo's true intent (and the secret un-written rules that over-ride RAW) which of course are claims that are simply irreconciable, then you have to ascribe to RAW the primary relevance.
HELL, Paizo's own responses to Rules Questions, "no response needed", snarky comments to just use the RAW are exactly recognizing that the RAW is of primary relevance up until there is SPECIFIC reason to think otherwise (i.e. Errata, or FAQ-as-Errata, etc).
I haven't been asked to quote anything. If anything, it was I who asked for the quotes (at some point...maybe it wasn't in this thread...they're all starting to run together).
2WF rules nowhere discuss how you wield the main-hand weapon, nor (STR) damage multipliers for that attack.
<RULES QUOTE, OTHER RULES QUOTE LATER IN POST>
2WF is presented as way to get something 'extra' in addition to your regular attack.
If 2WF is not enunciating any further restriction, what basis is there to assume that we can't do everything we can with a regular attack?
Armor Spikes nowhere mention using a hand or even an arm to wield.What part of RAW do you point to to support a reading to the contrary?
Did I miss your response?
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel that those who saw RAW different are being dismissed and mocked.
Being called "ignorant" for not reading past RAW, to see these "unwritten rules".
This is demeaning, and rude.
If some reactions seem heated, then this likely due to the response we have been given.
We are being accused of purposefully trying to prevent improvements to the game, and the experience of all.
I love this game, and I imagine those involved in these heated debates do as well.
This why we take so much time and effort to improve our experience, and the the experience of others.
This is why we fight.
I would not spend nearly a thousand dollars on Paizo products, if I did not love it.
I am disabled, and live on a limited income. This is one of my few hobbies I spend money on.
If my passion is offensive to some, I deeply apologize.
Still, I am a customer, and a fan.
I refuse to be dismissed, or mocked.
That is one thing I will not apologize for.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is why we fight.
Maybe you shouldn't see it as a fight.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Being on both sides of arguments with BBT over the last year or so, I can assure you that by "fight" he means it as a debate, argument, statement of position or progress towards a resolution, not a brawl.
Taking that one comment from a rather eloquent post and flipping it is exactly the dismissive attitude that BBT was talking about.
On this particular issue, I have not seen much debate from BBT. He dismissed any attempt to explain a different position by saying people were simply yelling HAAAANNDS. Once a ruling was made, he continued to claim to be right and those arguing against him had no basis for their argument because he plays differently. At one point he talked about playing an armless PC as if that would be taking some sort of revenge on the devs for this ruling. Honestly, I'm as sick of him talking about armless monk oozes as I am of every saying every class is the same as a commoner. (Different topic, I know, but I think it speaks to his tactics.)
But different people are passionate about different things. I couldn't care less really about how this ruling came down but try to make the Paladin Chaotic Good and I'll cut you.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel that those who saw RAW different are being dismissed and mocked.
I feel the same way.
However, just as the "monks must use different weapons during flurry" ruling a couple of years ago (justified at that time by the same secret-un-written-rule" argument), I expect another erratum in a few months.|
|
The gauntlet ruling makes sense. The Spiked armor ruling is nonsense.Agreed.
2-Handed Weapon + Armor Spikes is nowhere near being OP. I honestly don't see the point in removing balanced options from the game.
It explains it clearly in the FAQ. You can't both THF and TWF simultaneously.
It is that simple.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can't both THF and TWF simultaneously.
It is that simple.
Unless you're a monk... I detect some degree of inconsistency in the FAQ.
A monk can't get 1.5x str to damage even if he 2-hands a weapon with his flurry (still gets the 3-1 power attack, but power attacking is bad w/ TWF anyway), though he also isn't getting 0.5x str to damage at all, either. So it's not quite the same.
The armor spikes thing is disappointing. The ban on 2H weapon + unarmed is utterly ludicrous and makes no sense. Unarmed explicitly doesn't need a free hand to be used and can be used without hand strikes at all.
A monk can't get 1.5x str to damage even if he 2-hands a weapon with his flurry (still gets the 3-1 power attack, but power attacking is bad w/ TWF anyway), though he also isn't getting 0.5x str to damage at all, either. So it's not quite the same.
I disagree.
The monk can flurry holding his temple sword with 2 hands and kick his opponent in the same attack sequence (right at 1st level, no need to wait for iterative attacks).However, the flurry of blows is supposed to work as 2WF.
I don't really care which bonuses apply as my concern is not game balance: rules are becoming more and more inconsistent these days and it makes the DM's job to explain the rules to new players more and more difficult.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The old armor spikes ruling in 3.5 was a bad ruling, it made no logical sense and it broke basic concepts in the game design.
I eagerly await the horror stories of games where a guy TWF with a 2H weapon and unarmed or armor spikes turned every encounter into a joke and the poor DM felt powerless to challenge the party because of "that broken fighter with the greatsword and kick combo." Eagerly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe it clearly states that all attacks made with a flurry are x1 strength.
Yup:
A monk applies his full Strength bonus to his damage
rolls for all successful attacks made with flurry of blows,
whether the attacks are made with an off-hand or with a
weapon wielded in both hands.
|
|
This was the closing of a loophole that never needed to be opened in the first place.
The old armor spikes ruling in 3.5 was a bad ruling, it made no logical sense and it broke basic concepts in the game design.
I got absolutely crushed on this before, take the FAQ with some grace.
So you at least agree now it IS a change in the rules?
And I don't see how you can say it makes no logical sense. Unarmed attacks are actually part of combat with a melee weapon, and using shield spikes would merely change the sort of moves you'd do to take advantage of them.
And clearly the people WHO MADE THE GAME disagreed with you that it broke the basic concepts of the game's design.
No it was not a change. The old ruling stated that you can wield a weapon with two hands, it didn't say you could incorporate it as part of TWF. You can't both THF and TWF. If you have a +6/+1 you can THF with one attack and armor spike with the other, if you want.
None of that contradicts the old ruling. It just doesn't include things people read into the old FAQ that were not there, specifically that you could also get the 1.5 strength bonus while TWF.
If you won't accept Dev rulings, why ask? House rule your game as you see fit.
The rule was clear before to many of us. It has now been clarified for everyone else.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will give you the advice I gave my DM. Ignore the FAQ. There's no reason to give it much though if Paizo can't be bothered to make rule changes into an easily digestible errata.
Indeed. Luckily, I don't play any PFS session...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have to say that the evidence points to this being a rule change.
|
|
Yes. Does it say you get 1.5 strength bonus?
No. No it does not.
When you fight with a double weapon, in which both attacks are wielded in both hands, do you get 1.5 strength bonus to both attacks?
You read into the rule something that wasn't written into the rule.
Perhaps, you need to distinguish between the rules you use and the rules that are.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People assumed that when fighting with a two-handed weapon that is not a double weapon it did x1.5 strength damage?
Seriously?
|
|
People assumed that when fighting with a two-handed weapon that is not a double weapon it did x1.5 strength damage?
Seriously?
Apparently some people did. I'm not sure why they made that assumption, but they did.
I assumed a warslinger could use a staff sling until I was corrected with the most recent FAQ.
I was incorrect. So are the people who are saying this is a change.
The Long Spear was used in the FAQ to demonstrate the advantage of being able to have a reach weapon and a close weapon at the same time on the same build.
That is the advantage of armor spikes.
That people read more advantages into it than that is exactly that, people reading more into something than was there.
I have to say that the evidence points to this being a rule change.People assumed things not written into the rule. That isn't a change, it is a clarification.
Actually it is a change. Previously there was a Paizo faq allowing it.
|
|
Actually it is a change. Previously there was a Paizo faq allowing it.I have to say that the evidence points to this being a rule change.People assumed things not written into the rule. That isn't a change, it is a clarification.
No there wasn't.
It allowed you to do both when not TWF if you have multiple attacks. Which you still can. You can wield a great sword and use armor spikes in the same round...when you have +6/+1
What you can't do is use the two-weapon fighting technique at the same time you use the two handed fighting technique.
That is the entire clarification.
|
|
When they are discussing "hand" it isn't a literal hand. It is an attack, or shield or whatever you do with the hand .
If you only attack with one "Hand" you still have an "Off hand" which can attack with all of the penalties.
When you attack with Two Hands, you don't have an off hand. So you don't get the option of an extra attack.
This is completely consistent with double weapon fighting, and the 3.5 FAQ. You can, in fact, have a long spear and armor spikes. Nothing is stopping you. And if you have +6/+1 or higher, you can attack with both.
And if you can wield a two handed weapon in one hand, you can attack with it (without the 1.5 bonus) and also attack with something else.
But what you can't do is both use the Two-Handed fighting technique (which removes your off hand in exchange for greater damage) and two-weapon fight, which uses your off-hand...well for greater damage in the form of an attack.
Both trade an off hand that could be used for a shield, or other such purposes.
Nothing in this ruling contradicts anything from before. People assumed it worked one way. It doesn't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel that those who saw RAW different are being dismissed and mocked.
Being called "ignorant" for not reading past RAW, to see these "unwritten rules".
This is demeaning, and rude.
If some reactions seem heated, then this likely due to the response we have been given.
We are being accused of purposefully trying to prevent improvements to the game, and the experience of all.
I love this game, and I imagine those involved in these heated debates do as well.
This why we take so much time and effort to improve our experience, and the the experience of others.
This is why we fight.
I would not spend nearly a thousand dollars on Paizo products, if I did not love it.
I am disabled, and live on a limited income. This is one of my few hobbies I spend money on.
If my passion is offensive to some, I deeply apologize.
Still, I am a customer, and a fan.
I refuse to be dismissed, or mocked.
That is one thing I will not apologize for.
Kind of like how I was mocked, told I was being illogical, and told I was trolling for continuing to argue before any of these rulings came down?
And it is absolutely unfortunate if you feel like you're being treated this way by a few posters. That's not fair. It's also not fair that I'm given that treatment before any decision comes about.
[This section doesn't necessarily apply to you] - These sorts of things are a little frustrating for me though when I've made it a point to recognize the basis other people's arguments (even if I disagree with the interpretation), but those people refuse to recognize there's even a shred of validity to mine (by calling me things like illogical and a troll and implying I have an inability to read plain English, otherwise I'd recognize I was woefully incorrect). Then those same people are shocked, astounded, and often quite whiny after a ruling comes down demonstrating they were wrong in the first place.
Perhaps everybody could make it a point to use a bit more objectivity in their argumentation. That would certainly help cut down on this sort of thing. It's not an easy thing to do, but it can solve a lot of problems if people would bother to develop it.
When they are discussing "hand" it isn't a literal hand.
If the rules ever said this phrase or anything remotely like it, I think people would be more apt to accept this FAQ without complaint. The fact that they put such an emphasis on literal hands (such as by pointing out weapons like that stupid beard, bladed boots, etc. that don't require a literal hand to wield) certainly didn't help the clarity.
To be honest, I'm not sure how anyone could read the RAW usage of "hand" and interpret it to be anything but literal, but that is certainly the angle they are taking with this FAQ.
It looks to me to be a "balance" decision. They were afraid that TWF + no-hand weapon was a stronger TWF option than using any other TWF combination, and, well, it was.
Some didn't mind that it was because TWF sucks anyway and it could really use something to make it worth while. Some didn't mind that it was because it made sense, from a simulation standpoint, to allow it. Oh well.
My point was that it appears that at some point in the entire D20 rules, it was possible to THF and TWF in the same round.
ciretose's accusation that people are just assuming things when stating that two handed fighting gets x1.5 strength bonus was absurd, IMHO. Of course people assumed that. That is a core mechanic that I never thought could have been under question.
I get why it can't be done and don't have a problem with the new/old/clarified rule when associated with gaining extra attacks from two-weapon fighting or extra damage from two-handed fighting.
But, it is clear that there is a lot of support to indicate that the rule would be decided otherwise. It is unfair and disingenuous to just disregard people that fell this rule is a change.
There are also a lot of valid questions surrounding it. Some of those questions have been addressed because people didn't just accept the original, "no" answer.
Debating is great. Dismissing, attacking and just trying to shut down dissenting opinions is pointless.
It might be harsh to impose a feat penalty but then again you are now effectively two weapon fighting with one of your weapons using a two handed advantage.While that sounds powerful, the the extra damage from a 2-handed weapon is balanced by the fact that whatever weapon specific feat you take only applies to half your attacks. Weapon Focus? Improved Critical? Weapon Specialization? Weapon Training? All of those affect either your 2-handed weapon or your Armor Spikes, never both of them.
This combo is only better than TWFing with 2 different weapons, which is quite possibly the weakest combat style in the game.
Also the incredibly high feat investment couple with the necessity of having an unreasonably high Dex score means you're still behind the guy wielding a 2-Handed and no armor spikes at all.
Should we ban 2-Handed combat because it's better than TWFing as well?
This is a highly facetious position. It calls out feats, but the only ones affected are fighters.
Does it hamper a barb's increased Str bonus? Nope. Well, 1/2 Str...but at least it still gets it!Does it cut in half a rangers FE bonus? Nope.
Does it cut into a paladin's smiting bonus? Nope.
A THW fighter would be getting Greatsword + 1.5 Str + Armor Spikes + .5 Str, for a net gain of .5 Str and 1-4 damage over someone wielding Short swords. He'd win the damage contest straight up. It would be the perfect TWF option for a paladin or ranger, who could go the greatsword route for more dmg, and pick up TWF if they really want to go to town on someone for extra attacks.
==Aelryinth
A THW fighter would be getting Greatsword + 1.5 Str + Armor Spikes + .5 Str, for a net gain of .5 Str and 1-4 damage over someone wielding Short swords. He'd win the damage contest straight up. It would be the perfect TWF option for a paladin or ranger, who could go the greatsword route for more dmg, and pick up TWF if they really want to go to town on someone for extra attacks.
==Aelryinth
And what the post you quoted was essentially saying was "So what?" it's got extra damage over TWF-ing. You know, that thing that most people call a trap for 3/4 BaB classes and simply inferior for full BaB ones?
It still doesn't have the advantage over a pure 2H fighter, since the little bit of extra damage it gains is negated by the to-hit penalty. It is, in the best possible scenario, EQUAL to 2H fighting, and likely mathematically inferior.
Yes. Does it say you get 1.5 strength bonus?
No. No it does not.
When you fight with a double weapon, in which both attacks are wielded in both hands, do you get 1.5 strength bonus to both attacks?
You read into the rule something that wasn't written into the rule.
Perhaps, you need to distinguish between the rules you use and the rules that are.
The rules for using a two-handed weapon specify that you add 1.5 times your strength bonus. The rules for two-weapon fighting do not change this. The rules for double-weapons do change this for double weapons when using one for two-weapon fighting.
Further, the PF FAQ says you can't use armor spikes and a greatsword with two-weapon fighting. The 3.5 FAQ clearly says this is possible.
And if you want to use that as a rule, then play 3.5. This isn't 3.5, this is Pathfinder. You can't consider this a rules change, because you are talking about two different games.
|
|
@James - I think that is getting more in to semantics, and I largely agree with the sentiment of what you are saying (and what you generally say)
I think at this point they have made clear what the rule is. Arguing if it is or is not a change isn't particularly useful going forward.
I like they are addressing things more quickly now, and dealing with things even if they cause kerfluffles.
When a ruleset holds that there is a crucial difference between "Attack Action" and "Attack" (in general), semantics kind of matter.