| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@mdt - What if I told you this was in the book.
"...to wield a weapon (whether you are using an off-hand weapon or using your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon)"
Would you admit that using a two-handed weapon uses your off hand and always has?
Depends on the context. Unfortunately, they have used 'off-hand' to both mean an off-hand attack, and also to represent an actual off hand, as in, your second of two hands. This is an unfortunate circumstance as what it's really doing is making it confusing on when you mean off-hand as in not primary attack, and off-hand as in, your second hand.
Primary Melee and Secondary Melee would be better, and it would need to state that using a two-handed-weapon would negate the ability to use a secondary melee attack.
The question, of course, would then be why can you still make a natural attack with a two-handed weapon? What allows a claw on your 3rd and 4th arms to be used along with a two-handed attack, but not a dagger held in the 4th hand as a secondary attack with twf?
|
I am invested in the game.
Time, effort, money.
When am I allowed to disagree?
When am I allowed to be upset?
We are all invested in the game. We're all supposed to bow to you because you lost the argument?
No one said you can't disagree, but disagree respectfully. Coming up with outlandish corner case examples of how the "rule" doesn't cover that one particular weird situation is not being respectful.
Look, I lost the TWF debate hard (oh so many years ago). Afterwards, I didn't post weird examples to try and "show" why the developers are wrong and why I was right. I realized at that moment I had been playing it wrong. I learned something and it has made me a better player/GM for it.
Be the better person, don't be so upset that it prohibits you from having a wonderful learning opportunity.
|
Commoner attacks with quarterstaff.
He can attack with quarterstaff/quarterstaff.
He can attack with unarmed strike/unarmed strike.
Now, he tries to attack with quarterstaff/unarmed strike.
Before, it was fine.
Now, it's impossible.
This is not about a lost argument, but a massive change in how the rules function.
Countered with unwritten rules.
|
|
They are called bites.You can't make a natural attack with a two-handed weapon. Look up the natural attack rules.
I believe dragons are the exception, not the rule. Bites if primary are 1X str, or .5 secondary.
And if you use a weapon, your natural attacks generally become secondary, meaning -5 and .5 str.
Commoner attacks with quarterstaff.
He can attack with quarterstaff/quarterstaff.
He can attack with unarmed strike/unarmed strike.
Now, he tries to attack with quarterstaff/unarmed strike.
Before, it was fine.
Now, it's impossible.
This is not about a lost argument, but a massive change in how the rules function.
Countered with unwritten rules.
I disagree with how massive it is. It takes away a few clever build aspects via rulings I disagree with (especially when they're not couched as new rules...) but it's pretty limited as to the effects it'll actually have.
Armor spikes are nerfed, shields are in rules-limbo until someone posts a faq saying that this faq doesn't imply a change to shields, and unarmed strikes are limited in ways that they've hinted before that they'd like them to be limited, but other than that, it's only edge cases (I think).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the fix is to say if you attack with your armor, you lose the benefit of it's AC, unless you have the Armor Poke feat.
It's the only way to be sure.
;)
I remember when Spring Attack was Errata'd.
That was also done on the basis of Jason Bulmahn's opinion of what the un-written guidelines allow you to do with actions.
People didn't generally like the ruling, but grumbled about it a bit and didn't have any further questions, because the rules were now clear.
That's not what's happened here.
SKR wrote that the ruling was NOT based on what is in the written rules, but un-written guidelines that Paizo uses,
but never explained how they got from those guidelines to the specific ruling,
(as other approaches like enforcing mainhand=1x STR were also in-line with the stated guidelines)
much less clarified the other rules implications of the general principle which itself isn't expressed anywhere as actionable rules.
(beyond the FAQ which only specifically applies to Armor Spikes and Gauntlets)
The exact same FAQ result could be written with a totally different justification (and broad rules impact)
if Armor Spikes were Errata'd to require a (non-weapon-dedicated) limb to wield.
As of now, that is not clear, which is relevant for purposes well outside of 2WF, e.g. simultaneous Polearm+Armor Spikes AoO threatening.
So the FAQ falls short even on the narrow issue of Armor Spikes.
I have no idea if having a 3rd arm changes thing re: the FAQ or the un-written rules.
I still don't like Jason's subjective choice with the Spring Attack ruling, but as FAQ/Errata procedure, it's head and shoulders above this.
It would be straightforward Errata to add to 2H Weapons category: (if this is the intent)
"Wielding a weapon in two hands is incompatable with 2WF's extra off-hand attack."
Although that impacts 3+ arm characters, which I'm not sure if that's the intent, given SKR's secret rules' focus on 'normal PCs'.
If they want other restrictions on incompatability with shields, or carrying chickens in your hands, or not having hands, those can be stated too.
|
|
Personally, I don't understand why this FAQ is causing such a hub-bub. It makes sense to me.
Because it effected the people who feel entitled to their reading of the rules, even when the people who actually wrote the rules explain that they read them wrong.
People who think what they read into the rules are actually rules.
When the rest of us read an FAQ, we go "Oh, ok. Cool. Thanks."
When others read it they go "How dare the people who wrote the rules tell me I was wrong!"
It is a disease on the boards...fortunately it seems generally contained to the boards.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
even when the people who actually wrote the rules explain that they read them wrong.
When did this happen?
Was this when Sean said the ruling is not based on anything written in the rules?
People talk about unwritten rules on the forums on the time. They're "implied" rules like "you can't take actions when you're dead".
That said, if you look back in the thread that (I think) spawned all this mess I didn't thematically have a problem with the idea of wielding a weapon two-handed and then punching with a spiked gauntlet as well, and it's really not unbalanced.
Reading back over the rules and other related rulings, I can see where it is loosely implied. So in this case I think that it could have been more clear.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dude...get over the "secret rule" thing. How can it be a "secret" when a good number of us were doing it "right" before the FAQ came out?
Because it wasn't "right" before. It was unquestionably wrong before based on the actual written rules.
What happened is this:
You, and the writers, obviously, felt it was unbalanced to get 1.5 Str and .5 str damage, when normal TWFers only got 1 and .5. You saw the connection between your main hand being worth 1xStr and your off hand being worth .5xStr and assumed that using a weapon in two hands took both your main and off-hand as a result. You assumed the rule worked that way, and because both you and the writers felt the same way about game balance and playstyle, you ended up "right" after the fact.
But that's not written. It's not anywhere in there--it's a logical leap that obviously was intuitive to you, but not necessarily to most people.
I can see the path your brain took to get there, but I would never have gone that way myself.
The problem is that you are thinking of it in purely "yeah, it makes sense balance-wise for there to be no better way to twf than to use a weapon in each hand" stand point, and that's not the only way people looked at it.
Some people see it as a violation of simulation. When there are weapons that take no literal hands to wield, it makes no sense that I can't attack with it if my literal off-hand is full.
Some people see it as an issue of balance, but from a different perspective: TWF sucks and this redeemed it a little, making it almost comparable to using a two-handed weapon, so it was ok.
Some people saw Two-handed weapon + non-literal hand weapon TWFing as kind of an easter egg. 3rd edition D&D was written with purposefully inferior options and "secret" best options "hidden" in it, specifically so those with system mastery could feel rewarded for finding them. Some feel it is punishment to those with system mastery to take away their secret easter eggs.
Some people just object to rules you're supposed to magically know without them being written down and feel hurt that following the words as written is wrong sometimes.
There are many angles--you only see one, and it colors how you see others looking from a different direction. You need to be less snippy about it and accept that this upsets people. It's not the same as previous FAQ/Erratas.
The only one close is when they announced that monks couldn't flurry with just one weapon, which was absolutely absurd and had no basis in the text either. And guess what? People showed their displeasure about it, and it got changed back. Let people vent. They might end up right in the end and then you'll want to complain, too.
|
|
Well, I am going to stop, and only look at the FAQ, and not SKR's comments.
Armor Spikes: Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?
No.
Likewise, you couldn't use an armored gauntlet to do so, as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks.
This says to me, that you need a free hand to use Armor Spikes, and you cannot use a hand used in the primary attack, as part of the off hand attack.
So, Greatsword and Blade Boot, Unarmed Strike, etc, are still available.
If this is the only change, and all this, other stuff, not in the FAQ, stays out, then I can live with it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For what it's worth, Sean favorited ciretose's post, giving tacit approval of it.
Also, everyone remember the only rule of the forum. I know these are fairly contentious, but...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And well, once you start saying "I'm going to ignore a member of the design team who is giving an explanation that was word for why something is", you're kinda...well, it may be time to rethink your position.
I am still just not clear on what exactly Paizo wants to do with the rules here.
The FAQ could be compatable with a ruling on an arm being needed to 'wield' Armor Spikes.
(which if true, goes beyond 2WF to affect Polearm/ArmorSpike AoO threat, as well as Armor Spikes for armless beings)\
(that is in-line with the previous PFS ruling supposedly approved by Jason Bulmahn)
OR if that is not at all what is being suggested, but simply a rule for 2WF as such (more in line with SKR comments),
then UAS+2H weapon 2WF would be barred, but Armor Spike/Polearm AoO threatening would not be affected.
But even if that's the case (ruling on 2WF as such),
I don't know if a man with 3 arms would still be able to 2WF: 2H+UAS, since they have an extra arm.
I don't know if ONLY Flurry bypasses this, or if Monk's UAS wording "even if hands are full" means they can do so with non-Flurry 2WF (e.g. with Greatsword).
SKR's commentary on un-written rules and natural attack creatures made clear that non-'normal' characters aren't subject to the un-written rule.
I don't know about the implications for Shields re: 2WF (or wielding 2H weapons in case of 3 armed man), that also goes for Ring of Force Shield. I don't know about the implications for carrying random objects in your hands (non-weapons/shields) for 2WF (or 2H weapons with 3 armed men). If Kicks/Headbutts can be 'off hands', would any impediments to those affect your ability to 2WF or wield 2H weapons?
Paizo could also specify that 2WF main-hand attacks always do only 1x STR damage (which gives a rules grounding for what most people think is the clear intent of double weapon 2wf) which just on it's own without other restrictions already takes care of Paizo's un-written rule/guideline governing 'total STR damage' for 'normal characters'.
Paizo COULD be intending to issue a ruling for both 2WF in general AND for arms needed to wield Armor Spikes (with it's broader implications), but that's not clear from the FAQ.
It all comes down to the specific rules being imposed.
Sure, not ideal form to impose rules by FAQ, but as long as they are being clear about it (which should be clear in the FAQ itself), I don't care what they're imposing.
When the FAQ is ridiculously narrow and doesn't explain itself or it's connection to RAW,
and other explanations/context are spread around in various messageboard posts,
I don't see the basis for a clear ruling which enables the RAW to be consistently applied in all situations.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And well, once you start saying "I'm going to ignore a member of the design team who is giving an explanation that was word for why something is", you're kinda...well, it may be time to rethink your position.
Are you referring to Ciretose re: SKR's explanation of the un-written rules and how the ruling was not based on anything written in the actual rules?
Indeed, I'm still waiting for Ciretose to repost that, since I already have done so myself.
I have been such a horrible person, not agreeing.
I am so glad all these people, so much better than me, are here to show me that.
You're welcome!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sure we'll hear more explanation about this sometime this week. I'm also sure the same people whining about the FAQ will still not be satisfied by further explanation.
Who needs things like explanations, when you can just be right, and be one of the good people?
We are good people now?
We don't need things like reasons, or explanations.
|
|
I'm sure we'll hear more explanation about this sometime this week. I'm also sure the same people whining about the FAQ will still not be satisfied by further explanation.Who needs things like explanations, when you can just be right, and be one of the good people?
We are good people now?
We don't need things like reasons, or explanations.
Geez, just stop whining already.
Let it sit for a few days. This whole thing has gotten so much attention by players that you can be sure there will be additional feedback from paizo.
|
|
I'm sure we'll hear more explanation about this sometime this week. I'm also sure the same people whining about the FAQ will still not be satisfied by further explanation.Who needs things like explanations, when you can just be right, and be one of the good people?
We are good people now?
We don't need things like reasons, or explanations.
Geez, just stop whining already.
Let it sit for a few days. This whole thing has gotten so much attention by players that you can be sure there will be additional feedback from paizo.
Expressing my new found love is not whining!
Who couldn't love it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Edit - I do want to point out that the usefulness of spikes is still there, for instance you can still threaten within 5 feet if you have them equipped and are also using a reach weapon, just as if you're using an unarmed strike with improved unarmed.
Not in my world, you can threaten with one but not the other - unless you can threaten with a sheathed weapon and quick-draw? Removing your hand/drawing your weapon with QD are both free actions not immediate ones.
Should have included replacing your hand, also a free action.
Sos
|
Um... I'm going to take this unintelligible guffawing to mean that you don't agree, but look at what else is around this equipment combo. What equipment combo for a TWF would this even equal to? When one choice is clearly superior then it is too powerful and needs to be rebalanced. Simply put, you can't have the best of both worlds.The reason why this rule is here is basically saying that if you're using a two-handed weapon you don't get an "off-hand attack" in addition to your regular attacks based on BAB because that would be OP.HA!
LOL
Okay, I have to conclude that you haven't read the whole thread(s).
You said 'When one choice is clearly superior then it is too powerful and needs to be rebalanced', and in this you are correct. At first glance, it seems that getting 1.5 x Str bonus on your 'main' attack will result in more damage, and therefore that attempting to do so is sneaky and cheaty and must be stopped. This of course ignores all the other ways that players try to optimise their characters within the rules, without being accused of cheating.
But take more than a glance and you'll realise that, just because your main attack will do slightly more damage if it hits, this does not mean that you'll do more damage per round overall, because of the damage you'll lose by missing with attacks that would have hit if you weren't taking the attack penalties for TWF.
Doing the maths (and many have on these threads) it turns out you do more damage using a single greatsword than you do TWFing with greatsword AND armour spikes!
Futher, TWF requires a feat while using a single two-handed weapon doesn't. Unless you try without the feat, and then the attack penalties of -4/-8 result in far less damage than before.
There are further costs associated with being worse than a single 2H weapon. TWF requires a Dex of 15, higher if you want Improved (17) and Greater (19) TWF. And that takes even more feats while the single weapon fighter can spend his feats on being more awesome. If you use point-buy, then buying a high enough Dex probably means a lower Str, making the TWFer put out even less damage, partly from directly reduced damage and partly from missing more often.
There is also the fact that you have two weapons to enchant. Weapons are the most expensive piece of kit, and now you have to split your money between two.
Armour spikes have advantages, but being nailed onto your armour means that if you discard your armour for a better set that you just won in combat then you are also discarding the armour spikes that you took the trouble to enchant, and the new armour doesn't have spikes.
All in all, the perception that using a 2HW while TWFing is a sneaky, cheaty way of doing more damage, is shown to be false. Using a single 2HW does way more damage, and on the principle you espoused above, shouldn't using a single 2HW be 're-balanced' on the grounds that it's too powerful and 'clearly superior'?
But, perhaps you mean that it's the best weapon combination when TWFing? That's a much less logical and supportable position, but we can explore that.
When building any melee character you try to find ways to make him more effective. The most common way is to do more damage, by increasing the damage done on a hit and by hitting more often. So feats like Weapon Focus/Specialisation, Improved Critical, class abilities like Fighter Weapon Training, are all used to do more damage. But many of these are weapon-specific. If I'm using two short swords the one feat (like Weapon Focus) improves both weapons. But if I'm using, say, longsword and short sword, then I need two feats to do the same. Two x Focus, two x Specialisation, two x Improved Crit, two x Weapon Training, not to mention TWF, ImpTWF, GreTWF, Double Slice.
So using twin weapons is far better than using two mis-matched weapons, which is the worst combination in the game!
So, using a 2HW with armour spikes is better than the worst weapon combination in the game! But still worse than using twin kukri, or twin short swords. All of which pale in comparison with using a single 2HW.
'Balance' is not an issue. 'Overpowered' it is not. Thinking it's 'clearly superior' is a knee-jerk reaction which doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
|
|
Not in my world, you can threaten with one but not the other - unless you can threaten with a sheathed weapon and quick-draw? Removing your hand/drawing your weapon with QD are both free actions not immediate ones.Edit - I do want to point out that the usefulness of spikes is still there, for instance you can still threaten within 5 feet if you have them equipped and are also using a reach weapon, just as if you're using an unarmed strike with improved unarmed.
Armour spikes don't need to be drawn as they are not sheathed.
Unless, in your world, you need a free hand to use armour?
The reason why this rule is here is basically saying that if you're using a two-handed weapon you don't get an "off-hand attack" in addition to your regular attacks based on BAB because that would be OP.HA!
LOL
Um... I'm going to take this unintelligible guffawing to mean that you don't agree, but look at what else is around this equipment combo. What equipment combo for a TWF would this even equal to? When one choice is clearly superior then it is too powerful and needs to be rebalanced. Simply put, you can't have the best of both worlds.
Edit - I do want to point out that the usefulness of spikes is still there, for instance you can still threaten within 5 feet if you have them equipped and are also using a reach weapon, just as if you're using an unarmed strike with improved unarmed.
Well, THF is superior by itself at higher levels.
If they ban was only at levels 1-5, then it would be fine to ban it for OP reasons: but once you get past level 5 it because as the poster above put it sufficiently: lol.
Actually, what it was last I checked was that the THF was a better archer, since he had enough Feats to invest in the Feats that make Archery good.
Then THTWF was something like 6 DPR above TWFing with 2 Kukris, and THF was above that by another 2.
So it evens out to THTWF being slightly better than TWFing, THF being slightly better than that, but with better switch hitting capabilities.
Seems to even out pretty well to me.