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?

[james maissen]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

You say it's good.

I find it leaving a ball of slime in my gut.

Do I agree with the ruling? No. I think that it undermines the point of such weapons which Paizo had seemed to fully embrace up til now.

But if it will lead to them really looking at the wording of the rules with a pen and eraser, then I'm willing to pay the price.

Also I think that the longer that they think about the whole system and divest themselves from the 'hand' terms, the more they may come to see that it worked just fine before only the wording needed changing.

-James

[RedDogMT]

I hope they don't alter the new FAQ explanation too much. From a balance perspective, it is reasonable. Two-handed fighting already gets enough of a boost from strength x1.5 and power attack.

I have never felt that armor spikes made much sense except for doing additional damage while grappling. I also do not think they should threaten unless the character has Improved Unarmed Strike.

[blackbloodtroll]

Armor Spikes are not the only victim here.

[Malachi Silverclaw]

Much as some might like to believe that this FAQ altered not much besides armour spikes, what it has actually done is change how attacks work in the game!

Previously, a two-handed weapon required two hands. Now, it requires two attacks!

It's sparking a fundamental re-write of the combat system, all to make sure that using a 2HW during TWF sucks even more than it did before. All while pretending that the d20 system has done this since the last millennium.

There's a slimy feeling in my gut too.

[RedDogMT]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Armor Spikes are not the only victim here.

So what? There is no requirement in this forum that my opinion needs to be all-encompassing...

[RedDogMT]

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Much as some might like to believe that this FAQ altered not much besides armour spikes, what it has actually done is change how attacks work in the game!

Previously, a two-handed weapon required two hands. Now, it requires two attacks!

No it doesn't. Nowhere did paizo say that fighting two-handed requires two attacks. They disallowed using a two-handed weapon and an off-hand weapon for two-weapon fighting. They later gave a more detailed explanation that the decision for the FAQ was based on guidelines they use for game balance.

A character using a longsword one-handed and a character using a longsword two-handed can still each attack once per round at first level.

[blackbloodtroll]

Exactly. Unwritten rules state they use two attacks.

Unwritten rules are now a basis for FAQ reasoning.

[RedDogMT]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Exactly. Unwritten rules state they use two attacks.

No they don't. You have zero evidence of that. That is a conclusion that you arrived at in your own mind.

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Unwritten rules are now a basis for FAQ reasoning.

Of course they are...and they were used as a deciding factor for balancing the rest of the game. I am floored that people cannot grasp that there are unpublished guidelines that paizo uses for the purpose of balancing. It's doesn't take a genius to figure out.

[blackbloodtroll]

You zero evidence they don't.

Why?

They are unwritten.

[RedDogMT]

Troll. Do you just post to fill space? Seriously?
<oh no, is that an attack against you?>

Evidence is used to support an assertion. You are saying that I should supply evidence to prove that something does not exist. It doesn't quite work that way.

Please enlighten us with your evidence that supports that using a two-handed weapon requires two attacks! It is not stated in the rulebooks. It is not stated in the FAQ. It is not stated in paizo's comments on the subject, but I will certainly be happy to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Where does it explicitly state that using a two-handed weapon requires two attacks?

[blackbloodtroll]

It doesn't.

That is the point.

The FAQ says that the use of a two handed weapon leaves you unable to make an off-hand attack.

This means that the potential off-hand attack is used up by the two handed attack.

So, two attacks, which, by the FAQ, are eaten up by one attack.

So, one equals two.

Except, none of that is written anywhere.

This is a restriction, pulled from unwritten rules.

SKR even mentioned these "unwritten rules".

[RedDogMT]

That's the thing. You are reading the rules and the FAQ, arriving at your own interpretation, and then trying to pass it off as fact.

The off-hand attack is not used up when wielding a two-handed weapon. There is no off-hand. It is unavailable. Several paizo team members have explained it this way in their follow posts. At no point did any of then state that an attack is lost.

You are asserting that the new FAQ results in a character loosing an attack when there is no attack to loose. Two-weapon fighting grants a character an extra attack. That's it. Your assertion is just plain false.

You also keep bringing up the "unwritten rules" as if their existence is wrong in some way. Why in the world would they need to give us all the explanations behind their decision process? So what that paizo has unpublished guidelines that they use to balance the game? You can bet that every publisher that creates a game with any modicum of complexity uses some sort of guidelines when balancing gameplay.

[blackbloodtroll]

Before, there was no indication that two-weapon fighting, and two handed weapons, were completely exclusive to each other.

This is because there are no rules written to make them so.

They had to reference unwritten rules to make them exclusive.

Players and DMs have no way to go over these unwritten rules.

If the off-hand attack is not used up, then how does it become unavailable?

Should I check the unwritten rules to come up with an answer?

[RedDogMT]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Before, there was no indication that two-weapon fighting, and two handed weapons, were completely exclusive to each other.

You are right...and that is the reason why the FAQ entry was added and why they explained their decision. It was not their intention to allow a two-handed weapon to be used with two-weapon fighting.

blackbloodtroll wrote:

This is because there are no rules written to make them so.

They had to reference unwritten rules to make them exclusive.

Players and DMs have no way to go over these unwritten rules.

So what? Paizo is under no obligation to provide their customers with the explanation as to how the arrived at their current rule set. If they choose to give some visibility for the process, then I applaud them for sharing an aspect of the game that we normally do not see...but there is no reason that you as a customer should be ENTITLED to that information.

Paizo provided a product. You bought the product. That's it. It is great that Paizo also puts forth a great deal of effort in continued support of their product, but that is their choice.

blackbloodtroll wrote:

If the off-hand attack is not used up, then how does it become unavailable?

Why does it require an explanation? Paizo team members stated it is unavailable. It is unavailable.

Why can't I perform a standard attack and a double movement in the same round? Because you only get one standard action and one move action in a round. But Why? Because that's the rule. But why?

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Should I check the unwritten rules to come up with an answer?

I assume you are referring to the 'unwritten rules' in your imagination since you are not entitled to paizo's 'unwritten rules'.

We can go back and forth like this all day and night. There is no way I could possibly keep up with your constant posting. There is also no way I can convince you of anything if you aren't open to a different point of view...and I don't sense that you are. So, I will bid you good night.

[blackbloodtroll]

So, I don't deserve explanation, and in fact, am not entitled to it?

I have no right to question how any rule works?

This is your stance?

[Malachi Silverclaw]

RedDogMT wrote:

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Much as some might like to believe that this FAQ altered not much besides armour spikes, what it has actually done is change how attacks work in the game!

Previously, a two-handed weapon required two hands. Now, it requires two attacks!

No it doesn't. Nowhere did paizo say that fighting two-handed requires two attacks.

You haven't been paying attention!

On Wednesday, Jason Buhlman wrote:

So.. as things currently stand. When you attack with a THW, you "consume" a primary and off hand attack for each attack you make. You can "consume" more off hand attacks than you are normally entitled too when attacking in this way, but if you swap to do some TWF in the same round, those off hand attacks are gone and cannot be used.

[blackbloodtroll]

Now, the Monk can attack with a Quarterstaff, and an Unarmed Strike, in the same round, at first level.

Before this FAQ, a Fighter, could attack with the same two weapons, in the same round, at first level.

Now, he can't.

[james maissen]

RedDogMT wrote:

I have never felt that armor spikes made much sense except for doing additional damage while grappling. I also do not think they should threaten unless the character has Improved Unarmed Strike.

I can understand this.. armor spikes (and a few other weapons like the spiked chain) were always strange things.

If that is the real root cause of things, then they should be what is changed (either remove them entirely or have them merely be extra grapple damage, etc) rather than a fundamental change in wielding weapons.

As to the other

RedDogMT wrote:

From a balance perspective, it is reasonable. Two-handed fighting already gets enough of a boost from strength x1.5 and power attack.

from merely a balance perspective, using a two-handed weapon and armor spikes is not out of whack.

Neither are feats like double slice that allows for 2x str in total between two weapons. The DEX requirement, cumulative feat cost, and the penalty to hit more than balance it out.

People have run numbers on this for over a decade to dispel this myth. And I don't believe that this ruling was made from a balance perspective, but rather from a design one. With that in mind, they are going to need to really design their new vision to make it at the quality that we have come to associate with Paizo.

-James

[Weslocke]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Before, there was no indication that two-weapon fighting, and two handed weapons, were completely exclusive to each other.

This is because there are no rules written to make them so.

They had to reference unwritten rules to make them exclusive.

Players and DMs have no way to go over these unwritten rules.

If the off-hand attack is not used up, then how does it become unavailable?

Should I check the unwritten rules to come up with an answer?

And yet, by reading the very same rules in the very same books at least half of the community (if not more) understood the developers intent and ran the rules as they were intended.

[Nicos]

Weslocke wrote:

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Before, there was no indication that two-weapon fighting, and two handed weapons, were completely exclusive to each other.

This is because there are no rules written to make them so.

They had to reference unwritten rules to make them exclusive.

Players and DMs have no way to go over these unwritten rules.

If the off-hand attack is not used up, then how does it become unavailable?

Should I check the unwritten rules to come up with an answer?

And yet, by reading the very same rules in the very same books at least half of the community (if not more) understood the developers intent and ran the rules as they were intended.

At least half of the community (if not nmore) did see any rule like that, because it was not in the book, at least not in a clear way.

I mean, how many pages are from TWF rom the buckler section?

[Exhaltia]

Jarleth wrote:

"Armor spikes deal extra piercing damage (see “spiked armor” on Table: Weapons) on a successful grapple attack."

Armor spikes are not weapons in the traditional sense that a sword or battle axe or spiked gauntlets are. You can not make an attack with your armor spikes outside of a grapple. You can't strike with your two-handed weapon and make a grapple combat maneuver in the same round. I am not sure you should be able to do a two weapon attack and a 2hd attacks in the same round.
Using descriptions in novels to justify making punches and two-handed weapon swings is also not useful since novels don't have to follow the round by round combat rules we follow at the game table. Wulfgar may have punched one round and swung his hammer in the next or used an extra attacks for a high BAB or because the novel was written in 2nd edition days some other rational or maybe just artistic license. We don't have any real basis for deciding what the author intended except maybe to ask the author.

You're wrong on everything you said, straight RAW. You can use those outside of a grapple, as someone already pointed out. Additionally you can THW and grapple in the same round as an iterative attack (you can perform as many special actions as you want provided you have the iterative attacks to do so.)

[Exhaltia]

RedDogMT wrote:

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Before, there was no indication that two-weapon fighting, and two handed weapons, were completely exclusive to each other.

You are right...and that is the reason why the FAQ entry was added and why they explained their decision. It was not their intention to allow a two-handed weapon to be used with two-weapon fighting.

blackbloodtroll wrote:

This is because there are no rules written to make them so.

They had to reference unwritten rules to make them exclusive.

Players and DMs have no way to go over these unwritten rules.

So what? Paizo is under no obligation to provide their customers with the explanation as to how the arrived at their current rule set. If they choose to give some visibility for the process, then I applaud them for sharing an aspect of the game that we normally do not see...but there is no reason that you as a customer should be ENTITLED to that information.

Paizo provided a product. You bought the product. That's it. It is great that Paizo also puts forth a great deal of effort in continued support of their product, but that is their choice.

blackbloodtroll wrote:

If the off-hand attack is not used up, then how does it become unavailable?

Why does it require an explanation? Paizo team members stated it is unavailable. It is unavailable.

Why can't I perform a standard attack and a double movement in the same round? Because you only get one standard action and one move action in a round. But Why? Because that's the rule. But why?

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Should I check the unwritten rules to come up with an answer?

I assume you are referring to the 'unwritten rules' in your imagination since you are not entitled to paizo's 'unwritten rules'.

We can go back and forth like this all day and night. There is no way I could possibly keep up with your constant posting. There is also no way I can convince you of anything if you aren't open to a different point of view...and I don't sense that you are. So, I...

You're actually quite funny. Let's stop pretending Paizo even thought up these rules. WotC made all of these rules that we are talking about.

Still, I agree with the no "Off-hand attack" when wielding a 2HW.

I disagree that you can't threaten with an equipped weapon, i.e. boot blade, armor spikes, ect. just because you're wielding a THW.

Edit - though I don't agree with them the RAW is confusing, and the people who wrote them actually said in a FAQ the RAI was to allow THTWF with them. Just saying.

[Nicos]

Exhaltia wrote:

You're wrong on everything you said, straight RAW. You can use those outside of a grapple, as someone already pointed out. Additionally you can THW and grapple in the same round as an iterative attack (you can perform as many special actions as you want provided you have the iterative attacks to do so.)

You can not THF and grapple in the same round, grapple is a sntandard action.

[Exhaltia]

Nicos wrote:

Exhaltia wrote:

You're wrong on everything you said, straight RAW. You can use those outside of a grapple, as someone already pointed out. Additionally you can THW and grapple in the same round as an iterative attack (you can perform as many special actions as you want provided you have the iterative attacks to do so.)

You can not THF and grapple in the same round, grapple is a sntandard action.

Uh... you're right, it changed from 3.5 to Pathfinder. My bad. I go back and forth too much I guess.

[Nicos]

However, you can attack with a greatsword, start a grapple with hamatua strike and then at the end add your armor spikes damge, wich is very nice.

[Exhaltia]

I personally think the real trouble (and the source of all the push back) is that TWF got really underpowered at some point, and gimping it with this decision (keep in mind I still agree that it was a problem) left those that was almost keeping up with THF feeling abandoned. There needs to be something to bring TWF up to par, or at least close to it, as the 8ish DPR difference is a little disheartening.

[Drachasor]

Crash_00 wrote:

A) No, Nico, I argued for the same ruling the devs handed down before they made the FAQ for the same reason that Jason gave. Because its how the rules read if you really pay attention to them. I also told the "shield loss" crowd that they were wrong for the same reason that Jason told them they were wrong, because its the rules.

So, yes, yes I know that the devs intend to rule in favor of the rules even if those rules are unclear to some.

As for the unwritten nature of the wielding rules, they are on pg. 141.

Actually, you told me that you couldn't use a Buckler and TWF even if the off-hand weapon wasn't wielded on the shield arm. We went back and forth on it quite a bit and you were very insistent.

So let's not pretend anyone actually already knew what the rules said before the Devs clarified it. As best I can tell, everyone in the thread was wrong somewhere.

[Crash_00]

Who said that you can? They stated that you can hold a shield in your hand and attack with a longsword and armor spikes and not lose the shield bonus. That clearly does not apply to the buckler, because it isn't held in your hand.

What do the rules say Drachasor?
"In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you lose the buckler’s AC bonus until your next turn."

What is considered using a weapon in the off hand Drachasor?

Two handed fighting is according to CRB pg. 141 (and the FAQ now as well).
Two weapon fighting is (an off hand attack uses the off hand also clarified by the FAQ).

If you two weapon fight with a longsword and armor spikes, did you use a weapon in your off hand? Keep in mind off hand is not a physical hand.

In addition, the examples given of using the shield arm to wield a weapon are using an off hand weapon and using the off hand on a two handed weapon. This is not to keep the AC, but to impose the -1 on attack rolls. If you fight with a Longsword and armor spikes have you not used an off hand weapon. If off hand is not a physical hand, then there is no reason that using your shield arm has to involve the actual use of your arm.

Mechanical terms are mechanical in nature, it's a rough part of system design.

[Drachasor]

Ahh, I understand. You're still reading the buckler rules wrong by taking statements out of context and giving them limitations other shields don't have and that don't make sense.

No biggie, but I do not wish to argue it further.

[Crash_00]

Correction, I'm reading the buckler rules correctly. You're biasing them with what you believe the intent to be. It's a common mistake.

Buckler's do have limitations the other shields do not have.

Read the Light Shield description. Now read the Heavy Shield description. Now read the buckler description. Look for the word off hand and where it is used. Normal shield's only lose the AC bonus when you attack with them as an off hand weapon. There are no other mentions to off hand in their descriptions.

Bucklers come with a whole lot more mess. If off hand does not refer to a physical hand, which we have confirmation that it doesn't, then it does not matter whether the weapon is wielded in your physical hand, on your shoulder, or on your foot. All of them are considered using a weapon in the off hand.

"In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you lose the buckler’s AC bonus until your next turn."

There is no context or wiggle room to this statement. In any case is a very broad term. Boot blade in the off hand? Yep that's case. Shoulder spike? Yep that's one too. Buckler gun? Always, even if you're not two weapon fighting.

I've noticed that you failed to address a single point again though. I'll take that to mean you'd rather just stick with what you think the RAI is instead of the RAW.

[HangarFlying]

Nicos wrote:

Weslocke wrote:

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Before, there was no indication that two-weapon fighting, and two handed weapons, were completely exclusive to each other.

This is because there are no rules written to make them so.

They had to reference unwritten rules to make them exclusive.

Players and DMs have no way to go over these unwritten rules.

If the off-hand attack is not used up, then how does it become unavailable?

Should I check the unwritten rules to come up with an answer?

And yet, by reading the very same rules in the very same books at least half of the community (if not more) understood the developers intent and ran the rules as they were intended.

At least half of the community (if not nmore) did see any rule like that, because it was not in the book, at least not in a clear way.

I mean, how many pages are from TWF rom the buckler section?

And the Devs posted an FAQ to tell us which interpretation is the official one.

[Nicos]

HangarFlying wrote:

Nicos wrote:

Weslocke wrote:

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Before, there was no indication that two-weapon fighting, and two handed weapons, were completely exclusive to each other.

This is because there are no rules written to make them so.

They had to reference unwritten rules to make them exclusive.

Players and DMs have no way to go over these unwritten rules.

If the off-hand attack is not used up, then how does it become unavailable?

Should I check the unwritten rules to come up with an answer?

And yet, by reading the very same rules in the very same books at least half of the community (if not more) understood the developers intent and ran the rules as they were intended.

At least half of the community (if not nmore) did see any rule like that, because it was not in the book, at least not in a clear way.

I mean, how many pages are from TWF rom the buckler section?

And the Devs posted an FAQ to tell us which interpretation is the official one.

Wich is fine, The intention is clear Afther the FAQ not before.

[mdt]

RedDogMT wrote:

but there is no reason that you as a customer should be ENTITLED to that information.

BULLS**T.

I am paying them for a product. That product is an RPG rule set. I am forking over my hard earned money. I am absolutely entitled to what I am paying for. I am paying for a rules set, not some of the rules, the rules. Period. End. Full Stop.

Companies that don't give you what you are paying for go out of business really quickly.

Note, I'm not saying 'everyone stop buying from Paizo' with this statement. I am making a statement of fact about the marketplace. Just look at Windows Vista sales. If you don't give your customers what they want, you end up in trouble.

So far, things have been good with Paizo. I don't always agree with their FAQs, but until this one, I could look at the rules, and see what they meant after the FAQ. Then I can either go with it or house rule it.

I could absolutely honestly care less about armor spikes. I've been running games for 20 years, and the only thing spikes have ever been used for in my games was polearm fighters wanting to be able to threaten when someone got inside their reach. Nobody has ever TWF/THF in my games. Nor have I used it on an NPC.

The unwritten rule thing bothers me a lot, because I'm paying for rules, not guidelines. If I want guidelines, I'll watch Pirates of the Carribean. And you can stop saying 'it was in the rules'. It wasn't, and SKR confirmed it wasn't. It might have been implied, if you squinted really hard and had a few drinks before you read the rules, but implication with a mental contortion is not 'in the rules'.

So, I can live with this one bad call, but I'm not liking it. Again though, this is not 'armor spike ruling is bad'. I'm talking about how it was handled. If they'd just said 'it was not our intent to allow this, and we'll make an errata change to make that clear in RAW' then I'd have been 100% fine with this ruling. Again, I don't give a @*#&* about armor spikes. I do care about the rules in the book vs the rules in the dev's head. I have the former sitting on my shelf, I can't have the latter sitting on my shelf without committing several felonies.

[Malachi Silverclaw]

Crash_00 wrote:

Correction, I'm reading the buckler rules correctly. You're biasing them with what you believe the intent to be. It's a common mistake.

Buckler's do have limitations the other shields do not have.

Read the Light Shield description. Now read the Heavy Shield description. Now read the buckler description. Look for the word off hand and where it is used. Normal shield's only lose the AC bonus when you attack with them as an off hand weapon. There are no other mentions to off hand in their descriptions.

Bucklers come with a whole lot more mess. If off hand does not refer to a physical hand, which we have confirmation that it doesn't, then it does not matter whether the weapon is wielded in your physical hand, on your shoulder, or on your foot. All of them are considered using a weapon in the off hand.

"In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you lose the buckler’s AC bonus until your next turn."

There is no context or wiggle room to this statement. In any case is a very broad term. Boot blade in the off hand? Yep that's case. Shoulder spike? Yep that's one too. Buckler gun? Always, even if you're not two weapon fighting.

I've noticed that you failed to address a single point again though. I'll take that to mean you'd rather just stick with what you think the RAI is instead of the RAW.

Let me see if I understand you correctly....

If you have your buckler strapped to your left arm, and TWF with sword and kick....

Are you saying that this kick makes you lose your buckler's bonus to your AC?

[Crash_00]

With a buckler yes, with a normal shield no.

It hinges on the statement:
"In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you lose the buckler’s AC bonus until your next turn."

It is very clear on this. If you use a weapon in the "off hand", you lose the bonus.

It's not the intent, but it is the RAW.

[Drachasor]

Just to point out what I said in the other thread, Crash is taking the "In any case..." line out of context. The whole section is written from the assumption your shield-arm is used as the off-hand, and the "in any case" is to make sure you don't think the penalty just applies to TWF (it also applies to two-handed fighting). That's because the previous line was just about TWF.

Here's the whole text.

Quote:

Benefit: 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. In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you lose the buckler's Armor Class bonus until your next turn. You can cast a spell with somatic components using your shield arm, but you lose the buckler's Armor Class bonus until your next turn. You can't make a shield bash with a buckler.

Bolded the bit at the beginning, since that provides the context for the whole paragraph.

[Crash_00]

Uhm...No. Your "shield arm" is not used as an "off hand." The case you are thinking of would be the hand of your "shield arm" being used as the "off hand," but "off hand" does not refer to a physical hand. It can use a physical hand, but it isn't a physical hand.

It may or may not be the intent for it to only trigger on the use of a weapon with the shield arm, but as I've stated already, it is not written that way.

In any case is to make it clear that it happens In any case. It's synonymous with in any event or no matter what.

Two things would have to happen for your reading to be RAW. First, the examples would have to tag a "in your shield arm" after the "using a off hand weapon" example for using your shield arm. Without that, any use of an off-hand weapon triggers the condition for penalty. Second, the line that uses that phrase would have to read "In any case, if you use a weapon with your shield arm,..."

Without those, any use of an off hand weapon triggers both. There is no physical off hand anymore and your reading requires there to still be one.

[Drachasor]

Again, you are ripping that line out of the context of the paragraph. Within context it does not say what you say it does.

This sort of thing is common when you grab lines or quote people and remove context. Suddenly what is being said is completely different! Context matters.

[Crash_00]

Do you lose the bonus when you use a bow? A bow is not a two handed weapon (it's a Ranged Weapon that requires two hands to use). It doesn't take the penalty specifically (stated in the portion of the text that you didn't quote).

The fact is that what you are quoting is in the middle of the paragraph. In any case starts a new train of thought. It is no longer pertaining just to the two weapon fighting aspect of the buckler. It is not longer pertaining to just the use of the shield arm to wield a weapon. It is pertaining to exactly what it says, In any case.

These are general rules of the English language, and a basic part of the editing process. It has nothing to do with what I want the paragraph to say or what the designer intended for the paragraph to say (which is different than what it says now since in 3.0 the off hand was a physical hand tied to the shield's arm). This is what happens when you change what terms mean and the don't update the text that refers to those terms.

There is no ripping of context.

The line you are relying on simply does not say what your are trying to accuse it of saying:
"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."

Break down the first part first.

You can also use your shield arm to wield a weapon
-Simple so far, an allowance. What does it mean to use the shield arm to wield a weapon?

Example 1:
whether you are using an off-hand weapon
-example 1 is using an off-hand weapon. It does not specify anything further than using an off-hand weapon. There is no clause that it only counts as "using the shield arm to wield a weapon" if it's in the hand associated with the "shield arm." Just using an off-hand weapon in general counts as using the shield arm to wield a weapon.

Example 2: or (you are) using your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon.
-example two is using your off hand on a two-handed weapon (they require both hands). Again, it doesn't matter if your hands are actually on the weapon so long as your "off hand" is being used on it.

but you take a -1 penalty on attack rolls while doing so
-the penalty for using the allowance.

Again, there is no reference to physical hands needing to be used to cause this effect to trigger. Just the "off hand." This is literally the same issue that people were having with THF and armor spikes. Off Hand is not a physical hand. Things that rely on it have no association with your actual hand. The context is that using a weapon in your off hand counts as using the shield arm to wield a weapon whether that weapon is actually in your shield arm's hand or not.

Just like using your "off hand" to wield a weapon counts as your "off hand attack" whether the weapon is in your actual hand or not.

[blackbloodtroll]

"Shield arm" is just whatever arm you have your shield on.

You don't lose a Buckler's shield bonus, just because you kicked twice.

[Crash_00]

If they are iterative attacks then you are right Blackblood, if one of them is wielded in the "off hand" (for two weapon fighting) then you are wrong.

The wording in this case is extremely clear:
"In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you lose the buckler’s AC bonus until your next turn."

The issue tripping you up, I believe, is the logical question of why kicking twice (assuming two weapon fighting) causes you to lose the shield bonus (since the rules given are mechanical in nature as opposed to logical). The rules don't tell us that. Likely because it isn't the intent. They just tell us that you do lose the bonus.

[Drachasor]

Crash_00 wrote:

Do you lose the bonus when you use a bow? A bow is not a two handed weapon (it's a Ranged Weapon that requires two hands to use). It doesn't take the penalty specifically (stated in the portion of the text that you didn't quote).

The PFSRD puts that text above the other text, for some reason.

Crash_00 wrote:

The fact is that what you are quoting is in the middle of the paragraph. In any case starts a new train of thought. It is no longer pertaining just to the two weapon fighting aspect of the buckler. It is not longer pertaining to just the use of the shield arm to wield a weapon. It is pertaining to exactly what it says, In any case.

The meaning is not changed when you toss the rest in:

Quote:

This small metal shield is worn strapped to your forearm. You can use a bow or crossbow without penalty while carrying it. 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. In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you lose the buckler's AC bonus until your next turn. You can cast a spell with somatic components using your shield arm, but you lose the buckler's AC bonus until your next turn. You can't make a shield bash with a buckler.

Crash_00 wrote:

These are general rules of the English language, and a basic part of the editing process. It has nothing to do with what I want the paragraph to say or what the designer intended for the paragraph to say (which is different than what it says now since in 3.0 the off hand was a physical hand tied to the shield's arm). This is what happens when you change what terms mean and the don't update the text that refers to those terms.

Clearly you've become invested in your interpretation, so this does have something to do with that.

Crash_00 wrote:

These are general rules of the English language, and There is no ripping of context.

Yes there is, because that's exactly what you are doing. When you take something like "in any case...." and use it by itself, you are INHERENTLY ripping it out of context. "In any case" is an idiom that inherently is referring to something else previously said. You have to look at what has been said to make sense of it.

And then you continue to ignore the context of using a weapon in your shield arm when it gives examples of ways to do this. When it speaks of off-hand weapons and two-handed weapons, it is talking about them in the context of the shield arm being used with them and in that context only. That's why there are parentheses. You ignore this when you make your case.

But yeah, if you ignore what idioms like "in any case" and parenthetical comments mean, you have a great point.

Obviously it could be written clearer, but it is quite a bit clearer than the handedness stuff in general is.

[Malachi Silverclaw]

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Let me see if I understand you correctly....

If you have your buckler strapped to your left arm, and TWF with sword and kick....

Are you saying that this kick makes you lose your buckler's bonus to your AC?

Crash_00 wrote:

With a buckler yes, with a normal shield no.

It hinges on the statement:
"In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you lose the buckler’s AC bonus until your next turn."

It is very clear on this. If you use a weapon in the "off hand", you lose the bonus.

It's not the intent, but it is the RAW.

Do you see what you've done, PDT? Do you see what you've done?

Your FAQ has turned a system that made sense into one where people believe that you lose your buckler's bonus to AC when you kick!

Ignoring history leads to folly. In 3.0 everyone had a dominant hand and an 'off' hand, and every single thing you did with that 'off' hand took a -4 penalty, whether in TWF, iterative attacks, your only attack, skill checks, ability checks, the lot. The buckler description was written with these rules, and crucially has not changed even when the rules governing what was meant by 'off' hand changed!

This 'handedness' was deliberately excised from the rules when they evolved into 3.5. They took the deliberate decision to remove any meaning for 'off' hand, with the single exception of TWF, where it was retained when referring to the extra attack gained from TWF, whether or not that extra attack actually required a hand. Any remaining reference to 'off' hand was to be understood in that context. The very definitions of 'light/one-handed/two-handed weapons only mention 'off' hand so to clarify what happens with these weapons when TWFing.

Pathfinder transferred these 3.5 rules intact, with no change whatsoever, and no reason for any player to imagine that these particular rules worked any differently in PF than they did in 3.5.

But there is one survivor, one fossil remaining from a decade ago and those 3.0 rules: the description of the buckler was unchanged.

Claiming that this fossil holds the 'true' rules for TWF is as absurd as finding a fossil dinosaur and using that to 'prove' that dinosaurs still rule the Earth and any mammals you see are a figment of your imagination!

3.5 amputated a general 'off' hand like a gangrenous limb, and the unchanged buckler description is merely a surviving gangrenous toe from that diseased limb. What you're doing is making rules, not from the healthy body, but by re-growing a gangrenous body from that gangrenous toe.

Going by the current fashion, I suppose that this post also consumes my next post in the other thread. Serves me right for Two-Thread Fighting.

[blackbloodtroll]

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Going by the current fashion, I suppose that this post also consumes my next post in the other thread. Serves me right for Two-Thread Fighting.

This made my day.

Totally worth the coffee spewed on my screen.

[Slamy Mcbiteo]

lol wow this thread is still going? Amazing.....

[Ilja]

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Going by the current fashion, I suppose that this post also consumes my next post in the other thread. Serves me right for Two-Thread Fighting.

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to be fantastically funny about it.

[Xaratherus]

Slamy Mcbiteo wrote:

lol wow this thread is still going? Amazing.....

Not just this thread, but the other one as well. I haven't seen this much pointless rehashing of arguments since before I stopped visiting the WoW forums.

Seriously, why aren't these locked yet?

[mdt]

Xaratherus wrote:

Slamy Mcbiteo wrote:

lol wow this thread is still going? Amazing.....

Not just this thread, but the other one as well. I haven't seen this much pointless rehashing of arguments since before I stopped visiting the WoW forums.

Seriously, why aren't these locked yet?

You obviously don't read the boards often then. :)

The monk flurry thread was up to what, 1500 posts before they locked it. Locking it didn't do any good, it's like a hydra. 5 other threads spawned.

As long as people aren't slinging personal insults anymore (thanks Jason B, by the way, for calming things down and pointedly telling some people to quit it), they'll let it go on for 3000 posts. The only time a thread get's locked is if there's a lot of insults and hostility.

[Ilja]

Yeah and not like one of those nice hydras either, it's fire hydras, flaming all the way.

[blackbloodtroll]

Flaming, like fabulous?