Flamibulous, something that can only be seen on internet.
No fabulous are the paladin alignment thread celestial hydras.
blackbloodtroll wrote: Flaming, like fabulous? Flaming like Liberace?
Drachasor wrote: 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
... So just to be clear, you aren't going to answer the question I asked you, again? Do you lose the bonus due to using a bow?
You seem to be mistakenly linking the use of In any case with the words in either case. In any case has nothing to do with the examples. It only has to do with what comes after it, the case it is referring to. In this case, that case would be using a weapon in the off hand. Every single case of wielding a weapon in the off hand (including the two presented, but not excluded to them) triggers this clause. Otherwise it would use a less inclusive clause such as in either case, in both cases, in those two cases, etc.
In any case is a very definite term. I don't see how it can be mistaken. Maybe try breaking it down a little, look at its synonyms and definitions. It's quite literally saying anytime you use a weapon in the off hand. It quite obviously does not mean "in the two cases we've presented before" because those aren't any case, they are two cases.
The only way that it could only refer to the two examples given would be if those are the only two ways to use a weapon in the off hand (which they are not).
I believe that if a dev were to chime in on this buckler thing, he would point out that this wording is a carryover from older editions.
I do believe that, in this one instance, the rules referring to "off hand" are quite literally referring to the actual hand rather than the more "generic" off-hand attack. The AC bonus is lost anytime that "off" hand is used (by wielding a weapon in that hand or by wielding a 2HW), not by making an "off-hand" attack with a non-hand weapon.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
The rules arguing on a buckler is silly, the way you're ruling, i.e. RAW, was meant to make the buckler the most versatile shield not least. Any decent DM would say that restriction doesn't actually apply in this case. If you're the DM in your game make the rule, but I feel sorry for the players having to deal with that non-sense.
Seriously, I'm pretty sure I already said that it wasn't the intent of the design, but it is RAW.
Hangar, I'm absolutely positive that it is a holdover as well, but that doesn't actually change anything. It's still printed in the rules, and it has to live with the definitions in the rules. In Pathfinder, "off hand" is a very specific term. It needs to be fixed assuredly, but that does not change what it says currently.
Exhaltia wrote: The rules arguing on a buckler is silly, the way you're ruling, i.e. RAW, was meant to make the buckler the most versatile shield not least. Any decent DM would say that restriction doesn't actually apply in this case. If you're the DM in your game make the rule, but I feel sorry for the players having to deal with that non-sense. Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but the buckler IS supposed to be the most versatile shield. It's the only one you can use while wielding a weapon in the same 'hand'. None of the other shields give you that versatility.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote: 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... Really? Wow. If this FAQ (which we asked for) which covers such an insignificant portion of Pathfinder is "folly" then i guess i wonder what would really tick some people off. Is this a real issue to you Or are you just trolling? I really haven't seen anything that the Devs have clarified that makes me think that the game is somehow more broken today than it was yesterday. You know why? Because I can house rule anything I want. Some people are so worried about "secret rules" (which don't exist and are just a method of ginning up anger) that they forget a written rule, that has been in every edition of the game: change what you don't like. The argument about this rule is understandable. The nastiness is not.
So, let's stop for a moment, and think about how this effects creature with more than two hands.
Is the Marilith, or any other multiarmed creature unable to make any other attacks after a single two handed weapon attack?
If not, why?
Would this be different prior to the recent FAQ?
Crash_00 wrote: So just to be clear, you aren't going to answer the question I asked you, again? Do you lose the bonus due to using a bow?
You seem to be mistakenly linking the use of In any case with the words in either case. In any case has nothing to do with the examples. It only has to do with what comes after it, the case it is referring to. In this case, that case would be using a weapon in the off hand. Every single case of wielding a weapon in the off hand (including the two presented, but not excluded to them) triggers this clause. Otherwise it would use a less inclusive clause such as in either case, in both cases, in those two cases, etc.
In any case is a very definite term. I don't see how it can be mistaken. Maybe try breaking it down a little, look at its synonyms and definitions. It's quite literally saying anytime you use a weapon in the off hand. It quite obviously does not mean "in the two cases we've presented before" because those aren't any case, they are two cases.
The only way that it could only refer to the two examples given would be if those are the only two ways to use a weapon in the off hand (which they are not).
By RAW, you do lose the AC bonus when using a bow, assuming you are using the bow with the shield arm.
"In any case" inherently refers to the previous cases that have been discussed. It doesn't always refer to just those cases, but it can. So there's a very reasonable interpretation of the text given that it is focused talking about using the shield arm to do something else with it. Or there's your unreasonable interpretation, which says the equivalent of not being able to walk and chew gum at the same time.
The context of the paragraph, that you are actively using the shield arm for something else, is extremely clear. You are ripping the context out of the sentences when you ignore this.
For instance, consider the following paragraph:
"We ventured into the dungeons, and I carried a torch within my left hand. We were beset by spiders, which we slew with fire and steel. Goblins assaulted us and were brought low. We almost died several times. In any case, I never let the torch leave my hand."
This does not mean that 4 days previously he had a torch in his hand while he bathed. It does not mean that 5 days hence, long after leaving the dungeon, he kept the torch in his hand. The context limits what "in any case" applies to. By ignoring that you misinterpret the sentence. Naturally you reach an absurd conclusion by doing this.
It can be used to mean "whatever happens", or "in in any event." Either meaning works with the text in the core rulebook.
In your sample, it does actually mean exactly what you say it does not mean, but that's the way we talk. Incorrectly. It is implied that there is an in the dungeon, that day, etc. clause that is left unstated after the statement. We understand it to mean different than what it literally says.
Rules are literal. They are meant to be read literally. There is supposed to be no room for error in interpretation.
Replace the sentence with it's synonyms and it still reads the way I've stated.
In any event, if you use a weapon in your off hand
Whatever happens, if you use a weapon in your off hand
All the synonyms are definite clauses. It doesn't matter how you do it, using a weapon in the off hand triggers the condition.
As for context, the paragraph does not have the shield arm as its context. It has the buckler as its context. One sentence is focused on the shield arm and using it to wield a weapon. The examples given of using the shield arm are not reserved to solely to the use of the hand attached to the arm. They, instead, refer to using the off hand which is not the physical hand attached to the arm. Nothing makes it that physical hand (since 3.0). With no connection, how is that physical hand part of the context? It is a sentence devoted to explaining what to using the shield arm means, and physical hands are never mentioned, just the off hand.
How is this any harder to grasp than the fact that the off hand is not actually a hand and using a hand is independent of using the off hand?
So RAW indicates having the buckler on your primary hand allows you to attack with your primary hand and keep the buckler's AC bonus as long as you don't attack with your off-hand. Seems silly to me.
Horselord wrote: So RAW indicates having the buckler on your primary hand allows you to attack with your primary hand and keep the buckler's AC bonus as long as you don't attack with your off-hand. Seems silly to me. That is the logical consequence of Crash's assertion.
If the devs agree that the 'off hand' mentioned in the buckler description refers to the extra attack granted from TWF instead of referring to the arm it's strapped to, then the upshot is that if you wear it on your weapon arm when not TWFing you can keep the AC bonus.
Although I don't think that the devs will agree with him here, they have surprised me before. : )
Crash_00 wrote: It can be used to mean "whatever happens", or "in in any event." Either meaning works with the text in the core rulebook.
In your sample, it does actually mean exactly what you say it does not mean, but that's the way we talk. Incorrectly. It is implied that there is an in the dungeon, that day, etc. clause that is left unstated after the statement. We understand it to mean different than what it literally says.
Rules are literal. They are meant to be read literally. There is supposed to be no room for error in interpretation.
Yes, let's ignore how idioms work and the English language in general. That way we get something that doesn't make any sense. As everyone knows, if there's an interpretation that makes no sense, THAT'S the one you must use.
Certainly one should never take into account how we actually employ language. Likewise, all sentences in the book can be completely removed from their context, and whatever you get when you remove a sentence from its context is what the rule says. Because that's exactly how the intended the rules to read.
Oh wait, that's just how you go about completely misreading the rules.
Locking thread. Please keep personal sniping out of the discussion.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
