Search Mark Moreland's posts for 'weild'. The answer is there.
I agree.
"No." is a bit brief for an official FAQ. Most have a short explanation as to WHY something does or doesn't work.
What FAQ is that?
http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qv3
Seems as if it was updated just a few minutes ago though, it's been expanded since I saw it then.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The gauntlet ruling makes sense. The Spiked armor ruling is nonsense.
I think all this stuff is somewhat sad, but hay you got a funny to roleplay PC out of it.
Whaaaaa. Whaaaa. Whaaaa. Whaaaa. Whaaaa. Whaaa.
That's all I'm hearing in this thread.
Really?
Because the only whaaa-ing I see is in your post.
Or is this another scenario where I should just grab the torches and acid flasks? I have such a hard time telling the difference between trolls and posters that are simply too lazy or stupid to read and comprehend the meaning of posts people write.
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.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Especially since there isn't even a thematic justification either.
I could understand if it was something really stupid like trying to use Spiked Gauntlets while wearing a Cestus on the same hand or summat, but there's some thematic precedent for wielding 2H weapons and also punching as part of the same "attack action".
Most prominently in my eyes being Siegfried and Nightmare (especially) in the Soul Calibur series of fighting games (One of Nightmare's main combo lead-ins involves a swift gauntleted punch followed by a quick follow-up 2H slash on the disoriented target) and Wulfgar of the Forgotten realms novels, who frequently punched enemies while wielding his hammer, un-gripping to do so and quickly re-gripping his hammer afterward (which has rules precedent since it's a free action to do this).
And these are just examples off the top of my head, I'm sure there are more in fiction.
So there's no reason balance-wise, and no reason thematically, so why is it not allowed?
I personnaly would allow it provided the character takes exotic weapon profiency in armor spikes or preferably improved unarmed fighting (logic behind this is that you learn ways to fight with your entire body, think the french savate with cane). 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.
So there's no reason balance-wise, and no reason thematically, so why is it not allowed?
Probably because it sounds more powerful than it actually is. Until you do the math and realizes it's no more effective than TWFing with 2 shortswords... And still less powerful than simply wielding a 2-handed weapon, investing all those 2~4 feats in something else and not having to worry about having an absurdly Dex score.
My guess is one of the devs read the 2-Handed + Armor Spikes combo and thought "TWF with a 2-Handed weapon?! That's OP!" and decided to ban it without taking the time to see if that was really the case.
This ruling adds a pointless restriction to players everywhere and a unnecessary nerf to martial classes.
I'm really disappointed.
Most prominently in my eyes being Siegfried and Nightmare (especially) in the Soul Calibur series of fighting games (One of Nightmare's main combo lead-ins involves a swift gauntleted punch followed by a quick follow-up 2H slash on the disoriented target) and Wulfgar of the Forgotten realms novels, who frequently punched enemies while wielding his hammer, un-gripping to do so and quickly re-gripping his hammer afterward (which has rules precedent since it's a free action to do this).
Where in the game/book did it spell out those were two weapon extra attacks and not extra attacks from a high BAB?
Where in the game/book did it spell out that they weren't?
That's kind of a silly question Durngrun.
|
Whaaaaa. Whaaaa. Whaaaa. Whaaaa. Whaaaa. Whaaa.
That's all I'm hearing in this thread.
Really?
Because the only whaaa-ing I see is in your post.
Or is this another scenario where I should just grab the torches and acid flasks? I have such a hard time telling the difference between trolls and posters that are simply too lazy or stupid to read and comprehend the meaning of posts people write.
Eh, my post was a little knee-jerk. There have been a number of PDT posts, and the responses to them were froth with nerd-rage, and I was just frustrated.
After looking at the OP again, I do think his questions are sincere. Though, I honestly do believe that those questions are due to over-thinking the issue.
Do I need to wield armor spikes in my hand?
No.
If a PC lost a hand, are they also likewise prohibited from TWFing using a one-handed weapon and armor spikes?
The paradigm for a "normal" PC character is two hands. That paradigm doesn't necessarily have to change just because the crocodile bit his hand off. There is no reason to think that a character couldn't TWF as you suggest.
Does this apply to a PC with THREE hands?
The paradigm definitely changes once a creature starts getting more hands. We can use monsters, AP NPCs, as well as the multiweapon attack feat as precedence to help in this case. So a three-handed character (whether by race, mutation, or whatever) is using two hands to wield a greatsword, he still has one hand available to make an off-hand attack. The hand certainly doesn't have to be the limb to make the off-hand attack, but if the hand was otherwise occupied, then no additional off-hand attacks would be available.
Why did this get changed from 3.5? None of the associated printed rules in this area seem to have been changed.. why is the FAQ interpreting things in oppositely?
Nothing to say here other than I did laugh a little bit considering there was another poster that got called out on another thread for inconsistencies on whether or not the 3.5 FAQ was a valid reference source. (Not saying that the OP is being inconsistent).
Does a character that attacks with a two-handed weapon, not threaten squares with armor spikes they are wearing? Can they make iterative attacks with them if they made prior attacks with a two-handed weapon?
Nothing about this FAQ post has anything to do with AoO or iterative attacks. It only deals with TWF while wielding a two-handed weapon.
Does this also apply to monks say wielding a staff and wanting to flurry with that and unarmed strikes?
No, because the monk has the special ability to make unarmed attacks while his hands are otherwise occupied or full. The monk may flurry with any combination of staff and/or unarmed strike (as supported in another FAQ).
Is this limited to armor spikes, or does this apply to all of the weapons that do not require hands to be used?
Based on a post made by SKR, no. Unless the specific weapon specifically allowed it to be used in conjunction with a two-handed weapon (such as the Barbazu Beard).
Just my interpretations based on how I understand the game to be played.
That's kind of a silly question Durngrun.
That was somewhat my point. You provided two examples that have nothing to do with game rules to say what you think the game rules should be.
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?
Funny, because I find the idea of striking with a two handed weapon and with the one of those hands to be ridiculously stupid.
Of course I find the find the idea of armor spikes to be pretty stupid too. The spikes would defeat the purposes of the armor, by weakening it where they are attached, and guiding weapons into those places.
That was somewhat my point. You provided two examples that have nothing to do with game rules to say what you think the game rules should be.That's kind of a silly question Durngrun.
Perhaps you may have noticed, but the word "thematic" appeared multiple times in my post.
As in "From an in-universe perspective, it's not a silly proposition that this fighting style would be possible".
I base myself off the difficulty of fighting using both a two handed weapon (wich requires a lot of swinging and general mobility to keep the opponent in your threat zone) and wanting to mix it with the up close and personal style of hand to hand combat. The logistics of fighting that way are realisticly kindof stupid. Best bet would be some kind of armored monk. Could be an interesting character concept.
Look from the getgo this is a suboptimal built. its bursting with flavor and I like it but, thats the way i woukd rule it.
That was somewhat my point. You provided two examples that have nothing to do with game rules to say what you think the game rules should be.That's kind of a silly question Durngrun.
Perhaps you may have noticed, but the word "thematic" appeared multiple times in my post.
As in "From an in-universe perspective, it's not a silly proposition that this fighting style would be possible".
And you could replicate that style[s], just with different rules.
|
Funny, because I find the idea of striking with a two handed weapon and with the one of those hands to be ridiculously stupid.
Of course I find the find the idea of armor spikes to be pretty stupid too. The spikes would defeat the purposes of the armor, by weakening it where they are attached, and guiding weapons into those places.
What about all the other non-hand weapons?
What about all the other non-hand weapons?Funny, because I find the idea of striking with a two handed weapon and with the one of those hands to be ridiculously stupid.
Of course I find the find the idea of armor spikes to be pretty stupid too. The spikes would defeat the purposes of the armor, by weakening it where they are attached, and guiding weapons into those places.
I wouldn't have a problem with a kick.
A head butt would be tough to pull off because your arms are in front of you.A tailed creature could use it.
Not sure of any other weapons or attacks that would apply, but I would examine them on a case by case basis.
Armor Spikes: You can have spikes added to your armor, which allow you to deal extra piercing damage (see “spiked armor” on Table: Weapons) on a successful grapple attack. The spikes count as a martial weapon. If you are not proficient with them, you take a –4 penalty on grapple checks when you try to use them. You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case. (You can't also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.)
I think a two handed weapon counts as a off-hand and main hand weapon, so the case is clear.
|
|
Does this apply to two handed ranged weapons?
Can one attack with a Longbow, then attack an adjacent opponent with Armor Spikes?
Can you TWF with a Longbow? No. Can you attack with Longbow, then make an iterative attack against an adjacent opponent with Armor Spikes? Yes, and this FAQ has absolutely nothing to do with that fact.
|
@james maissen You can do exactly what you want, but not in the way you are trying to implement it. The issue is not that you have a weapon type which does not require the use of a hand. That fact is unimportant. Light/One-hand/Two-Hand are measures of effort it takes to wield the weapon in combat and are adjusted based on the size of the wielder. This is supported here:
Light, One-Handed, and Two-Handed Melee Weapons:
This designation is a measure of how much effort it takes to wield a weapon in combat. It indicates whether a melee weapon, when wielded by a character of the weapon’s size category, is considered a light weapon, a one-handed weapon, or a two-handed weapon.
Light: A light weapon is used in one hand. It is easier to use in one’s off hand than a one-handed weapon is, and can be used while grappling (see Chapter 8). Add the wielder’s Strength modifier to damage rolls for melee attacks with a light weapon if it’s used in the primary hand, or half the wielder’s Strength bonus if it’s used in the off hand. Using two hands to wield a light weapon gives no advantage on damage; the Strength bonus applies as though the weapon were held in the wielder’s primary hand only. An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon
This means that in order to make an effective attack with your armor spikes you must not be wielding a weapon your size class determines as two-handed. Remember that the two-hand designation changes in respect to your size versus the weapon's size. Armor spikes are special because they are crafted onto your armor and thus will always be considered Light weapons.
Armor Spikes: You can have spikes added to your armor, which allow you to deal extra piercing damage (see “spiked armor” on Table 6–4) on a successful grapple attack. The spikes count as a martial weapon. If you are not proficient with them, you take a –4 penalty on grapple checks when you try to use them. You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count
as a light weapon in this case. (You can’t also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.) An enhancement bonus to a suit of armor does not improve the spikes’ effectiveness, but the spikes can be made into magic weapons in their own right
When used actively as a weapon armor spikes are treated as a light weapon. The wording about armor spikes is very clear about limitations using them during other attacks. In order to spend the effort necessary to make an effective attack you must meet certain criteria. Remember that combat is not Rock'em Sock'em Robots.
Your character and other combatants are jockeying for a chance to kill each other.
If you want to wield a two-handed weapon and a light weapon in conjunction with Two-Weapon Fighting you will need to explore class/feat options that allow you to use a two-handed weapon as if it were one-handed. If you just want to use them both, then upon reaching BAB +6 you may attack with one and then the other every time you make a full-attack action.
And No, the FAQ ruling does not suck. It makes perfect sense.
-edited to correct minor formatting.
|
|
Both.It was a valid option before.Before? Before when? Pre-FAQ? 3.5?
Ok. Can you point to me anything specific that says that you can TWF with a longbow? Or is this another one of those "assumptions because there is nothing specific to prohibit it"? As far as I can see, the only ranged weapons that are referenced is thrown weapons.
Crossbow-akimbo? Sure, I can see that as a possibility for TWF because there is an exception allowing that weapon to be used in one hand (thus having one in each hand). Longbow? I'm not seeing that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since when do weapons need to be specifically allowed for 2WF?
Where is 2WF specified as Melee or Thrown Weapon only?
Where is it specified that both 'hands' must be the same (melee/thrown/ranged)?
I've seen plenty of characters (well, not plenty, but enough) dual-wielding (2WF) hand x-bows.
They're not specifically allowed either.
|
|
Since when do weapons need to be specifically allowed for 2WF?
Where is 2WF specified as Melee or Thrown Weapon only?
Where is it specified that both 'hands' must be the same (melee/thrown/ranged)?
I've seen plenty of characters (well, not plenty, but enough) dual-wielding (2WF) hand x-bows.
They're not specifically allowed either.
I should have been more clear. I figured my reference to crossbows being used in TWF would have addressed that, but apparently not.
/facepalm
If the only issue is the 2-handed issue, why bring the specificity of longbow's ranged weapon status into it?
As far as I can see, the only ranged weapons that are referenced is thrown weapons.
I don't see any post from you on this page mentioning crossbows at all.
Your sentence I quoted above doesn't really make much sense if the context was your touting of crossbow 2WF'ing.
Nothing in the two weapon fighting rules ever suggested that there was any restriction to classifications of one handed or light.
It was never even suggested in 3.5, or in any group I have played in.
I never heard it suggest from a PFS judge, or WotC employee.
Just recently, this came to light.
Yet there were clearly people who read it and played it differently. If the ruling had come down on your side, and those people still argued against it, what would you think?
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).