In recent posts and FAQs it would appear that you can't use a two handed weapon (Or use two hands on a one handed weapon) in conjunction with Two Weapon Fighting regardless the weapon being used as the "off hand" attack.
Is this now official?
|
Sort of.
Troll, don't mislead. Try to be helpful.
gourry187, that is correct. Today, Jason explained that when fighting with a two-handed weapon or a one-handed weapon in two hands, your primary hand and off-hand are considered to be 'occupied'. The result is that you cannot use TWF with a weapon in two hands.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd much rather them spend more time on other things than such an extremely niche character as "more than 2 arms".
I'm no mathematician, but I don't think that wondering what happens when a one-handed person wields a two-handed weapon and TWFs is that good of a question :)
The way I understand it, it doesn't matter how many actual hands you have. It is a game balance issue in which you can choose to either get the 1.5xstr for THF or the 1xstr and.5xstr for TWF. The Devs admitted that natural attacks are a different issue. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with multi-attack. Basically, it says that you can't get 1.5xstr for the greats word and .5xstr for armored spikes, for example. There is a whole bunch of "yeah, but what about ((favorite corner case)) " and gnashing of teeth on the boards. If you have one hand, you can still use a long sword in one hand and armored spikes as an effective TWF method.
Suddenly, I feel like the monk's flurry is looking a little bit better as a unique class feature.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Was this even up for debate?
Do people also have to be advised that while riding in a coach, they cannot simultaneously drive a wagon?
Sorry, was trying to come off funny. Didn't work.
Was this even up for debate?
Do people also have to be advised that while riding in a coach, they cannot simultaneously drive a wagon?
To answer your question, it seems like a lot of people really, really liked their great sword/armored spikes combo. It was weird though, cause the same people kept arguing that it was a sub-optimal build and wouldn't use it. I personally didn't think it was that big of a deal, but it turned pretty ugly quickly. SKR said his piece and when some people started in on how the Devs were using "secret rules" to make their FAQS, he said basically that he had a weekend to enjoy and wasn't going to get caught up in the silliness. I thought it was the most sensible thing anyone said on the boards all weekend.
I know. He used an unfortunate phrase that some people turned into a conspiracy. In any case, the FAQ was pretty clear and several Devs came on to further explain the FAQ. If some don't like it, they can always house rule it.
Sorry if I misrepresented the power level. Personally, it just seemed like a lot of bashing of teeth over nothing. I guess I don't get it.
What about dual wielding two-handed weapons if you have four arms? This could be done as an alchemist or through monstrous physique.
In fact, 3.5 explicitly allowed it.
Then why did 3.5 need a FAQ?
I don't think you know what explicit means.
|
ex·plic·it
adjective \ik-ˈspli-sət\
Definition of EXPLICIT
1
a : fully revealed or expressed without vagueness, implication, or ambiguity : leaving no question as to meaning or intent <explicit instructions>
b : open in the depiction of nudity or sexuality <explicit books and films>
2
: fully developed or formulated <an explicit plan> <an explicit notion of our objective>
3
: unambiguous in expression <was very explicit on how we are to behave>
4
of a mathematical function : defined by an expression containing only independent variables — compare implicit 1c
— ex·plic·it·ly adverb
— ex·plic·it·ness noun
Then why did 3.5 need a FAQ?
In fact, 3.5 explicitly allowed it.3.5 explicitly allowed it, and the FAQ supported this stance.
It was not Errata, which is a changing of rules.
A clarification, that needed no changing in the wording.
While I personally agree that this FAQ is not really worthwhile, I'd also like to point out that you're being somewhat disingenuous here. The legality of the combination changed at least twice in 3.5 before the final FAQ was released.
That doesn't indicate "explicitly allowed it", it indicates that the wording was ambiguous, and could be interpreted to allow or disallow it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm confused. How could it be any other way? If you're fighting with two weapons, how can you also be using both hands to be holding your sword (or vice versa)? (Ignoring having more than two hands).
I guess I am just going to havs to admit that i obviously missing aomething as i really dont see the big deal here.
I am confused about something though. I keep reading that two kukris are a better option. At first level, i am coming up with a about twenty percent more damage for the banned combo over either TWF or THF possibilities (using weapon focus and power attack for the THF option and double slice for the TWF and THF/TWF combos. What am I missing?
ex·plic·it
adjective \ik-ˈspli-sət\
Definition of EXPLICIT
1
a : fully revealed or expressed without vagueness, implication, or ambiguity : leaving no question as to meaning or intent <explicit instructions>
b : open in the depiction of nudity or sexuality <explicit books and films>
2
: fully developed or formulated <an explicit plan> <an explicit notion of our objective>
3
: unambiguous in expression <was very explicit on how we are to behave>
4
of a mathematical function : defined by an expression containing only independent variables — compare implicit 1c
— ex·plic·it·ly adverb
— ex·plic·it·ness noun
Again, why did 3.5 need a FAQ?
An FAQ would be unnecessary in regards to something that was explicitly allowed, because there would be no room for confusion among the supermajority of your audience, so the question would never be frequently asked.
In this case, the text was ambiguous, and it was ambiguous when Pathfinder ported over the text; Pathfinder went with the alternate interpretation from what 3.5 finally settled on.
Sort of.Troll, don't mislead. Try to be helpful.
gourry187, that is correct. Today, Jason explained that when fighting with a two-handed weapon or a one-handed weapon in two hands, your primary hand and off-hand are considered to be 'occupied'. The result is that you cannot use TWF with a weapon in two hands.
Actually, "sort of" is a good answer. Until the FAQ on armor spikes is made clearer, the only clarification is in these multiple threads on the message board and they're not much more than a sidebar discussion and are harder to reference. What we have is a discussion around extended meanings of a FAQ answer that needs to be updated to incorporate the results of the discussion. Until then, it's a narrowly communicated declaration of intent for the rules.
Personally, I think what was illustrated by the FAQ probably can't be fixed in a simple errata. It probably will be pushed off for Pathfinder 2.0 (if and when), because to clearly communicate the intent and ensure that the mechanics are as consistent as possible across all classes and creatures, it requires some redefinition (or definition in general) to clarify "primary-" and "off-hand" to not always be physical hands, etc.
Mostly unrelated, I almost think that if you're going to get that granular with combat that you would be better off moving away from a second- and round-based combat system to an 'action point'-based system.
I'm confused. How could it be any other way? If you're fighting with two weapons, how can you also be using both hands to be holding your sword (or vice versa)? (Ignoring having more than two hands).
Handless weapons. Primary Hand and Off-Hand don't necessarily mean your left and right hands.
Sort of.Troll, don't mislead. Try to be helpful.
gourry187, that is correct. Today, Jason explained that when fighting with a two-handed weapon or a one-handed weapon in two hands, your primary hand and off-hand are considered to be 'occupied'. The result is that you cannot use TWF with a weapon in two hands.
Incorrect, you can TWF with a 2 hander and the Babazu Beard weapon.
I'm confused. How could it be any other way? If you're fighting with two weapons, how can you also be using both hands to be holding your sword (or vice versa)? (Ignoring having more than two hands).Handless weapons. Primary Hand and Off-Hand don't necessarily mean your left and right hands.
Thanks. That kind of thing never comes up at our table, so I'd never even thought of it.
Is the basic idea then purely one of game balance? The restriction is to stop people Two Weapon Fighting with a sword and a handless weapon, then using their second hand to get a boost to damage on their sword attack?
I'm confused. How could it be any other way? If you're fighting with two weapons, how can you also be using both hands to be holding your sword (or vice versa)? (Ignoring having more than two hands).Handless weapons. Primary Hand and Off-Hand don't necessarily mean your left and right hands.Thanks. That kind of thing never comes up at our table, so I'd never even thought of it.
Is the basic idea then purely one of game balance? The restriction is to stop people Two Weapon Fighting with a sword and a handless weapon, then using their second hand to get a boost to damage on their sword attack?
Yeah, pretty much. They didn't want people using a two handed weapon and then something like armor spikes to get more damage than the developers had intended.
Cheers.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"I say lord wizard, the fighters seem to be.. developing methods of more damage.. I dare say they might reach our levels of power."
"Hubberdash Lady Cleric. I shall construct a spell to prevent such ideas from ever forming within these fools heads. Their only uses are for soaking damage for us and taking out the trash. I wouldn't trust them to cook my food.."
I read through some of the threads on this and I have wondered something, why do people keep mentioning barbazu beard? It has nothing to do with two handed weapons. The barbazu beard is only usable when it hots with both claw attacks