The FAQ seems to talk about TWF rather than AoOs, but I guess the logic is that if using the polearm means you don't count as "wielding" the armor spikes then you can't threaten an area with the armor spikes. I wonder if taking your hand off the two-handed weapon as a free action after your attacks would let you count as wielding the armor spikes during the rest of the round.
In the past I've played a Monk or two who fought with IUS but carried a reach weapon for AoOs. I wonder how that would interact with the FAQ. Does IUS count as your primary hand? Would flurrying make it count as both hands?
Would a character wielding a longsword in one hand and wearing armor spikes be able to make an AoO with the armor spikes even if he didn't take TWF penalties that round? What if the same character donned a shield? Would he choose each round whether to "wield" the spikes or the shield?
|
Then post what other hands are referenced?
Those rules reference how to apply the Str bonus to weapons depending on category, and although these rules were the same in 3.0, 3.5 helpfully included how the Str bonus is applied to the primary/off hands which are only relevant when two-weapon fighting. PF cut&paste the 3.5 rules unchanged.
|
If "hand" doesn't always refer to a physical hand, does that mean that a spellcaster can make arcane gestures using their feet?
Can a paladin can Lay on Headbutt?
I see you too are finding the entertaining practice of using an unrelated manner to confuse an issue, that would otherwise not be confusing, and look past the lack of correlation. ;)
|
|
I'm just pointing out that there is a fully logical thought process behind the belief that hands are required to wield and thus threaten with a weapon. If they did rule that way, then it would really be a change. It would just be clarifying unclear rules that everyone has been reading wrong for years.
So, everyone has been reading the rules wrong for years....except you?
Honestly, I hope they review their recent FAQ, take a real sit down and figure out a good way to make the answer so that it's clear and the ruling is easy to understand.
It could be as easy as issuing errata saying "you can TWF with two-handed weapons. When TWFing, your primary weapon deals 1xstr and offhand weapon deals .5xstr".
|
|
Honestly, I hope they review their recent FAQ, take a real sit down and figure out a good way to make the answer so that it's clear and the ruling is easy to understand.
It could be as easy as issuing errata saying "you can TWF with two-handed weapons. When TWFing, your primary weapon deals 1xstr and offhand weapon deals .5xstr".
I suggested this same fix, in many of the previous threads regarding the FAQ.
It is simple, balanced, and lacks the madness of the current FAQ.
The best solutions, are the simplest.
However, it requires errata rather than FAQ because it isn't even a possible interpretation of the rules.
I understand why they're hesitant, but I think it'd still be better for the game.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A PC does not have to change what they are wielding, to attack with a two handed weapon, then Armor Spikes on iterative attacks.
He wields both, and is able to attack with both.
There is no "unwielding" needed.
This the same if were a two handed weapon, then an unarmed strike.
He wields both, attacks with both, and threatens with both.
|
|
Can you attack with the armor spikes at the same time that you attack with the two handed weapon? No. The FAQ tells us that.
No it doesn't. The FAQ says that you can't use ('attack with') a 2HW in TWF, not that you can't use both in the same round.
Also, 'at the same time' implies simultaneous attacks, which both the rules for full attacks and Jason himself said was not the case in TWF; those attacks are consecutive.
'Wield' means different things at different times, and it is very easy to read a rule and be unsure which meaning is intended in any particular rule. It should be avoided in any rule statement for that reason.
Can you attack with the armor spikes at the same time that you attack with the two handed weapon? No. The FAQ tells us that.
ACtually, you totally can. You just need a minimum BAB of +6.
You can't attack with *any* two weapons at the *same* time. Any two attacks are always consecutive. So I'm not sure why you brought it up if you didn't mean 'in the same round'.
|
|
No. You can attack with one, then the other. You cannot attack with both at the same time. That is exactly what the FAQ is telling us.
Attacks don't happen at the same time, even in TWF.
A two handed weapon pairs your off hand to your primary hand for an attack (Jason confirmed this in great detail as well). You cannot use that off hand at the same time for anything else.
Jason specifically said that the TWF attacks are not paired!
You can wield something in the off hand or primary hand an instant later, for a different attack, sure. At that point you would be wielding whatever you are attacking with at that instant.
My point exactly! The attacks in TWF are not 'at the same time'.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That question is based on the question of:
Am I able to make an attack with this weapon.That question is based on the question of:
Is/Are my hand/s on this weapon.
No it isn't, because your hands are never on a blade boot, and yet you can make an attack with a blade boot.
Does wielding the weapon require occupying the "off-hand weapon" slot? Maybe. But if the word "hand" is used to mean "abstract weapon equip slot," then someone has failed at clear writing. It's possible that if we accept "primary hand" as a completely distinct rules term unrelated to the term "hand" then the rules will function without Lay On Headbutt (which would be a pity, as that would be hilarious). But there will inevitably be confusion as you just demonstrated - you just told me that "Primary Hand and Off Hand do not always refer to a physical hand" and then you go and refer to the generic "hand" as if they are equivalent.
The problem is that PF inherited this phrasing from 3E, in which primary and off hand were intended to be physical hands, even to the point of determining actual handedness. The off hand was defined in the glossary as "A character’s weaker or less dexterous hand (usually the left)."
The obvious solution here is to remove the word "hand" and just refer to "primary and secondary weapons" or to "major and minor weapons" depending on whether you think the parallel with primary and secondary natural attacks is desirable.
Then you can declare:
1) You can wield one major and one minor weapon, and if you have more weapons held/worn than you can use, you have to designate which are "wielded," perhaps as a free action during your turn as per changing weapon grip.
2) A major weapon deals 1x Str damage
3) A minor weapon deals 0.5x Str
4) TWF requires both a major and a minor weapon
5) Multi-armed creatures have additional weapon slots
And define:
1) Does a shield or other hand-based item (wand, "free hand" required for casting, Dervish Dance, etc) take up a weapon slot, or just a hand?
2) Does a two-handed weapon (or wielding a one-handed weapon in two hands) take up both your major and minor weapon slot, or are you still allowed to wield a minor weapon but specifically not allowed to TWF (if the latter, designate this under the TWF feat)? At this point you also clarify whether 1.5x Str is based on actual hand occupancy or devoting both major+minor weapon slots to the task (and would give you the opportunity to introduce THF at 1xStr when used with a minor weapon as a balance factor).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
These unwritten rules of declaration, and wielding limits are simply an extrapolation of desires, random unrelated quotes, and an imaginative "reading between the lines".
Well, I declare, my independence from these unwritten rules, that change, and contradict written rules, along with themselves.
|
|
@Crash_00: Ah, you're talking about AoOs!
Okay, I have a greatsword in both hands and I'm wearing armour spikes.
When the AoO is provoked, you have to be able to answer:
Do I threaten with this weapon?That question is based on the question of:
Am I wielding this weapon?That question is based on the question of:
Am I able to make an attack with this weapon.That question is based on the question of:
Is/Are my hand/s on this weapon.
Looks like we have to answer these questions in reverse order, for each weapon.
Greatsword: Q: Are my hands on this weapon?
A: How many hands are required to use this weapon? Two? Good, I have two hands on this weapon.
Q: Am I able to attack with this weapon?
A: I have the correct number of hands on this weapon, I haven't used my AoO yet, so yes!
Q: Am I wielding this weapon?
A: Since I can attack with it, I'm wielding it in that sense, although 'wielding' it is not part of the AoO rules.
Q: Do I threaten with this weapon?
A: Since I can attack with it into that square, by definition I threaten that square with this weapon.
So I'm golden with the greatsword. What about my armour spikes?
Q: Are my hands on this weapon?
A: Since no hands are required to use armour spikes, and I have no hands on it, then I have the required number of hands on it.
Q: Am I able to attack with this weapon?
A: Hands are correct, so yes.
Q: Do I threaten with this weapon?
A: Since I can attack with them into that square, by definition I threaten that square with my armour spikes.
Conclusion: I threaten with both my greatsword and my armour spikes, and may choose either to execute an AoO.
A few weeks ago I would say that I had a pretty firm grasp on this subject. I am really trying to square what Mark has said. I have always assumed armor spike attacks are on the arms or legs and you are either kicking or elbowing with them. I am trying to imagine what it looks like to require a physical empty hand......or is it just best to accept this is how the mechanics work and suspend disbelief...at least at a PFS table?
Q: Are my hands on this weapon?
A: Since no hands are required to use armour spikes, and I have no hands on it, then I have the required number of hands on it.
I think this is where opinions differ. Contrary to the boulder helmet, armor spikes do not state they don't require any hands, and in fact state they are treated as a light weapon. And light weapon, according to p.141, require a hand.
^exactly^. Though again, hand does not necessarily relate to the physical hands.
Either the FAQ is badly written or armor spikes description are badly written. I think it's the FAQ. But it is what it is, so one can either house rule or go with it :(
Well, one NPC does not override the explicit statements of the devs or the PDT.
Obviously that NPC was written assuming the rule didn't work that way. This feels like the flurry debate all over again. And again, while it's evidence that at one point the devs thought it worked, it is not something that overrides the FAQ.
As I noted, Jason Bulmahn, and Sean K Reynolds, are credited as Authors of the book in which this NPC is statted.
This means they saw the NPC, and his noted tactics, and approved.
I don't know if all authors of a book read exactly every word in the book in it's final version, but regardless of that, again, it just means that NPC is wrong compared to the rules.
|
|
I don't know if all authors of a book read exactly every word in the book in it's final version, but regardless of that, again, it just means that NPC is wrong compared to the rules.As I noted, Jason Bulmahn, and Sean K Reynolds, are credited as Authors of the book in which this NPC is statted.
This means they saw the NPC, and his noted tactics, and approved.
What rules in particular?