|
5 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
|
So, in an effort to get a few things sorted out with the new FAQ regarding TWF/THF and Armor Spikes, a few questions crossed my mind about how hands are not actual hands and what that means. Here are a list of ones I've thought of. If I think of any more, I'll post em. =D
So, such as what becomes of Free Hands.
1)Are Free Hands now a Free Primary or Off Hand or are they literal hands?
2)Does a person need two actual hands to shoot a bow?
3)How about holding an item?
4)Does using a two handed double weapon also eat up your offhand even if you only use one end? The Re-Gripping FAQ and this FAQ about THW and Armor Spikes would seem like it does, even if you don't get both attacks with it.
5) If I TWF with say a dagger and a blade boot can I also cast a quickened spell that requires Somatic Components?
I would like to know, as I would like to get a better knowledge of how this ruling works in case I ever get into Organized Play or something like that.
In the spirit of the FAQ I would say the intention is that 3) and 5) are not allowed.
1) This is complicated, and the intent seems to change from ability to ability that requires it. I've marked this for FAQ. For the moment I would say that it refers to a physical hand unless it is referring to wielding a weapon.
2) Yes, you need two actual hands. It is debatable as to whether those two hands need to be the Primary Hand and Off Hand though. If you have multiple off hands, I would rule that you could use them to fire the bow. So a four armed creature with one primary hand and three off hands could use the bow in two of his off hands. This of course is open to debate, but the Light, One Handed, and Two Handed weapon descriptions are explicitly for melee weapons.
3) Holding an item does not use your Primary Hand or Off Hand. However, and this is my reasoning for number 1, it does keep you from using the hand as a free hand to cast spells.
To further explain my stance on 3 and 1, you can, by the rules and an FAQ I believe, attack with a two handed melee weapon, shift your grip, and cast a quickened spell even though you've used both your Primary Hand and Off Hand.
4) Yes. If you attack with only one end, you get to treat it as a two handed weapon though (1.5x strength). Remember, the double weapon can only be wielded as a one handed and light weapon when you are fighting with both ends. If you are fighting with only one end of it, you have to treat it as a two handed weapon since that is what it is.
5) Yes. If you can fight with a two handed weapon, shift grip, and cast a quickened spell then this should most assuredly work just the same. Again, this goes with my reasoning in 3.
I may be wrong on some of these things, but I am fairly confident in those stances.
Crash_00 wrote:
This of course is open to debate, but the Light, One Handed, and Two Handed weapon descriptions are explicitly for melee weapons.
In PF, maybe.
In 3.5, the Light, One Handed, and Two Handed weapon descriptions were used for both.
An example Bows can be disarmed but you get a bonus to defend because they are two handed, but a penalty because they are non-melee weapons (so a wash).
I think that 5 would be allowed because it is a special ability (metamagic feat) that gives you more actions per round.
But then again so is Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, so scratch that, I am back to a wash. I can't help you.
Starbuck_II wrote: Crash_00 wrote:
This of course is open to debate, but the Light, One Handed, and Two Handed weapon descriptions are explicitly for melee weapons.
In PF, maybe.
In 3.5, the Light, One Handed, and Two Handed weapon descriptions were used for both.
An example Bows can be disarmed but you get a bonus to defend because they are two handed, but a penalty because they are non-melee weapons (so a wash). Weird. My book has it listed just like Pathfinder. The weapon description is listed:"Light, One-Handed, and Two-Handed Melee Weapon"
The Longbow states that it requires two hands to use, but nothing implies that it follows the rules for two handed melee weapons.
To the OP, regarding number 5 (and two handed fighting, shifting grip, and casting) I don't know if you would be able to attack with a melee touch attack in this case as part of casting the spell. Since you've used your off hand already, it would follow that your off hand isn't available to make the unarmed strike. Ranged touch attacks are hazy as well.
Thanks for the responses guys. I hope some more keep coming. The reason I've asked about bows and hands, was for holding a torch. If holding a torch doesn't take up a primary or an off hand, and two handed projectile weapons use both primary and off-hand, then things get weird, for me, in terms of how he's firing his bow, drawing arrows, etc. and why some people still tie literal hands to primary and off-hands.
Wear a buckler with a shield sconce on it and an ever-burning torch in it. You're good no matter what your GM decides to go with.
Personally, I rule that bows require two physical hands to use in my games, but I don't require them to use the Off Hand. So you wouldn't be able to wield a torch in your hand, but you could kick, spike, etc.
That is, of course, just my own ruling and not RAW by any means.
Crash_00 wrote: Wear a buckler with a shield sconce on it and an ever-burning torch in it. You're good no matter what your GM decides to go with.
Personally, I rule that bows require two physical hands to use in my games, but I don't require them to use the Off Hand. So you wouldn't be able to wield a torch in your hand, but you could kick, spike, etc.
That is, of course, just my own ruling and not RAW by any means.
Considering that crossbows can be fired 'in one hand' and then it references two-weapon fighting.. it further highlights how interwoven actual hands and your metaphysical hands really are.
I actually think that, blind RAW, they are actual hands and not metaphysical ones. This has problems when you open your eyes, but there you go.
I'm hoping that they rewrite these rules and do so with the level of competency that they usually show. Moreover I hope that they pick terms with great care to avoid further future misunderstandings by one and all,
James
Oh clear and concise rules...how I miss thee.
I can't blame paizo, they were on a time crunch inheriting WotC's issues, but there is a lot of horrible wording all across the CRB. At least the game is better balanced than 3.5 (and much better balanced than 3.0).
I think the RAW could go either way on this one. I believe the intent is clearly for the bow to use the Primary Hand and Off Hand, and I think that the buckler supports this slightly so I would rule that way in a RAW game, but I just don't like that personally.
I hope they do too, or then we get to play hopscotch with when hands are hands and when hands are not hands and not having to use actual hands to wield weapons that should need them(which then you get wacky stuff, like holding two items in your actual hands and attacking with your greatsword and such) and lots of problems ensue and we are all amorphous blobs of slots.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
A hand is a hand unless it is a primary hand or off hand in which case it is a mechanical term dedicated to an attack that may or may not use a hand that is in no way tied to the primary hand or off hand but is instead tied to the nature of the weapon being wielded in said untied hand or hands.
Now I need a hand with this headache. Yay a prescription. Hey, why does this say "I prepared explosive ru..." Boom.
Now you know how I'm feeling with all these hand things...Mostly cause of things like free hand, off-hand, primary hand, two hands, no hands, bows needing two hands to use regardless of size, one hand, etc. though it does make it easier if I don't try and go over ranged weapons in my head. =P
Yep, tackle them one at a time definitely.
The general rule of thumb that I go by, and generally RAW seems to agree with, is that a weapon takes both the primary/off hand relevant to its level of effort (Light, One Handed, Two Handed) and the same number of physical hands unless its description describes it otherwise.
That's what I used to do, but my thinking has changed based on what I've read from other people, rereading the book and such, but it is a good thing to go by, but I think I'm gonna go back with that as it's much simpler. Anyways, thanks for the clarifications to my questions.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
