| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What stealth errata, blackblood?
Sorry, FAQ.
Last I checked, the armor spikes text didn't read as follows:
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. 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.
|
I read it more as being a caveat, specific to this particular situation (A. spikes and THF). Implying that the situation gives rise to the general rule / assumption of imaginary hands seems to (needlessly?) overcomplicate things.
Needlessly overcomplicating the issue seems to be the current strategy for getting the ruling reversed.
|
I read it more as being a caveat, specific to this particular situation (A. spikes and THF). Implying that the situation gives rise to the general rule / assumption of imaginary hands seems to (needlessly?) overcomplicate things.Needlessly overcomplicating the issue seems to be the current strategy for getting the ruling reversed.
Reductio ad absurdum is a time-honoured and valid debating tool.
It is (in this case) an attempt to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance.
The way the FAQ was presented, combined with the subsequent dev commentary, lead to assumptions that the combat system is governed by imaginary hands, that exist or not without an independent way of determining which is relevant when, due to no such rule being written down. The idea that the decision was based on 'unwritten rules' took the debate even further into the absurd.
Is is appropriate to point this out in this debate. We all want rules that are not absurd.
Or, it led to the assumption that the combat system is based on the rules presented on page 141 of the CRB that they referenced repeatedly.
Or it led to the assumptions Malachi is making.
Edit: Here thar be circles.
|
|
James Maissen brought up a good point: if the combat system changed between 3.0 and 3.5 to one which was governed by imaginary hands worth of 'effort', how come the 3.5 devs themselves didn't know about the very combat system of their own game?
When they put out that FAQ which explained how using armour spikes and a greatsword can be used in TWF, how did the 3.5 devs not realise that imaginary hands worth of 'effort' was the very basis of the new combat system?
Such a major change in the combat system must have been discussed extensively when preparing 3.5! The combat system itself is not some obscure corner case!
The very people who thought that the 3.0 combat system, with it's reliance on real hands to use weapons and a number of attacks based purely on BAB bonus and TWF (and similar) feats was not enough, must have deliberately changed it to a system which relied on a unit of 'effort' called 'primary' and 'off hand'.
Ignoring for a moment why they didn't bother to mention this in the combat chapter, nor in the several essays in Dragon Magazine leading up to the release of 3.5, how can the devs who made this change to the combat system not realise that a two-handed weapon can no longer be used in TWF?
It is said that there were some devs who 'grumbled' about the 3.5 FAQ. Why didn't the grumblers remind the FAQers of the new combat system?
So now we're talking about 3.5's devteam for some reason?
Yep, apparently Malachi felt that it was "a good point."
A good point is that 3.5 said it was okay and backing by text. A bad one is that they were flippant without proof.
So what could we talk about that could be productive?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except there's only one FAQs, the one I posted. Its clear and concise. The one posted by Paizo not so much.
Again, what would be productive to discuss? Whether there's an imaginary hand? Is it necessary? What it affects and what it doesn't?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Show me the errata that changed the rules in 3.5. FAQs could not change the rules back then.
Oh, you want a source other than me that they went back and forth on it?
How about a guy that worked at WotC and now works as a dev on PF?
Stephen Radney-MacFarland
While we have all played and worked on that game at various times during our career, and I worked at Wizards when that FAQ was released (and remember some gnashing of teeth internally and in the organized play program regarding it)or how about another guy that has worked with WotC (including 3.0 and 3.5 design work) that is also a dev on PF?
Sean K Reynolds
You know the 3.5 designers didn't agree on this issue, else they wouldn't have gone back and forth on their version of this FAQ.But yes, the words of people that worked in the industry (and with the company) when that FAQ was written are worthless right? They couldn't possibly be true?
James, I would suggest reading the thread Two Handed Weapon and Armor Spikes Resolved by the Design Team?
Particularly search for the posts by Jason, Sean and Stephen. They make it clear that the hands are a limitation that is not limited to your physical hands. Then again, I guess you could imagine that these posts did not exist. They must be "imaginary posts."
I love that your "proof" that the rules have an internal consistency and are obvious by their wording is that the people who designed them disagreed on how they worked!
The rules as they are written (and as they were intended according to the only written clarification that anyone has ever cited in any of these threads), do not support the PF FAQ any more strongly than they support the 3.5 FAQ.
All of the additional "rules" that you have invented, "ephemeral hands" and "measures of effort" don't exist within, and are not supported by, the rules as they are written.
The fact that "hands" are no longer hands creates innumerable inconsistencies in the weapon and combat system that did not exist before the FAQ.
I'll say what I've said before: I think it was the wrong decision. But, more importantly, I think it was a bad decision. There is a distinction.
|
|
Which devs in 3.5 were part of the 3.0 team (1)?
Did the 3.5 dev team have any turn over and recruitment before the FAQ came out (yes)?
Why do you think the grumblers didn't point out how the rules actually work (I'll give you a hint, they did)?
You assert that 'hands' worth of 'effort' was actually the combat system introduced by 3.5. How can the devs, no matter the turnover of staff, not know what the combat rules are? It's not credible!
The quotes you provide (SKR and SRMcF) are talking about not allowing a two-handed weapon to be used in TWF. They are not saying that the combat system now uses the concept of 'hands worth of effort'.
If the grumblers were provably correct rules-wise and the FAQers were provably wrong, how did the FAQ get published?
I can understand disagreement on whether a 2HW should be useable in TWF, as this divides opinion. But it is not credible that they disagreed on how the combat system itself works, turnover of staff notwithstanding.
As for devs, they are human, they can make mistakes. In the PF FAQ, they didn't.
Huh. Well that's hard to comment on. Do you really think one person is incapable of mistakes but another is?
I've already told you how the FAQ was published, Malachi. You ignore it, but that doesn't make it any less true.
And you refuse to cite anything that even comes close to establishing your version of the "truth" as factual. In fact, you refuse to even put forward an effort, by your own admission. Your version of events flies in the face of the established facts, namely the 3.5 FAQ.
Nothing you offer has any value unless you can substantiate it.
Offer proof, or relinquish this portion of the argument.
As for devs, they are human, they can make mistakes. In the PF FAQ, they didn't.
A self-contradictory statement. Worthless in proving any point.
The quotes I provided, the entire discussion that Jason, Stephen, and Sean had in that thread, are not solely related to THF and TWF at the same time. They are related to the Primary Hand and Off Hand in general and how they are used in wielding weapons.
If you prefer to see them as imaginary hands instead of a measure of effort, have fun with it. It does not change the end result in the slightest.
You can ignore it if you wish, but that doesn't make it true. You have to look at the reasoning for what they say as well, and they gave it every time. Why can you use armor spikes and a longsword while also using a shield, Malachi? Because the shield does not require the Off Hand.
Once again, the "off-hand" does not have to be a real hand. That's fine. But, then it never has to be real hand. It can't suddenly and forcibly become a real hand again just because it grasps the same hilt as your primary hand. But, that's the only way to make this FAQ work.
If you can't take what the devs say as credible regarding subjects, then I don't really know why you're here. Is it just to tell the world that you aren't willing to listen to them? That you are the master of the rules, and anything that doesn't agree with your "creative interpretation" is wrong?
If you can't substantiate any argument you make... etc., etc...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The quotes I provided, the entire discussion that Jason, Stephen, and Sean had in that thread, are not solely related to THF and TWF at the same time. They are related to the Primary Hand and Off Hand in general and how they are used in wielding weapons.
You see it that way because you want to see it that way. To the rest of us, they were answering questions specifically about using 2HWs in TWF, and any reference to 'primary' and 'off hand' they made was because those terms are specific to TWF.
You can ignore it if you wish, but that doesn't make it true. You have to look at the reasoning for what they say as well, and they gave it every time.
If only that were the case! The trouble is, the devs gave a different explanation with each post! Unwritten rules, armour spikes need hands, game balance, the 1.5 x Str bonus cap, hands can't be in two places at once...and when each of these were shot down they ended up with 2HWs 'consume' two attacks in TWF but not normally, and they're going away to re-write the rules without mentioning hands.
And yet you remember all this as them consistently supporting your 'imaginary hands' concept!
If you can't take what the devs say as credible regarding subjects, then I don't really know why you're here.
I don't take your claims as credible! Your claim inescapably involves the devs not knowing their own game system, changing the combat system without telling us, and putting out a FAQ in 3.5 which they knew to be untrue!
But what the devs actually claim in this recent FAQ and the accompanying discussion changes TWF, but does not change the entire combat system, nor does it change the system to one in which combat is governed by 'hands' worth of 'effort', and nor has this (secretly) been the rules since 3.5!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
.
.
.
.
.
So, now we have the following:
Spiked Gauntlet:
- Requires a free hand to use
- Cannot be disarmed
- costs 5 GP
- x2 crticial
- does 1d4 (medium sized) damage
- weighs 1 lb.
- Simple Weapon
And
Armor Spikes:
- Requires a free hand to use (either one)
- Cannot be disarmed
- costs 50 GP (10x the cost of a single gauntlet)
- x2 critical
- does 1d6 (medium sized) damage (1 dice greater,)
- weighs 10 lbs. (10x the weight)
- does damage on successful grapple checks
- Martial Weapon
so, for 10x the cost you gain one other gauntlet and an extra 8 lbs of weight to carry around, and do an average of 1 point more damage?
I think that I would rather just spend 10 GP and buy two spiked gauntlets and just punch people with them if I am in grapple. Heck, spend 10 GP (for a total of 20 GP, still 30 GP less then the armor spikes) and get a barbed vest for that extra 1 point of damage from time to time.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, Jason Bulham stated that a PC with a Longsword in one hand, a Shield in the other, and Armor Spikes, can two weapon with the Longsword and Armor Spikes, and maintain the Shield bonus to AC.
That's because armour spikes don't require a real hand, only an imaginary hand....!
[/withering sarcasm]
|
Well, with some of ways that Crash, and a few others, have been trying lay out this hands/effort/points system, that it has confused the heck out of some, and they have been unsure what the heck they can hold, or attack with.
So, I felt it was important to at least point out, that by Dev comment, you don't need an actual, physical, free hand to attack with Armor Spikes.
At this point, it has become confusing as to what requires a hand, or what kind of hand it requires, if it is a real hand, a metaphysical hand, or how many of each, to wield any weapon.
Page 141. Clear as day.
Its been clear enough for the vast majority of the community for years now.
This thread (and all the others like it) are simple obfuscation.
I am not mocking anyone. I am simply stating the observation that these threads serve no purpose but to further complicate the issue. More importantly, I am stating that surrounding the issue with smoke and confusion is the ENTIRE POINT of this thread.
This thread was not started to clarify an issue. It was started to obfuscate one.
|
|
I am not mocking anyone. I am simply stating the observation that these threads serve no purpose but to further complicate the issue. More importantly, I am stating that surrounding the issue with smoke and confusion is the ENTIRE POINT of this thread.
This thread was not started to clarify an issue. It was started to obfuscate one.
Even after reading your last two posts, I honestly can't tell what you think is 'obvious'. Do you believe in the imaginary hands?
I believe it is obvious that the entire purpose of this thread is to inject as much confusion as possible into the dialogue.
I believe that this is being done in a purposeful and deliberate manner.
I believe that the end goal of this deliberate campaign of obfuscation is the base manipulation of both the community and the developers.
|
|
I believe it is obvious that the entire purpose of this thread is to inject as much confusion as possible into the dialogue.
I believe that this is being done in a purposeful and deliberate manner.
I believe that the end goal of this deliberate campaign of obfuscation is the base manipulation of both the community and the developers.
I suppose your position is one of zen, and absolute clarity.
I wish we all could be so high up there.
I believe it is obvious that the entire purpose of this thread is to inject as much confusion as possible into the dialogue.
I believe that this is being done in a purposeful and deliberate manner.
I believe that the end goal of this deliberate campaign of obfuscation is the base manipulation of both the community and the developers.
The problem with dogmatism is that it can not, and therefore will not, suffer any challenge to its authority.
"Primary" and "Off-" can not be uniformly the same as "Left" and "Right" because that would catastrophically alter the weapon and combat rules.
Likewise, "Primary" and "Off-" can not be uniformly separate from "Left" and "Right" because it contradicts the assertion that placing both actual hands on the hilt of the same weapon uses both "mechanical hands" simultaneously.
So we simply have to accept, in spite of its self-contradiction, the infallibility of the rules system and the FAQ. No challenges allowed!
Challenging is one thing, guys.
Challenging is done respectfully with an eye towards clarifying the ORIGINAL issue.
What is being done here is the deliberate obfuscation of as many RELATED ISSUES as possible in an attempt to FORCE a ruling reversal.
One of these things is NOT like the other.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The RELATED ISSUES are the issues.
Nothing in this game exists in a vacuum. The softcap to STR bonus never, let me reiterate never, existed in any shape or form prior to this FAQ. The concept of ephemeral hands never existed prior to this FAQ.
Now, we have a lot of "special case exceptions" where before they just worked with the rules.
It should be noted that it is the way THF and TWF were deemed incompatible is the major upset, not the simple fact that they were made incompatible.
Aye, I'd prefer a more concise or straightforward FAQs myself.
I seem to notice a pattern here.
If you don't agree with the FAQ, everything you say is a self serving lie, an obfuscation, or a mealy mouthed whiney rant, and it's ok therefore to ignore everything you post and call you a mealy mouthed selfish whiner who's motives are shady and you are a jerk and should be banned from the posts.
If you do agree with the FAQ, everything was always this way, everyone else is a poo poo diaper head (That's officially allowed in posts, btw, per JB), and you are just too dumb to have understood it. And any difference between the people that understood it, and how it affects other bits of the rules are just made up by the whiney mealy mouthed ranters.
