|
| 18 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Question unclear. |
So, with the new FAQ, here, we have a new way the off-hand is part of the rules.
This leads to some questions:
1) When does the off-hand exist?
2) Does the use of hands, mean the off-hand is represented as an actual, physical hand?
3) Where is the off-hand when not two weapon fighting?
4) Can one use the off-hand alone?
5) Can the off-hand be something not represented by an off-hand?
6) How does one determine if an off-hand is used, outside of two weapon fighting?
7) Can one use an off-hand outside of two weapon fighting?
8) How do we determine how many off-hands a creature has?
9) What can, and cannot be used in the off-hand?
10) Are there things that can be only used in the off-hand?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*holds can of worms while blackbloodtroll proceeds opening it up* ;-)
|
Just for ease of reference...
Armor Spikes: Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?
No.
Likewise, you couldn't use an armored gauntlet to do so, as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks.—Pathfinder Design Team, 07/25/13
*holds can of worms while blackbloodtroll proceeds opening it up* ;-)
Hey! I think I just got that expression... is it those prank jars with snakes that blow up in your face?
I've never given it that much thought... and those jars aren't really a thing here.
|
|
I think, given some of the comments by SKR recently, that most characters are assumed to have a "primary hand" and an "off-hand", although the term "hand" doesn't necessarily mean the grasping device you possess at the end of your arm. Imagine it more like "primary weapon" and "off-weapon".
You could wield a one-handed weapon as your "primary weapon", and a light weapon as your "off-weapon". So swinging a Longsword and stabbing with a Shortsword would be allowed. In the example given in the FAQ, a "two-handed weapon" uses up your "primary weapon" and "off-weapon" slots, so you would not be able to use Armor Spikes as an "off-weapon" attack, because you already made one.
Anything that takes up both "hands" to make an attack leaves you without another "hand" to attack with. But since these aren't actual "hands", a monk could still use two-weapon fighting to kick twice, hold a jar of peanut butter in his left hand, a jar of jelly in the other hand, and two slices of bread in his mouth. The moment he went to use those jars as improvised weapons, he would no longer be able to kick.
|
I think, given some of the comments by SKR recently, that most characters are assumed to have a "primary hand" and an "off-hand", although the term "hand" doesn't necessarily mean the grasping device you possess at the end of your arm. Imagine it more like "primary weapon" and "off-weapon".
You could wield a one-handed weapon as your "primary weapon", and a light weapon as your "off-weapon". So swinging a Longsword and stabbing with a Shortsword would be allowed. In the example given in the FAQ, a "two-handed weapon" uses up your "primary weapon" and "off-weapon" slots, so you would not be able to use Armor Spikes as an "off-weapon" attack, because you already made one.
Anything that takes up both "hands" to make an attack leaves you without another "hand" to attack with. But since these aren't actual "hands", a monk could still use two-weapon fighting to kick twice, hold a jar of peanut butter in his left hand, a jar of jelly in the other hand, and two slices of bread in his mouth. The moment he went to use those jars as improvised weapons, he would no longer be able to kick.
I agree with all that you said except the very last part about the monk. Both hands could be wielding weapons (or even a weapon) as part of his flurry sequence, helping his friend Frank by carrying heavy boxes with his hands, or have his hands tied behind his back. In all of these cases, the monk can still make unarmed attacks by using his feet.
|
|
I agree with all that you said except the very last part about the monk. Both hands could be wielding weapons (or even a weapon) as part of his flurry sequence, helping his friend Frank by carrying heavy boxes with his hands, or have his hands tied behind his back. In all of these cases, the monk can still make unarmed attacks by using his feet.
I agree with you as well. My example was using two weapon fighting, not flurry of blows.
EDIT: Wait, no, we're on the exact same page. All of your examples are akin to mine holding jars in his hands and using unarmed attacks by kicking.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That FAQ ruling that using a two-handed weapon makes the off hand unavailable is new to me, but it does match the old D&D 3.5 rules. In those rules, one of the character's hands was the primary hand and the other was the off hand. Always and forever. If for some reason he made an attack with his off-hand weapon, even in an ordinary standard action, it suffered the off-hand penalties.
Pathfinder simplified that. The Paizo designers noticed that essentially the only time that anyone used the off-hand weapon was during two-weapon fighting. Thus, they dropped the rule about always having an off hand. The off hand is described in the Two-Weapon Fighting rules and feats and mentioned elsewhere only in Monk class abilities and in defining light and one-handed weapons.
I prefer simplicity in rules. Thus, I disagree with the 3.5 interpretation and disagree with Crash00 above. I treat off hand as a property of two-weapon fighting.
1) The off-hand exists only during two-weapon fighting. View it as the fighter throwing his body into supporting one hand at full strength and the other hand not receiving that support.
2) The off hand does not have to be a hand. An unarmed strike represented as a kick or an attack with Armor Spikes could be an off-hand attack.
3) The off hand is an attack option. This option does not exist outside of two-weapon fighting.
4) In two-weapon fighting, one could forgo the primary hand attacks and attack only with the off hand. There is absolutely no reason to do so.
5) This question makes no sense under Pathfinder rules.
6) The off hand exists only during two-weapon fighting.
7) The off hand exists only during two-weapon fighting.
8) Ah, the tough question. Player characters receive a single off-hand attack during two-weapon fighting. More attacks are given by Improved Two-Weapon Fighting and Greater Two-Weapon Fighting. Those second and third attacks are represented in the text as additional attacks with the same off-hand weapon, which means that the player still has only one off hand. As a GM, I would allow switching off-hand weapons in some clear-cut cases, such as quick-drawing throwing two daggers with the primary hand and two more daggers with the off hand.
Species with more than two hands, such as a Marilith demon or a many-handed Eidolon, have additional off hands. View these as racial abilities to have additional off-hand attacks: these are not part of the usual off-hand rules. I was disappointed that the Advanced Race Guide did not provide a four-armed species for player characters that would have also had this additional off-hand ability.
9) Anything that can be used in a one-hand or light weapon attack can be used in an off-hand attack. The new FAQ ruling says that two-handed weapon attacks cannot be mixed with off-hand attacks; thus, a two-handed weapon cannot be used in an off-hand attack.
10) I do not know of any weapons that are limited to only off-hand attacks.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"The off hand exists only during two-weapon fighting."
It could also be said that two-weapon fighting can only occur during a full attack action.
Which means outside of your turn (and outside a full attack action), there is no such thing as an off hand attack. (lets not get confused with secondary attacks).
This simplifies and makes AoO's much easier to handle.
2) Does the use of hands, mean the off-hand is represented as an actual, physical hand?
Apparently not, FAQS uses spiked gauntlet as an example of how to use it but doesn't actually say anything but no about armor spikes. Weird. <insert lengthy complaints here>
|
That FAQ ruling that using a two-handed weapon makes the off hand unavailable is new to me, but it does match the old D&D 3.5 rules. In those rules, one of the character's hands was the primary hand and the other was the off hand. Always and forever. If for some reason he made an attack with his off-hand weapon, even in an ordinary standard action, it suffered the off-hand penalties.
Pathfinder simplified that. The Paizo designers noticed that essentially the only time that anyone used the off-hand weapon was during two-weapon fighting. Thus, they dropped the rule about always having an off hand. The off hand is described in the Two-Weapon Fighting rules and feats and mentioned elsewhere only in Monk class abilities and in defining light and one-handed weapons.
I prefer simplicity in rules. Thus, I disagree with the 3.5 interpretation and disagree with Crash00 above. I treat off hand as a property of two-weapon fighting.
1) The off-hand exists only during two-weapon fighting. View it as the fighter throwing his body into supporting one hand at full strength and the other hand not receiving that support.
2) The off hand does not have to be a hand. An unarmed strike represented as a kick or an attack with Armor Spikes could be an off-hand attack.
3) The off hand is an attack option. This option does not exist outside of two-weapon fighting.
4) In two-weapon fighting, one could forgo the primary hand attacks and attack only with the off hand. There is absolutely no reason to do so.
5) This question makes no sense under Pathfinder rules.
6) The off hand exists only during two-weapon fighting.
7) The off hand exists only during two-weapon fighting.
8) Ah, the tough question. Player characters receive a single off-hand attack during two-weapon fighting. More attacks are given by Improved Two-Weapon Fighting and Greater Two-Weapon Fighting. Those second and third attacks are represented in the text as additional attacks with the same off-hand weapon, which means that the player still has...
I agree with your reading of the rules, and have done since the transition from 3.0 to 3.5.
It was in 3.0 when everyone had an 'off hand' all the time and took a -4 penalty to every action that utilised that hand (unless you had the Ambidexterity feat), and 3.5 did away with the 'off hand' outside of TWF (and the need for an Ambidexterity feat).
"No.
Likewise, you couldn't use an armored gauntlet to do so, as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks."The reason behind not being able to use the spiked gauntlet and not being able to use the armor spikes is the same reason, hence the term Likewise being used in the sentence.
Okay, but the same logic doesn't work for both... You don't use your hands for spiked armor. I've always thought it was an unarmed strike, like body checking, head butting, kicking, elbowing; that kinda' thing.
It was in 3.0 when everyone had an 'off hand' all the time and took a -4 penalty to every action that utilised that hand (unless you had the Ambidexterity feat), and 3.5 did away with the 'off hand' outside of TWF (and the need for an Ambidexterity feat).
My memories of the difference between 3.0 and 3.5 have faded. Thank you for correcting my error. With that correction, it was the Wizards of the Coast designers who dropped the rule about always having an off hand, not the Paizo designers.
|
|
It was in 3.0 when everyone had an 'off hand' all the time and took a -4 penalty to every action that utilised that hand (unless you had the Ambidexterity feat), and 3.5 did away with the 'off hand' outside of TWF (and the need for an Ambidexterity feat).My memories of the difference between 3.0 and 3.5 have faded. Thank you for correcting my error. With that correction, it was the Wizards of the Coast designers who dropped the rule about always having an off hand, not the Paizo designers.
Yes, but the Paizo devs transferred the relevant rules unchanged from 3.5, so we had no reason to believe that there'd be any difference in the application of those rules....until the recent FAQ.
Off Hand does not have to be a physical hand. It is a mechanical term like hit point. Characters don't have pouches full of points that they lose track of every time they get hit.
Just weird. Its a change imo, not a clarification. It should be explicitly spelled out rather than trying to have FAQs explain it and lengthy text in the vestigial arm and tentacle discovery sections. Play a guy with 4 arms and the game suddenly freaks out on you.
Anyways, is the offhand just whatever you designate as not being your main hand?
I prefer simplicity in rules. Thus, I disagree with the 3.5 (sic, should be 3.0) interpretation and disagree with Crash00 above. I treat off hand as a property of two-weapon fighting.I think you've missed a fairly significant portion of the rules. You state off hand is only referenced in TWF and Monk section, but pg. 141 references the off hand under both Light and One Handed weapons. In fact, Off Hand is referenced just as often as Primary Hand in the wielding rules.
Pathfinder has simplified things to the point that "off hand attack" and "off hand weapon" only occur in TWF except for specialty cases (see buckler gun), but "off hand" is not a TWF term.
Jason has confirmed that Two Handed attacks use the off hand, so it cannot just be a property of two weapon fighting.
I mentioned the page 141 reference, "... and in defining light and one-handed weapons." I will also point out that in my interpretation, primary hands exist only during two-weapon fighting (and in natural attacks, which use a primary/secondary split like the primary/off split in two-weapon fighting). No need to define primary except while a non-primary exists.
I did miss one other mention of off hand: in the Core Rulebook, Combat chapter, under Damage, in the Strength bonus subsection,
Off-Hand Weapon: When you deal damage with a weapon in your off hand, you add only 1/2 your Strength bonus. If you have a Strength penalty, the entire penalty applies.
That quote is strong evidence for Crash00's viewpoint. The first mention of an off hand in the Combat chapter has no mention of two-weapon fighting. Or it could be an artifact left over from incomplete editing of the D&D 3.0 rules.
The rules never define "off hand." The context of the two-weapon fighting rules make the definition obvious--it's your other hand, the one you usually don't fight with in a regular attack--but the definition ceases to be obvious outside of two-weapon fighting. Thus, I prefer to use "off hand" only in the context where it is clear.
Last time I played a ranger/monk, he usually held his bow in one hand and punched with his other hand. Which hand was primary: the bow hand or the fist hand? Neither hand is the other hand that isn't used in a regular attack. Obviously, I want the full strength bonus on the unarmed strike, but when he stops punching and starts shooting arrows, should he take penalties for holding his bow in the wrong hand?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you are wielding a greatsword, a dwarven boulder helmet, a barbezu beard, armor spikes, and a boot blade, can you two weapon fight?
The answer is emphatically YES!
You could attack:
helmet/beard,
helmet/spikes,
helmet/boot,
helmet/unarmed strike,
beard/helmet,
beard/spikes,
beard/boot,
beard/unarmed strike,
spikes/helmet,
spikes/beard,
spikes/boot,
spikes/unarmed strike,
boot/helmet,
boot/beard,
boot/spikes,
boot/unarmed strike,
unarmed strike/helmet,
unarmed strike/beard,
unarmed strike/spikes,
unarmed strike/boot,
or unarmed strike/unarmed strike...
... and you can keep both hands on the greatsword during any and all of those attacks.
But, apparently, as soon as you swing the greatsword, all of those other options disappear... [/nonsense]
The main flaw in the theory that off hand and primary hand only exist during two weapon fighting is that two handed weapons use both the primary hand and off hand as well.
It would help if it were spelled out though, or made much sense in the way crusader put it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't make any less sense than not being able to use a boulder helm after attacking with two shortswords. People are willing to accept that you only get one extra attack no matter what it is, but they aren't willing to accept that you only have so much effort to put into attacks at once. I don't get it.
Except the rules make sense in regard to total number of attacks. You get one (until BAB earns you iteratives). But, if you are willing to assume the penalties to attack, and the cost in terms of stat allocation, WBL, and feat tax, then you can gain a second attack by using TWF.
One attack. With TWF, a second attack on a Full Round Action. Nobody is trying to subvert those rules. Nobody.
But, you either need two meta-physical hands that only exist in a mechanical sense. In which case, you could wield a two-handed weapon with one hand and a foot if you wanted (since a foot functions as an off-hand).
Or you need two actual hands, in which case non-handed weapons don't function at all, or are completely worthless since you actually need to "hold" them in your off-hand in some manner.
You are trying to have both. Making the off-hand a purely mechanical device any time someone asks if it has to be an "actual hand" and then making it an actual hand any time someone tries to wield a two-handed weapon plus anything else. "Effort" doesn't exist as a game mechanic in any regard. So, using it as a rules term is irrelevant.
If the off-hand is real (in the sense of being an actual hand) that substantially changes the game rules. If the off-hand is purely mechanical (in the sense of being a function of the non-existent rule of "effort") then that opens up a whole new level of possible exploitation, while confusing an issue that should be straightforward.
Bottom line, if you have two hands, the weapons you use should consume up to the total use of hands you have. If you are using a non-handed weapon, that does not consume the use of a hand, and you are free to use one or both hands for another purpose. This should not interact with attack and damage in any significant way, except the sensible application of the number of hands required to take the action you wish to take. In other words: 2H + 0H = Two Hands!!!
|
|
It doesn't make any less sense than not being able to use a boulder helm after attacking with two shortswords. People are willing to accept that you only get one extra attack no matter what it is, but they aren't willing to accept that you only have so much effort to put into attacks at once. I don't get it.Except the rules make sense in regard to total number of attacks. You get one (until BAB earns you iteratives). But, if you are willing to assume the penalties to attack, and the cost in terms of stat allocation, WBL, and feat tax, then you can gain a second attack by using TWF.
One attack. With TWF, a second attack on a Full Round Action. Nobody is trying to subvert those rules. Nobody.
But, you either need two meta-physical hands that only exist in a mechanical sense. In which case, you could wield a two-handed weapon with one hand and a foot if you wanted (since a foot functions as an off-hand).
Or you need two actual hands, in which case non-handed weapons don't function at all, or are completely worthless since you actually need to "hold" them in your off-hand in some manner.
You are trying to have both. Making the off-hand a purely mechanical device any time someone asks if it has to be an "actual hand" and then making it an actual hand any time someone tries to wield a two-handed weapon plus anything else. "Effort" doesn't exist as a game mechanic in any regard. So, using it as a rules term is irrelevant.
If the off-hand is real (in the sense of being an actual hand) that substantially changes the game rules. If the off-hand is purely mechanical (in the sense of being a function of the non-existent rule of "effort") then that opens up a whole new level of possible exploitation, while confusing an issue that should be straightforward.
Bottom line, if you have two hands, the weapons you use should consume up to the total use of hands you have. If you are using a non-handed weapon, that does not consume the use of a hand, and you are free to use one or...
This! Very much this!
|
|
If you are wielding a greatsword, a dwarven boulder helmet, a barbezu beard, armor spikes, and a boot blade, can you two weapon fight?
The answer is emphatically YES!
You could attack:
helmet/beard,
helmet/spikes,
helmet/boot,
helmet/unarmed strike,
beard/helmet,
beard/spikes,
beard/boot,
beard/unarmed strike,
spikes/helmet,
spikes/beard,
spikes/boot,
spikes/unarmed strike,
boot/helmet,
boot/beard,
boot/spikes,
boot/unarmed strike,
unarmed strike/helmet,
unarmed strike/beard,
unarmed strike/spikes,
unarmed strike/boot,
or unarmed strike/unarmed strike...... and you can keep both hands on the greatsword during any and all of those attacks.
But, apparently, as soon as you swing the greatsword, all of those other options disappear... [/nonsense]
Oh, no, it's only if you swing the greatsword in TWF that you lose the options. If you just use iteratives, then those options remain.
What's that you say? That doesn't make any sense?
Well....., apparently, 'making sense' is not a high priority any more, what with losing you buckler's AC bonus if you kick as your off hand attack, but keep its AC bonus if you attack with that buckler arm as long as you don't use TWF....
Speaking of number of attacks, secondary attacks break the limit already...
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why does an off hand exist outside of two weapon fighting, if it cannot be utilized?
How does the off-hand rely on hands, but, not represent an actual hand, then is limited by a hand, thus represents an actual hand?
It was always my understanding the limiter of things like two-weapon fighting, were the number of attacks, not hands.
It was also my understanding, that no single attack, used up more than one attack.
Does the two handed weapon use up two attacks only when used as a primary attack?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Man... That 2-Handed + Armor Spikes FAQ created so many doubts and opened so many cans of worms that I have to wonder...
Was it worth it? Was banning an underpowered combat style worth all this headache? Especially a combat style that is still inferior to simply using a Greatsword and nothing else...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Was it worth it?
No.
Man... That 2-Handed + Armor Spikes FAQ created so many doubts and opened so many cans of worms that I have to wonder...
Was it worth it? Was banning an underpowered combat style worth all this headache? Especially a combat style that is still inferior to simply using a Greatsword and nothing else...
..and inferior to simply using two sawtoothed sabres. I suspect the hand of Blood Mistress Jakalyn herself is behind this anti-armor spike inquisition.
This seems to confuse the issue when dealing with things like the Alchemist's extra arms, as the limiter before was attacks, but now it is hands, or virtual hands, or both, but neither.
Well, I think the idea was that you wouldn't do something crazy like body check someone after using a halberd or greataxe. Similarly that you wouldn't grow extra arms. The arms have overly specific text about their uses to ensure they're only used for holding... So people decided to dual wield sawtooth sabres 2 arms each. Another thing is deciding an offhand and why we can't be ambidextrous suddenly, or if we are if we use exactly the same thing. I have 4 arms! Which ones my offhand?
Maybe they could find a better term and not actually use hands as an example in the faqs...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the limiter is damage, a part of an unwritten "effort limit", then this should still allow a two handed weapon as an off-hand attack.
This is because the two handed off-hand attack is still limited to x0.5 strength to damage.
If the limiter is virtual hands, then a two handed weapon can still be used when multiple off-hand attacks become available, as long as the number of off-hand attacks used in part of a two handed weapon attack, such as a PC with the Improved Two Weapon Fighting feat, who uses up one off-hand attack as part of a two handed weapon attack, then still has an available off-hand attack, that could be used with something like, a Boot Blade.
If the limiter is actual hands, then non-hand weapons can only be used when a hand is free, which leads to the confusing free hand needed to kick.
If the limiter is attacks, then everything pretty much functions as they did before, and no one is really all that confused.
So, what happens to be the best for the game?
TL;DR (or, more correctly, too confusing. Didn't understand. TC;DU)
So, does an alchemist with extra arms act like Ricky Bobby at a press conference now?
"I don't know what to do with my hands"
- Ricky Bobby, Talladega Nights
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A "Hand" whether it is "Primary" of "Off-" is (choose one of the following):
1. An actual hand.
2. A rules construct denoting the effort used to make an attack.
It doesn't matter which of these you choose. It just has to be that all of the time. It can't switch back and forth to suit your argument. Unfortunately, the FAQ isn't sustainable if a hand can't switch back and forth between real and theoretical.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's also pretty impractical now that the ruleset has expanded and there are multiple ways to get a third "hand", whether it be real or metaphorical.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like the idea of the off-hand being real and/or theoretical whenever it suites the whimsy of whoever is ruling.
This whole "sometimes is", "sometimes not", and "sometimes both" business with the virtual/actual aspect of the off-hand, is a mess.
Also, this whole idea that the off-hand sort does, and doesn't exist out of two-weapon fighting is just another pile added to the mess.
I don't like the idea of the off-hand being real and/or theoretical whenever it suites the whimsy of whoever is ruling.
This whole "sometimes is", "sometimes not", and "sometimes both" business with the virtual/actual aspect of the off-hand, is a mess.
Also, this whole idea that the off-hand sort does, and doesn't exist out of two-weapon fighting is just another pile added to the mess.
I wholeheartedly agree.
I don't like the idea of the off-hand being real and/or theoretical whenever it suites the whimsy of whoever is ruling.
This whole "sometimes is", "sometimes not", and "sometimes both" business with the virtual/actual aspect of the off-hand, is a mess.
Also, this whole idea that the off-hand sort does, and doesn't exist out of two-weapon fighting is just another pile added to the mess.
Couldn't have said it better myself...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also find the complete denial of any confusion, or problems, to be a massive disservice to all Pathfinder players as a whole.
This is what gets me angry about this topic. The devs say "oh, well, when we wrote the book, we wrote it with the assumption that a player character has two hands and won't ever use more".
This, they add in, as an afterthought. In an FAQ. Meaning there was clarity necessary. If this was the intention, it should have been spelled out in a rule. As in, a definition of primary hand, off-hand, and the mechanics of a "hand" in general.
Then, they start putting out splatbooks. Books which have extra rules and options. Some of which clearly add extra hands. Literally and figuratively.
Yet, someone clever in editing and continuity says "you don't get extra attacks or actions, even though you have extra hands", because that would break the "you only ever get two" rule.
What?!?
If they want PC's to only have two hands, and monsters can have more, then all they have to do is spell that out clearly and write it down. Stop with the ambiguity. Clear disservice to Pathfinder players indeed.
*Peeks in looking for the dead horse, and then flees in terror.*
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Schrodinger's Hand?
|
|
Well, I think the idea was that you wouldn't do something crazy like body check someone after using a halberd or greataxe.
I've seen a few posts say that using a two-handed weapon and then a gauntlet or spiked armour won't work because of the differing distance between the two combatants, but I don't see much difference in distance between a longsword used in one hand and in two.
Especially when the game system itself assumes that you move around a 5-foot square constantly during combat. You could be anywhere between 10-foot away and nose-to-nose with your enemy and are still considered adjacent, so saying that 2H+spikes is 'unrealistic' (while 1H+spikes is 'fine') in the game doesn't really hold water.
When mounted, you are considered to occupy all four of your mount's squares. : /