|
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. : /
|
How is B) more simple than A)?
Its pretty simple.
Are you wielding a two-handed weapon?
Yes?
Then you can't be "wielding" another type of weapon.
And the whole thought process of not having a designated weapon "wielded" between your turns is ludicrous.
Seriously, if you aren't "wielding" a weapon, how do you threaten with it?
And to wield a two-handed weapon, you gotta have both hands on it.
The problem with A) is that you're allowed to switch which hand is dedicated to what. So when can you make that decision?
We know you can change them between iterative attacks. We know if you've declared TWF, that you can't change them (at least for one of the off hand uses - pairing them makes the most sense, but apparently there's still discussion to be had on that). I don't think there's anything in the rules to suggest that you are "locked in" (so to speak) to wielding just the Two-Handed Weapon throughout the period between your turns just because you attacked with it last, or vice versa.
How is B) more simple than A)?
Its pretty simple.
Are you wielding a two-handed weapon?
Yes?
Then you can't be "wielding" another type of weapon.
And the whole thought process of not having a designated weapon "wielded" between your turns is ludicrous.
Seriously, if you aren't "wielding" a weapon, how do you threaten with it?
And to wield a two-handed weapon, you gotta have both hands on it.
Why should holding a Greatsword prevent me from attacking with my armor spikes? If I never attack with the Greatsword, there's no reason I can't use the armor spikes to make an attack. Similarly, if I have multiple iterative attacks, there's no reason I can't make different iterative attacks between the two weapons.
|
|
When you take a full attack action using TWF, you must declare which weapon will be the off hand weapon for that full attack.
Your choice dictates your TWF attack penalties and which attack only gets half Str bonus to damage (and also takes all of your extra off hand attacks from TWF and can't take any non-off hand attack). After that full attack is complete, that choice and all those consequences fall away, until the next time you use TWF and can make those choices again.
I can't think of any other situation where you have to choose an off hand.
|
|
Why should holding a Greatsword prevent me from attacking with my armor spikes? If I never attack with the Greatsword, there's no reason I can't use the armor spikes to make an attack. Similarly, if I have multiple iterative attacks, there's no reason I can't make different iterative attacks between the two weapons.How is B) more simple than A)?
Its pretty simple.
Are you wielding a two-handed weapon?
Yes?
Then you can't be "wielding" another type of weapon.
And the whole thought process of not having a designated weapon "wielded" between your turns is ludicrous.
Seriously, if you aren't "wielding" a weapon, how do you threaten with it?
And to wield a two-handed weapon, you gotta have both hands on it.
You certainly can do this on your turn (with the exception of making this two-weapon fighting). Because you can do a free action anytime during your turn, including between iterative attacks of a full-attack action.
In other words, even with a reach weapon, if you had two targets at 10' (one who had DR/Good and one with DR/Silver) and one at 5' that had DR/Silver, and you had used your oil of bless weapon on your Glaive and had silver armor spikes, then:
You could swing your glaive at the creature with DR/Good for your primary, use a free action to let go of the glaive with one hand, use your secondary attack on the guy at 5', use a free action to 5' step up to the other guy with DR/Silver and use your Tertiary attack to hit him with your armor spikes.
But once your turn is over, you cannot use a free action as an interrupt to release a hand from your glaive (or add a hand to your glaive) when someone would provoke an AoO should you have been threatening a particular square. Only Immediate actions can do that.
In other words, you either are, or are not threatening a square.
And if you aren't wielding a weapon, you cannot threaten a square that weapon would otherwise threaten.
To wield a two-handed weapon, you have to use both hands.
If you are wielding a two-handed weapon, you do not have an "off-hand" to wield armor spikes.
Also, TWF penalties do not extend beyond your turn. There is no impact on attacks of opportunity from TWF during your turn. So, however you determined your weapons to be treated in regard to primary and offhandedness is irrelevant for an AoO. If you're wielding a Battleaxe (primary) and a Handaxe (off) to TWF during your turn, you can make your AoO with the Handaxe using your full STR bonus on the attack.
The point is, you don't have to let go of your Glaive to make an attack with Armor Spikes anymore than you have to let go of a Battleaxe to make an attack with a Handaxe and get full STR bonus.
|
You cannot create rules, by using rules for an entirely different situation, to meet your idea of how to restrict a totally RAW option.
It's not two weapon fighting.
Two weapon fighting is a full attack action, in which it's limitations, and penalties, only exist during that full attack action.
If I wield a Greatsword, Armor Spikes, Dwarven Boulder Helmet, two Boot Blades, and have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, along with a Bite, and Gore, I dang well threaten with every single one of them, and can choose any one to attack with during an Attack of Opportunity.
Also, I dang well am able to "wield" every one at the same time.
You simply cannot restrict any, without a houserule, or make something up and state that it's RAW, or secret unwritten RAW.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not making anything up folks.
But when they say you need an "off-hand" to wield armor spikes, and that when wielding a two-handed weapon you don't have an "off-hand", it creates a precedent.
But this is why I asked for it to be FAQ'd. I'm not making anything up or saying 100% this is how it should be. Yes, I'm arguing my point, but lets not start accusing folks of making stuff up.
Its an interpretation of the rules. I've asked for it to be FAQ'd, so I can get clarity on it. If the developers disagree with me, that's fine.
|
|
By reading the rules Blackblood. Off Hand has always been a limiter outside of two weapon fighting, it just doesn't come up very often because there aren't a lot of uses for the off hand. The primary two are two handed fighting and two weapon fighting.
How is B) more simple than A)?
Its pretty simple.
Are you wielding a two-handed weapon?
Yes?
Then you can't be "wielding" another type of weapon.
And the whole thought process of not having a designated weapon "wielded" between your turns is ludicrous.
Seriously, if you aren't "wielding" a weapon, how do you threaten with it?
And to wield a two-handed weapon, you gotta have both hands on it.
It sets a precedent that causes the game to slow down.
If you have to declare you Primary Hand and Off Hand at all times, then you have to state where they are at the end of your turn.
You seem to think that this only has an effect on disallowing people to wield two handed weapons and armor spikes (or similar weapons that don't require physical hands). That is not the case.
Let's look at a normal two weapon fighter. He has to declare which weapon is in his off hand and which is in his primary at the end of every single turn now. If he takes the AoO with the weapon in his off hand, then he only gets str * .5 (opposed to the normal str * 1 for a primary attack).
Most people that use two weapons in my games use two normal weapons that are wieldable in one hand. Much more common than two hands + armor spikes/etc. A) adds a lot more complication into every single round.
I disagree.
The “off-hand” only functions as ½ strength when being used in two-weapon fighting. When you are carrying two weapons, you can threaten with both, but the penalty only occurs if you attack with both weapons as a full-attack action. If you take your AoO with one of the weapons (or just take a single attack action during your turn) then you could attack with either weapon, and in that instance it would be considered primary.
In the case of wielding a two-handed weapon, you do not have the option of having an “off-hand” weapon, because you don’t have an “off-hand” when wielding something with both hands.
All you have to declare is which weapon you want to threaten with. Your armor spikes or your reach weapon.
|
|
So, when I wield a Greatsword, Armor Spikes, Dwarven Boulder Helmet, two Boot Blades, and have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, along with a Bite, and Gore, I suddenly cannot threaten with all, and make AoOs with any of them, as to some unwritten rule?
Which new rules have changed this?
What makes these no longer valid options?
This "declaration" of what to threaten with has no valid rules support.
It is an obligatory statement, based on nothing within RAW.
|
|
So, when I wield a Greatsword, Armor Spikes, Dwarven Boulder Helmet, two Boot Blades, and have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, along with a Bite, and Gore, I suddenly cannot threaten with all, and make AoOs with any of them, as to some unwritten rule?
Which new rules have changed this?
What makes these no longer valid options?
This "declaration" of what to threaten with has no valid rules support.
It is an obligatory statement, based on nothing within RAW.
You can certainly ignore all the precedent that is within the RAW above.
But you know as well as I do, that not everything within this very complicated game is spelled out directly or explicitly. Which is why we have a huge FAQ document.
I feel that RAW certainly has precedent within it, especially in light of the recent FAQ answer on why you cannot TWF with a THW and Armor Spikes.
Refute the information I’ve given above if you don’t agree. But don’t just argue the same thing over and over without some sort of citation or rebuttal to something specific I’ve written.
Natural Attacks and Unarmed Strikes specifically work differently. They indicate that when wielding a weapon, you can make those attacks as though they were a secondary attack. Any weapon that also indicates this specifically could be used the same (although I’m not sure if the boulder helmet or boot blades say this).
If you are a monk, and you are using a weapon with which you can flurry, and that weapon happens to be a reach weapon, you can threaten with both your unarmed attacks and the weapon.
|
|
No. 1/2 strength is a quality of the off hand. It is not just something that happens when two weapon fighting. Read pg. 141 of the CRB. There is no mention of two weapon fighting on that page. Off hand is on the page more than once with references to the half strength rule.
Read page 179:
"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."The 1/2 strength is not tied in any way to the penalty for two weapon fighting.
You also have the concept wrong for two handed weapons. It isn't a case of not having an off hand. That is just silly.
A two handed weapon uses both hands. You have a Primary Hand and Off Hand, but both are being used by the two handed weapon. Your off hand did not disappear. It was not meta-physically hacked off. It is there and represented mechanically by the rules (again, read the rules on pg. 141 of the CRB).
The situation is exactly as I stated it is. If you have to declare where your hands are (which determines what you threaten with), then it applies to everyone, not just two handed wielders. That slows down game play and complicates things more than most groups really need it to.
But there is no "off-hand" unless you are engaging in a full-attack action in which you use both weapons.
You can choose to take a single attack action with either weapon you are wielding, and it is considered a primary weapon.
And it isn't my concept for the two-handed weapon not having an "off-hand". That's part of the explanation the design team used in the FAQ I linked above in my OP. Go actually read that FAQ please.
|
|
Exactly how does the restrictions of the two weapon fighting full attack action have any impact on AoOs, outside your turn?
You are flat out advocating the "free hand to kick" nonsense.
You can wield, and threaten, with more than one, or two weapons, at the same time.
This restriction of the number of weapons you can threaten with, does not exist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The point is, you don't have to let go of your Glaive to make an attack with Armor Spikes anymore than you have to let go of a Battleaxe to make an attack with a Handaxe and get full STR bonus.This argument has some merit. However I don't believe it applies in regards to using a two-handed weapon.
Sure it does. Barring predetermination (like declaring TWF for instance), you can choose how to make an attack, with which weapon currently available, etc. at the time the attack is made. That's why it's relevant that TWF penalties don't carry over beyond the end of your turn. You're not "locked in" to treated one of your hands as the primary hand, even if it was during your turn while TWF.
If you're not locked in to using one hand as a dominant hand, why would you need to be locked in to using your two-handed weapon just because it's available for use?
Furthermore, my argument is that if you have multiple AoO available and different triggers allow you to make multiple AoO outside of your turn, you are not required to use the same weapon to make each attack.
|
|
Attacks of Opportunity are never made with an off-hand attack.
The FAQ, that you champion as the core of your argument, never touches on the subject of wielding, or threatening.
So, even if an off-hand is "used up" as part of an attack with a two handed weapon, it never takes away from what you are threatening with.
This stance of yours make a PC threatening with a weapon, equal to attacking with it, as far as restrictions go.
So, whilst you cannot currently gain an extra attack with an off-hand weapon, during a full attack, with a two-handed weapon, it does effect your ability to threaten. Especially outside that full attack action.
So, you want an attack to be "used up", by simply threatening with another weapon.
This restriction, has no support, for your examples do not show how the off-hand is used up, even if no attack has occurred yet.
|
|
If, for whatever reason (such as someone hands me the [i]everburning torch to hold onto), I choose to hold a two-handed weapon in one hand, while it is not my turn. Then I am not wielding it. I'm just holding onto it. I would not threaten with the reach weapon.
That is essentially what they are saying when they say you don't have an "off-hand" to attack with when wielding a two-handed weapon in the same hand.
The only times you really declare what your "off-hand" is, is during a full-attack action in which you are using both wielded weapons, or declaring you don't have an "off-hand" when you are wielding a two-handed weapon.
|
|
There is nothing to refute, you have not show a single convincing evidence.
There are those who believe differently, in this very thread.
Just because you feel you are correct, doesn't make it so.
It is pretty disingenuous to debate a topic by simply saying, "nope, you are wrong, you don't have anything convincing" without actually refuting what I've said and without actually using your own convincing evidence to the contrary.
|
|
Attacks of Opportunity are never made with an off-hand attack.
The FAQ, that you champion as the core of your argument, never touches on the subject of wielding, or threatening.
So, even if an off-hand is "used up" as part of an attack with a two handed weapon, it never takes away from what you are threatening with.
This stance of yours make a PC threatening with a weapon, equal to attacking with it, as far as restrictions go.
So, whilst you cannot currently gain an extra attack with an off-hand weapon, during a full attack, with a two-handed weapon, it does effect your ability to threaten. Especially outside that full attack action.
So, you want an attack to be "used up", by simply threatening with another weapon.
This restriction, has no support, for your examples do not show how the off-hand is used up, even if no attack has occurred yet.
Sure I have. If you have no "off-hand" while wielding a two-handed weapon and you must wield a weapon to threaten with it, then wielding a two-handed weapon means you cannot also wield a second weapon simultaneously.
You can of course read every rule you come across in a vacuum, but you have to be able to read the rules and FAQ answers in the context of the entire set of rules.
|
|
You don't use an off-hand to make an AoO.
You don't need an available off-hand to threaten.
You are not limited by any "off hand" as to what you are wielding.
Holding, and threatening, with a two handed weapon has not been proven to make another wielded weapon "unwielded" and unable to threaten.
The off-hand, has no bearing on the on the limits of what one is wielding, and threatening with, and this has not been proven otherwise.
|
"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 Back to Top "
"Two-Handed Weapons: What kind of action is it to remove your hand from a two-handed weapon or re-grab it with both hands?
Both are free actions. For example, a wizard wielding a quarterstaff can let go of the weapon with one hand as a free action, cast a spell as a standard action, and grasp the weapon again with that hand as a free action; this means the wizard is still able to make attacks of opportunity with the weapon (which requires using two hands).
As with any free action, the GM may decide a reasonable limit to how many times per round you can release and re-grasp the weapon (one release and re-grasp per round is fair).
—Pathfinder Design Team, 03/01/13"
It does seem to make it clear that you have to be wielding a weapon, and if you are wielding a two-handed weapon, you aren't able to wield anything else. I also note in the first FAQ that it says you are unable to make "any" attacks, not just attacks as part of that full attack sequence. I can definitely see where Bb and crew are coming from.
Taking a look at this another way:
If you have a longsword as your only weapon (other hand free), can you choose to use the Longsword as a two-handed weapon during an AoO for the extra damage (after attacking with it as a one-handed weapon the turn before)?
There might be some dissension in regards to whether you can switch your grip for an AoO, but from my perspective I wouldn't have any issue with it.