Hey, there was a recent ruling about fighting with a two-handed weapon while two weapon fighting.
I am a little confused on the ruling and what it pertains to.
So, is Paizo say that you can't: 1) Fight with a two-handed weapon in one hand (through some special class ability) and fight with a light weapon in the other; 2) Fight with a two-handed weapon in one hand and use spike, unarmed strike, etc... as you off hand; and/or 3) Fight with any weapon with two hands (say use a longsword or shield two-handed) while using spikes, unarmed strike, etc... as your off hand attack.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Number 3 only. Although you shouldn't be able to do number 2 without some special ability, anyway.
Edit: The FAQ basically says "if you have both of your hands on a weapon, you lose the ability to make off-hand attacks". Many people disagree with this stance, but it's pretty clear.
Pretty much what Chemlak said, with one minor addition. You can have both hands on a weapon as long as you aren't wielding that weapon while TWF. You could, theoretically, be holding a greatsword in both hand and still attack with a blade boot and armor spikes.
The moment you use the two-handed weapon though, it uses your off hand and negates the ability to make an off hand attack.
Driver 325 yards wrote: Hey, there was a recent ruling about fighting with a two-handed weapon while two weapon fighting.
I am a little confused on the ruling and what it pertains to.
Currently it pertains to armor spikes.
What the devs have said on the boards is, indeed, confusing.
You can buy into the idea that they made some terms 'primary hand' and 'off hand' that have no ties to -hands- and never appear in the core rules as being separate from hands.. in which case, I frankly don't know where things stand. Even those who claim that 'they've always played it that way' don't agree fully with the devs on some of the ancillary things coming from it.
If you don't go with that, then the best conclusion from the RAW is that the FAQ is claiming that you need a physical hand to use armor spikes.
This is also supported by a prior Paizo employee saying exactly this, but is contradicted by Jason recently.
It would fit with the FAQ ruling going in the equipment section rather than say the combat section, etc. Of course the FAQ has now been moved.
Bottom line, if you are confused, then you are not alone.
-James
Right now, it seems just Gauntlets and Armor Spikes.
The reason they give is confusing, but then again, you are not alone.
Expect some to give "between the lines" reasons, but still expect to be confused.
What the FAQ means is still unclear, but expect others to disagree.
Jason specifically stated that you cannot use a greatsword and off hand attack kick someone as well. It is not just Gauntlets and Armor spikes. It's THF and TWF as a whole that are incompatible at the same time.
I thought the basic reasoning was to limit a character to 1.5x strength mod (without the use of feats.
Fighting 2 handed gives 1.5x str bonus
Or
primary gives 1x str bonus
Secondary gives 0.5x str bonus
Crash_00 wrote: It's THF and TWF as a whole that are incompatible at the same time. Except for with some Paizo items that spell out the exact opposite as a consequence rather than as a special rule for the item.
From the way they've talked on the boards, they haven't fully thought it through what their change will ripple into... hence the 'headache'.
As a side question, I'm curious on your 'phantom hands'.. is there a place in the rules that references them without also referencing actual hands?
-James
Which items are those, James?
Phantom Hands, Imaginary Hands, etc. are Malachi's terms for trying to confuse this situation. If that is what you wish to call them as well, but they are not some mystical force that you are using.
Primary Hand and Off Hand represent effort that you can put forth into wielding weapons. We know this from the very beginning of the weapon classifications that states the classifications are a measure of effort.
The question is really rather or not the rules reference actual hands for the purposes of wielding weapons. I don't believe that they ever actually do. They imply that you use physical hands for your Primary and Off hand, but it is never stated. This is where the, we thought it was obvious bit, comes into play.
You should be able to tell from a weapon's description how many physical hands it takes to wield, it's implied. You can tell from it's classification how much effort it takes to wield, it's stated in the rules.
You could, through some creative/obtuse reading try to make the claim that all weapons just require effort and no hands, and theoretically it could be interpreted that way, but when there are multiple interpretations and you know which one is meant, that leads to the path of the munchkin.
Crash_00 wrote: Jason specifically stated that you cannot use a greatsword and off hand attack kick someone as well. It is not just Gauntlets and Armor spikes. It's THF and TWF as a whole that are incompatible at the same time. The Thunderstiker is a fighter archetype built around just that.
Thunderstriker is a fighter archetype built around using the buckler.
Crash_00 wrote: Thunderstriker is a fighter archetype built around using the buckler. Two weapon fighting with the buckler and a two handed weapon.
Please note where it says both at once. I'm not seeing it. It let's you two weapon fight with the buckler as a weapon. It let's you use a two hander without losing the bonus of the buckler. It reduces the penalty the buckler would normally impose.
Nothing in the archetype states that it is about using a two handed weapon and the buckler at the same time.
I see it as an archetype that is able to switch between the two style seamlessly. Let's look at the archetype:
The thunderstriker adopts an unusual fighting style, gripping a heavy weapon with both hands and switching to a defensive posture with weapon and buckler, lashing out with the shield with surprising speed and power.
So you take a two handed stance and then switch to a weapon and shield stance. You're fast at lashing out with the shield, which works with the seamlessly switching style theme.
Where in the archetype does it say you use a two-handed weapon? I see a lot of references to a weapon in both hands and fighting two handed, both of which can be done with a one handed weapon as you switch between stances.
I see nothing in this archetype that breaks down when subjected to the rules.
Chaotic Fighter wrote: Crash_00 wrote: Thunderstriker is a fighter archetype built around using the buckler. Two weapon fighting with the buckler and a two handed weapon. Thunderstriker is based around switching between THF and TWF with a buckler, not doing both at once. That is, he swings two-handed for the STR bonus when limited to a standard attack, and can easily switch to a two-weapon stance for full attacks.
A niche concept to be sure, but not one that is easily replicated without the archetype.
Yes I just saw that when I looked at it just after I posted. But you know what. I'm maintaining the fluff in the character description. I'm interpreting it as it's meant to use a two handed weapon and a buckler and makes plenty of mention of two weapon fighting. But you know what. If they changed the rules I guess that makes the thunderstriker boring for some people. I'm sticking with the fluff in the archetype description.
Chaotic Fighter wrote: Crash_00 wrote: Thunderstriker is a fighter archetype built around using the buckler. Two weapon fighting with the buckler and a two handed weapon. You right. The author obviously believed that TWFing with a 2HW and a shield bash is no problem. If he'd thought it wasn't allowed then he would have given the Thunderstriker a special ability to do it, just like he gave the special ability to shield bash with a buckler (impossible without a special ability).
Or not. We could just assume things I guess, but that leads to people misreading the rules and getting bent out of shape because their assumptions were wrong.
I feel that the lack of the words "two handed weapon" anywhere in the archetype is pretty telling though.
"Gripping a heavy weapon with both hands" is what got me thinking that.
Actually it makes mention of fighting with a weapon in two hands in multiple abilities. Strapped Shield, Hammer and Anvil, Buckler Defense, and Improved Buckler Defense.
Blades, Heavy: bastard sword, elven curve blade, falchion, greatsword, longsword, scimitar, scythe, and two-bladed sword.
Just for reference, a longsword, scimitar, and bastard sword are all considered "heavy" blades without being two handed weapons.
In both hands. Allowing for the bonuses granted by fighting with a Two handed weapon.
Right, and then he switches to a stance with a buckler and weapon. He goes back and forth. It's part of the same sentence.
Gripping a heavy weapon with both hands and switching to a defensive posture with weapon and buckler. You can attack from defense stances.
What is his fighting style?
Read the whole thing together. His fighting style is gripping a heavy weapon in both hands and switching to a defensive posture with weapon and buckler.
At one point he is using both hands on the weapon. At one point he is using the weapon and buckler. There is a switch between these points. They are not at the same point.
I see that the way it is written without the inclusion of the Two Handed Weapon in the Two weapon fighting sections that it doesn't work. But that would make the archetype hardly useful. And the obvious conclusion (at least to me.) before the ruling on two handed fighting while two weapon fighting is that he can do both at the same time.
I wouldn't say it's hardly useful at all. He has a good standard action attack (only a couple points DPR behind a great sword) while also managing to have extra attacks on a full attack (by switching his stance). It's all about being versatile, which the archetype does well imo.
--casts Summon Malachi IV--
I just feel it's behind the a sword and board fighter otherwise in which case there's not much point.
On full attacks, it will come out lower than a sword and boarder when TWFer usually, but it does better on standard action attacks and can gain a better benefit from Power Attack when not TWF (against something with DR for instance).
That's the tradeoff that it's making, slightly lower TWF full attack damage for slightly better non full attack and non TWF full attack.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I suppose in a world where the crossbowman is an archetype that makes sense.
I'm sorry to say this, but I really wish the usual suspects wouldn't come in to all of these "off-hand" threads. I am genuinely confused by the subject and both "sides" of the argument refuse to listen to each other. The end result is that no one will ever get an answer without dev comment because there can never be a general consensus. And even a dev answer will be suspect due to the nature of this argument.
Honestly, if there were a way to block posts by specific people I would do so.
I'm not sure what is so complicated about the faq entry, granted it's not logical, or intuitive and belies common sense, however it is clear as to what it says and means. you can't make off hand hand attacks and two handed weapon attacks on the same turn.
What? An archetype can do something other characters can't? The scandal!
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Well, there are NPCs, recent even, that note the style.
Also, there are some weapons that call out, specifically, that they can be used with two handed weapons.
I understand why they made this decision, but it's the way they went about it that is the problem, not the restriction.
I really only have seen Crash, and about two other posters, that totally agree with it, think it's the cat's meow, and are absolutely sure that it has always been that way.
Now, there is evidence against that position, including a 3.5 FAQ, which Pathfinder is based on, that clearly states that the combination worked.
The thing is, that this combo was really fully agreed upon amongst Devs of 3.5, and Pathfinder. Mostly, many didn't like it, but nothing in the rules truly disallowed it.
The current reasoning, has some Devs actually referencing unwritten rules as reasoning behind it.
It's a mess, and I hope they have better reasoning behind it.
Metaphorical, or Metaphysical hands are a poor choice.
Crash_00 wrote: Which items are those, James? I'm sorry, I've seen you in so many of these threads. I had assumed that you were aware of items like the Barbazu beard. There are at least two of which I am aware that spell out this situation of using them to TWF with a two-handed weapon.
Crash_00 wrote: Phantom Hands, Imaginary Hands, etc. are Malachi's terms for trying to confuse this situation. If that is what you wish to call them as well, but they are not some mystical force that you are using.
Primary Hand and Off Hand represent effort that you can put forth into wielding weapons. We know this from the very beginning of the weapon classifications that states the classifications are a measure of effort.
The problem is trying to pick wording so as not to be confusing in having this discussion.
One needs to refer to actual physical hands, and the other term needs to refer to non-physical hands. Perhaps we can use hands to mean physical hands and effort for non-physical hands? Would this be acceptable?
The problem is that I am not convinced that the RAW separates Primary Hand and Off-hand from actual hands. I am attempting to read the rules with this interpretation of yours, but I am uncertain of how fanciful a reading it is. Are you making a division where none exists?
Crash_00 wrote: The question is really rather or not the rules reference actual hands for the purposes of wielding weapons. I don't believe that they ever actually do. They imply that you use physical hands for your Primary and Off hand, but it is never stated. This is where the, we thought it was obvious bit, comes into play. So is it your contention that p141 does not deal with 'hands' at all, but rather entirely with 'effort'?
Each use of the word hand would be replaced via my suggestion with the word effort (not that it is a wonderful term, but just to clearly distinguish it).
So each word 'hand' is not referencing an actual hand, but rather your measure of effort in this context.
Are other places also using 'hand' for 'effort'? Say having a 'free hand' for casting a spell? Shield use? Options that allow for or increase the number of physical hands?
Crash_00 wrote: You should be able to tell from a weapon's description how many physical hands it takes to wield, it's implied. This is an interesting reading.
Armor spikes never mention whether they do require a hand to use, though most interpret that they do not.
It does make interesting weapons like the dwarven waraxe and bastard sword. Would you claim then that both could be used in one hand while using both efforts to wield? The exotic proficiency only frees up the effort, and the hand was never mentioned?
Either way there is ambiguity involved where it should not be. I had been approaching this with the former, and claim that this ambiguity is RAW what the FAQ is claiming: armor spikes need a hand to use. (Not that I agree with it, but that I admit that RAW allows for it). I'm trying to see this other reading with its different ambiguities.
Crash_00 wrote: You could, through some creative/obtuse reading try to make the claim that all weapons just require effort and no hands, and theoretically it could be interpreted that way, but when there are multiple interpretations and you know which one is meant, that leads to the path of the munchkin. It does seem strange for them not to spell out what hands are required for which weapons when they do so for other items like shields. The rules seem very concerned about hands between weapons, shields, and casting of spells. I see it as a strike against your reading that Primary Hand and Off Hand are efforts and not hands.
Let me ask you a scenario or so that you've likely already answered in an attempt to see where you really stand in this:
1. A character has a longsword in his right hand, has a tower shield equipped with their left hand, and is wearing armor spikes.
Question A: Can the character TWF with longsword and armor spikes?
I believe your answer is: Yes. They designate the longsword as being wielded in the Primary Hand and armor spikes as being wielded in the Offhand (or vice versa for worse penalties).
Question B: Does this effect the tower shield in any way?
Question C: Does the fact that the tower shield is removing a hand from being a 'free hand' complicate matters, or does it highlight the distinction between hand and effort?
I'll have a few more questions to follow this, but I want to see how you've read the RAW on this. Your contention is that the FAQ and the subsequent dev comments are not changes to the RAW. Thus their comments on the boards as to the FAQ should be conclusions and not them expounding from the rules. Thus their comments can be used to highlight your answers, but not to justify them.
-James
Quote: 1. A character has a longsword in his right hand, has a tower shield equipped with their left hand, and is wearing armor spikes.
Question A: Can the character TWF with longsword and armor spikes?
Yes. The character can. This is because of the fact that the Tower Shield does not require the Primary or Off Hand. While it is encumbering, it requires no effort to wield as a weapon because it isn't being wielded as a weapon.
Quote: Question B: Does this effect the tower shield in any way? No. The shield is unaffected by this. By RAW the only shield affected by TWF (assuming that the shield is not used as a weapon), is the buckler due to it's use of the Off Hand in its rules. In that case, it is undoubtedly not the intent of the writer, but it does read that way all the same.
Quote: Question C: Does the fact that the tower shield is removing a hand from being a 'free hand' complicate matters, or does it highlight the distinction between hand and effort? It does not complicate matters at all. As long as it does not remove/use the Primary Hand or Off Hand, then the character still has that effort for wielding a weapon.
[quoteIt does make interesting weapons like the dwarven waraxe and bastard sword. Would you claim then that both could be used in one hand while using both efforts to wield? The exotic proficiency only frees up the effort, and the hand was never mentioned? You could read it that way. However, the implication is clear and it would be a creative interpretation to put it mildly. That same interpretation would also technically mean that you could wield these weapon, all weapons for that matter, with no physical hands, because it ignores the implications given by the rules.
Quote: I'm sorry, I've seen you in so many of these threads. I had assumed that you were aware of items like the Barbazu beard. There are at least two of which I am aware that spell out this situation of using them to TWF with a two-handed weapon. I would say that the beard and sea knife are both special rules. Keep in mind that hands, when referring to weapons, means effort. If it requires no hands, that means that it does not require the Primary Hand or Off Hand.
Both of these weapons can be used for TWF with THF, but they both come with major drawbacks to balance the power. Sea Knives are pretty much only useful if you are swimming (which is pretty much the point). The beard provokes an AoO when attacking. Some try to use this as reason for unarmed strike to count as well, but the beard is an exotic weapon. It provokes even after you've spent a feat on learning to use it.
Quote: Are other places also using 'hand' for 'effort'? Say having a 'free hand' for casting a spell? Shield use? Options that allow for or increase the number of physical hands? Yes and no. That probably isn't what you want to read, but it is the truth to a degree.
Everything for the purposes of wielding weapons refers to hand/s as though talking about Primary or Off Hand. Those are your "hands" for wielding.
For all other purposes, hands refer to your actual hands.
Quote: The problem is that I am not convinced that the RAW separates Primary Hand and Off-hand from actual hands. I am attempting to read the rules with this interpretation of yours, but I am uncertain of how fanciful a reading it is. Are you making a division where none exists? Critical analysis suffers all the same problems as traditional translating does. You have to interpret literally or find the intent. For the purposes of games and RAW, literal is really the only way to translate/analyze. They are manuals of structure just like any formula.
My personal reading tells me that Primary and Off Hand are both physical hands and an amount of effort unless logic deems that the weapon would not require a physical hand, at which point it only refers to the effort for that weapon.
However, that requires some intuitive implications that aren't explicitly stated.
Crash_00 wrote: Quote: It does make interesting weapons like the dwarven waraxe and bastard sword. Would you claim then that both could be used in one hand while using both efforts to wield? The exotic proficiency only frees up the effort, and the hand was never mentioned? You could read it that way. However, the implication is clear and it would be a creative interpretation to put it mildly.
<snip>
Keep in mind that hands, when referring to weapons, means effort. Which way do you want this? You seem to be saying two different things here.
If hands, when referring to weapons, means effort, then hands when referring to the bastard sword and dwarven waraxe doesn't mean effort but instead mean physical hands?
Which is it?
Crash_00 wrote: My personal reading tells me that Primary and Off Hand are both physical hands and an amount of effort unless logic deems that the weapon would not require a physical hand, at which point it only refers to the effort for that weapon. And this undermines your claim that there needs to be a distinction in the first place and that p141 doesn't mean 'hands' when it says 'hands'.
You have decided that when they say that the categories for weapons refers to effort, that this translates to hands not meaning hands, but instead somehow meaning effort. This is a huge leap, and if you are not going to consistently read it that way.. then it is an erroneous leap.
Crash_00 wrote: I would say that the beard and sea knife are both special rules. Keep in mind that hands, when referring to weapons, means effort. If it requires no hands, that means that it does not require the Primary Hand or Off Hand. Except when they don't mean physical hands and only mean effort?
When bastard swords mention hands they mean physical hands, but when the barbazu beard mentions hands it doesn't?
Again, pick one. I had assumed that your position was:
Crash_00 wrote: Keep in mind that hands, when referring to weapons, means effort. But you seem to be ignoring your own rules when it comes to the Dwarven War Axe and the Bastard Sword. Why is that?
Crash_00 wrote: That same interpretation would also technically mean that you could wield these weapon, all weapons for that matter, with no physical hands, because it ignores the implications given by the rules. Or, by 'hands' they mean 'hands' and not 'effort' despite your wish to add to the rules. The terms 'Primary Hand' and 'Off hand' are, by default, actual physical hands and the rules on page 141 is the place where they saying exactly what you believe the rules never say for some odd reason.
Moreover, you are saying that you read 'hands' as 'hands' with an inconsistent frequency yourself!
-James
blackbloodtroll wrote:
The current reasoning, has some Devs actually referencing unwritten rules as reasoning behind it.
It's a mess, and I hope they have better reasoning behind it.
Metaphorical, or Metaphysical hands are a poor choice.
Worse, the Pathfinder Devs didn't agree with this ruling until right this moment. Ala Rasputin Must Die shows a 2 hander Twfing at same time with TWFing feat.
So while 3.5 Designers may have begrudgingly allow it (3.5 FAQ allowed); Pathfinder ones are rebelling against themselves.
Question is why the Pathfinder designers have put forth errata for their prior APs if this was supposed to be the rule in Pathfinder.
[i[personal[/i] reading is not RAW it is me taking the implications stated in the book.
critical analysis is RAW and only what is stated in RAW.
Quote: Which way do you want this? You seem to be saying two different things here.
If hands, when referring to weapons, means effort, then hands when referring to the bastard sword and dwarven waraxe doesn't mean effort but instead mean physical hands?
Which is it?
Either. You can take the rules and read them to mean either A.) Primary Hand and Off Hand are effort and that weapons never require any physical hands or B.) Primary Hand and Off Hand are effort and weapons require the number of physical hands that their descriptions imply.
The accepted, logical, and supported interpretation is B although A could also be taken from RAW.
I have a feeling that you have a problem with context, James. It is quite clear unless you try to muddy it.
Quote: Moreover, you are saying that you read 'hands' as 'hands' with an inconsistent frequency yourself! No. I read hands, and I take that it implies physical as well unless the weapon does not require physical hands. Implication and context are part of the English language. The rules only break down if you look at a piece here and a piece there while ignoring the rest, or, in your case, ignoring each piece you aren't currently looking at.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Crash_00 wrote: B.) Primary Hand and Off Hand are effort and weapons require the number of physical hands that their descriptions imply.
The accepted, logical, and supported interpretation is B although A could also be taken from RAW.
So how many physical vs 'effort' hands does a bastard sword require?
The term 'hands' in the text, according to you, is talking about effort rather than physical hands, the later should simply taken by the nature of the item. After all, if hands were talking about physical hands.. then your effort idea would be simply an addition on your part.
You have taken p141 and tried to ignore 'hands' and make them into something else except when it is not convenient for you to do so.
This is a dishonest way of reading the rules. It is not about others muddying something 'clear' but rather your making up rules out of whole cloth and not enjoying being called out for it.
You want to claim that p141 doesn't refer to hands, but rather effort. Yet when called on it, claim that is also refers to hands. Which is it? It cannot be both as you'd like as then page 141 would only be speaking about hands and there would not be a separate 'effort' for you to claim exists.
Btw one can easily take the rules to mean:
Hands refers to actual hands and nothing more. If a weapon needs two hands, then a typical person would need to use their left and right hand on it.
Primary hand and Off hand are actual hands. They are designated by the character and are not a permanent character feature that is tracked like it was back in 3e.
This may not fit into other people's vision of how they would like the rules to currently be written, but it does fit into both the current wording of the rules and the history of those rules.
Now the future of those rules is something else entirely. The folks at Paizo may decide to alter and errata them as they see fit to do. But from a RAW standpoint the FAQ is reasonably implying that armor spikes require an actual hand in order to use unlike other attack forms that are considered not to require them.
This does not fit with what the devs are saying on the boards, but does fit with the wording of the rules as currently written. If their intent was to convey what they are writing on the boards, then the FAQ does a very poor job of explaining it.
It has, of course improved, since it was originally a 'No' in the equipment section, but it does not begin to explain how things should work and how related things in the rules should work as a result of this change that it seems that they wish to do. But then again this change does open up a whole can of worms, and leaves people wondering which way they will decide to create things. Perhaps they, like you, will create 'effort' and make it into something on its own. But that will take work, as the way you lay it out is lacking consistency.
-James
Crash_00 wrote: Either. You can take the rules and read them to mean either A.) Primary Hand and Off Hand are effort and that weapons never require any physical hands or B.) Primary Hand and Off Hand are effort and weapons require the number of physical hands that their descriptions imply. ...or C.)' Primary' and 'off hand' are clarifying how the Str bonus to damage applies to TWF, since these terms only apply to TWF.
james maissen wrote: You have taken p141 and tried to ignore 'hands' and make them into something else except when it is not convenient for you to do so. 'Schrödinger's hand'.
Quote: from a RAW standpoint the FAQ is reasonably implying that armor spikes require an actual hand in order to use If this were the only reason to object to using a 2HW in TWF it would be solved simply by using free actions to change grip between attacks. But the devs are starting with the conclusion (they don't want 2HWs to be used in TWF) instead of using the rules to reach a conclusion (which allows it).
This is why they kept changing the reason for saying 'no' each time they posted; their reasons kept getting shot down.
No mention of TWF on pg. 141, Malachi. That is still not a valid interpretation no matter how many times you bring it up.
Where are these reason changes you speak of, Malachi. All I saw was them try to explain it to you in examples that gradually required less and less thought to understand.
Quote: So how many physical vs 'effort' hands does a bastard sword require?
The term 'hands' in the text, according to you, is talking about effort rather than physical hands, the later should simply taken by the nature of the item. After all, if hands were talking about physical hands.. then your effort idea would be simply an addition on your part.
I'm getting the feeling that you aren't actually reading what I've said, since I answered this.
By RAW, it's either:
A.) 0
B.) 1 or 2
You can take the rules at their face value and ignore the implication of physical hands (it is never stated explicitly that the weapons require physical hands), or you can accept that there is an implication that weapons use physical hands as well as effort, and go from there.
Those are the two options.
Quote: You have taken p141 and tried to ignore 'hands' and make them into something else except when it is not convenient for you to do so.
This is a dishonest way of reading the rules. It is not about others muddying something 'clear' but rather your making up rules out of whole cloth and not enjoying being called out for it.
Not at all. I've shown you both ways that it can read by RAW. I pointed out which one the devs have supported. Just because neither way is how you want it to read, doesn't make these dishonest in the least.
Quote: You want to claim that p141 doesn't refer to hands, but rather effort. Yet when called on it, claim that is also refers to hands. Which is it? It cannot be both as you'd like as then page 141 would only be speaking about hands and there would not be a separate 'effort' for you to claim exists. It refers to effort. Hands are only ever implied. If you can't be bothered to look up basic definitions of the words being used, don't try to take part in a debate. Refer and imply are not the same thing. Implication is, by definition, not directly stated. Hence why I use that term when talking about the second (supported) way to read the rules.
Quote: Btw one can easily take the rules to mean:
Hands refers to actual hands and nothing more. If a weapon needs two hands, then a typical person would need to use their left and right hand on it.
Primary hand and Off hand are actual hands. They are designated by the character and are not a permanent character feature that is tracked like it was back in 3e.
This may not fit into other people's vision of how they would like the rules to currently be written, but it does fit into both the current wording of the rules and the history of those rules.
If you ignore part of the rules, then sure you can.
This designation is a measure of how much effort it takes to wield a weapon in combat.
Primary and Off Hand are clearly you resources for applying this effort to wield a weapon.
It's one sentence. It's easy to overlook, misread, ignore, etc. That does not mean that it does not exist.
Quote: Now the future of those rules is something else entirely. The folks at Paizo may decide to alter and errata them as they see fit to do. But from a RAW standpoint the FAQ is reasonably implying that armor spikes require an actual hand in order to use unlike other attack forms that are considered not to require them No. It cannot. It explicitly specifies the reason. The Off Hand can't be used on the armor spikes and the two-handed weapon at the same time. Since Off Hand is a measure of effort, it has nothing to do with physical hands. You have to continue ignoring part of the rules for this theory to be true.
Quote: This does not fit with what the devs are saying on the boards, but does fit with the wording of the rules as currently written. If their intent was to convey what they are writing on the boards, then the FAQ does a very poor job of explaining it. Oddly, I haven't seen a single person have an issue with the FAQ and understanding what it means that likes or is indifferent about the rule. I only see people that dislike the rule managing to misinterpret it and get confused.
Quote: It has, of course improved, since it was originally a 'No' in the equipment section, but it does not begin to explain how things should work and how related things in the rules should work as a result of this change that it seems that they wish to do. But then again this change does open up a whole can of worms, and leaves people wondering which way they will decide to create things. Perhaps they, like you, will create 'effort' and make it into something on its own. But that will take work, as the way you lay it out is lacking consistency. It only lacks consistency if your misread it. The FAQ answers the question that was asked. If you want to know how the Primary Hand and Off Hand work in relation to your hands, I suggest opening an FAQ on that subject.
Crash_00 wrote: No mention of TWF on pg. 141, Malachi. That is still not a valid interpretation no matter how many times you bring it up. It doesn't need to mention TWF, since these terms only apply to TWF. It's implied. Do you understand what 'implied' means?
You wrote: Refer and imply are not the same thing. Implication is, by definition, not directly stated. Ah, I see that you do understand....when it suits you.
You've been accused by more than one person of changing your definition of 'hand' sentence by sentence. You justify your own argument by referring to an 'implication' on p141, but accuse me of an impossible implication when I state that 'primary' and 'off hand' must refer to TWF. You are applying different standards of proof to yourself than you apply to those debating you.
Mr. Silverclaw, you're still ignoring the fact that if your interpretation is correct, then it is still disallowed. If primary and off-hand only refer to two weapon fighting then two handed weapons are disallowed by their exclusion. Again, light weapons can be primary or off hand, one handed weapons can be primary or off hand, two handed weapons require both hands. If "both hands" refers to primary and off hand then you cannot use that off hand for two weapon fighting. If "both hands" only refers to physical hands then you cannot use two handed weapons for two weapon fighting because they lack the rules for two weapon fighting as stated under light weapons and one handed weapons.
Quote: It doesn't need to mention TWF, since these terms only apply to TWF. It's implied. Do you understand what 'implied' means? Where is it implied? Give me one good source that implies this from the rules. You haven't done so to this point. You only evidence that it is implied is your blind assertion that it is implied.
Off-Hand Weapons can exist outside of TWF (there is a weapon that is always treated as an off hand weapon).
Off-Hand Attacks can exist outside of TWF (that is how you have to attack with said weapon).
Let's look at page 141 again, Malachi:
A one-handed weapon can be used in either the primary hand or the off hand.
Tell me, Malachi, how is a one-handed weapon wielded when not TWF? It can be used in either the Primary Hand or Off Hand. There is no inclusion for using it without one of those "hands." So, by your supposed implication, one-handed weapons can only be used when TWF?
Quote: You've been accused by more than one person of changing your definition of 'hand' sentence by sentence. You justify your own argument by referring to an 'implication' on p141, but accuse me of an impossible implication when I state that 'primary' and 'off hand' must refer to TWF. You are applying different standards of proof to yourself than you apply to those debating you. You've been asked that question (see above) twice now, yet never answered it.
I've stated where the implication is. Have you stated where the implication is?
I've explained how the situation works according to the rules, including the particularly pesky bits. Have you addressed the issues that crop up with your "interpretation?"
I've stated that hand refers to Primary Hand or Off Hand when it deals with wielding weapons. If you are unable to differentiate between when I am talking about wielding a weapon and when I am talking about use for other purposes then I think I see the crux of your problem understanding the rules.
My standard of proof is "here is what the book says and why it works this way." Yours is, effectively, "I don't like that so I going to tell you the book implies such and such but never source the claim."
Removed an unhelpful post.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote: Mr. Silverclaw, you're still ignoring the fact that if your interpretation is correct, then it is still disallowed. If primary and off-hand only refer to two weapon fighting then two handed weapons are disallowed by their exclusion. Again, light weapons can be primary or off hand, one handed weapons can be primary or off hand, two handed weapons require both hands. If "both hands" refers to primary and off hand then you cannot use that off hand for two weapon fighting. If "both hands" only refers to physical hands then you cannot use two handed weapons for two weapon fighting because they lack the rules for two weapon fighting as stated under light weapons and one handed weapons. I've answered this question from you before, but I'll do it again.
The rules for weapon categories are not the rules which govern how combat works in general, nor how TWF works in particular. The presence or absence of 'primary' and 'off hand' language on p141 does not govern whether or not weapons of different categories may be used in TWF; those rules are in the combat chapter.
The mention of 'primary' and 'off hand' on p141 is merely a courtesy. The evidence for that is twofold: first, if that 'primary' and 'off hand' language were erased from p141, then the rules would not alter at all. Those rules (how to apply the Str bonus to damage for the primary and off hand) are in the combat chapter dealing with TWF, and the normal (non-TWF) Str bonus to damage rules are earlier in the combat chapter.
Second, the primary/off hand language was not in the weapon category section at all in 3.0, proving that 'hands worth of effort' was not the combat system in 3.0, and the idea that 3.5 changed the combat system by sneakily adding primary/off hand to that section (but not in the combat chapter) is simply not credible, especially when compared side-by-side to the alternative explanation given above (these terms are TWF specific).
Crash_00 wrote: Off-Hand Attacks can exist outside of TWF If that were the case then (without using TWF at all) if you attacked with a longsword in your right hand at +6 and with a mace in you left hand at +1, then one of these two weapons would only get half Str bonus to damage. This is not the case. This is not TWF, neither attack is an off hand attack and both attacks get your full Str bonus to damage.
Quote: Let's look at page 141 again, Malachi:
A one-handed weapon can be used in either the primary hand or the off hand.
Tell me, Malachi, how is a one-handed weapon wielded when not TWF? It can be used in either the Primary Hand or Off Hand. There is no inclusion for using it without one of those "hands." So, by your supposed implication, one-handed weapons can only be used when TWF?
A one-handed weapon certainly can be used in either the primary or the off hand; p141 is correct. But those terms are specific to TWF. When not in TWF, a one-handed weapon is not wielded by either your primary nor your off hand (because those terms only have meaning in TWF), a one-handed weapon is wielded in one hand. That hand neither has nor requires a further label.
Quote: You've been asked that question (see above) twice now, yet never answered it. I've answered it more than once.
Quote: Have you addressed the issues that crop up with your "interpretation?" What issues?
Crash_00 wrote: Quote: So how many physical vs 'effort' hands does a bastard sword require? I'm getting the feeling that you aren't actually reading what I've said, since I answered this.
By RAW, it's either:
A.) 0
B.) 1 or 2
Actually with your reading of the rules it allows for:
A.) 0 (absurd, but your reading allows for it)
B.) 1 or 2 (depending upon the exotic weapon proficiency)
C.) 1 always
D.) 2 always
You said as I recall:
Crash_00 wrote: You should be able to tell from a weapon's description how many physical hands it takes to wield, it's implied. And
Crash_00 wrote: Keep in mind that hands, when referring to weapons, means effort. Thus the entry for the Bastard sword:
Quote: A bastard sword is about 4 feet in length, making it too large to use in one hand without special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon. A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon. Is speaking about effort rather than physical hands in your reading of the rules.
This means that the 4 possibilities above are all possible, though at least one ludicrous. This last speaks against your reading in that it allows for such absurdities, and leaves open handedness for every weapon in the game.. but clear ambiguities where it comes to the Bastard sword and Dwarven WarAxe.
It also makes reading the lance:
Quote: A lance deals double damage when used from the back of a charging mount. While mounted, you can wield a lance with one hand.
quite interesting as you would claim it is speaking about effort rather than physical hands.
It also makes it downright puzzling the FAQ entry on it:
Quote: Power Attack: If I am using a two-handed weapon with one hand (such as a lance while mounted), do still I get the +50% damage for using a two-handed weapon?
Yes.
—Pathfinder Design Team, 05/24/13
But in all honesty I find your reading of the rules baseless. It does seem interesting all of the questions such a reading opens up.. many with absurd answers.
For example: a character with tower shield, longsword, and armor spikes is able to TWF according to you. This means that they have their 'off hand' available. They could elect to use this offhand effort to gain more STR damage with the longsword instead of TWFing with the armor spikes.
Personally I don't think that a character with a tower shield should be getting 1.5x STR mod to damage, but your reading of the rules allows for that. Admittedly that is nothing compared to being able to wield a two-handed sword without a hand, but the former would not be even considered an abuse of your reading!
It has it's problems, but I'll address the core of that in the next post,
James
Crash_00 wrote: This designation is a measure of how much effort it takes to wield a weapon in combat.
And this designation would be, for example, a weapon being classified as a 'light weapon'.
A light weapon has a number of standard properties:
Quote: A light weapon is used in one hand. It is easier to use in one's off hand than a one-handed weapon is, and can be used while grappling (see Combat). Add the wielder's Strength modifier to damage rolls for melee attacks with a light weapon if it's used in the primary hand, or half the wielder's Strength bonus if it's used in the off hand. Using two hands to wield a light weapon gives no advantage on damage; the Strength bonus applies as though the weapon were held in the wielder's primary hand only. An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon. It tells how many physical hands are usually required to wield a light weapon.
It tells you the STR mod to damage, and if it benefits from being used with two physical hands (it does not).
It tells you it can be used while grappling.
It tells you to consider unarmed strikes in this designated category.
It is not telling you to measure effort in 'hands'!
Rather the passage is saying that melee weapons have certain categories, and those categories measure the effort.. not the hands or grappling, etc.
There is no indication there that 'effort' is ever measured in hands. Rather when they write hands, they actually mean hands as crazy as that might sound!
-James
|
