Malachi Silverclaw wrote: 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. Surely you realize that is your assumption. One, I believe, the Devs have specifically said was wrong.
Quote: 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). Regardless of what it was in previous editions, in Pathfinder they mean effort.
Quote: 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! What is effort measured in then, James?
Effort absolutely has to be measured in hands as that is the only unit given to us to measure it with. Unless you are claiming that there is an "unwritten rule" floating about with the units of effort in it.
I believe what you are trying to say is that there is no indication that the hands of effort are anything less than physical hands.
If you aren't willing to see the rules by now, then you simply don't want to.
Quote: 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. Except one handed tells us how much effort the weapon requires. It's right at the beginning of the section of rules. In addition, the word either is used and we are given two choices. You're proposing that there is a third, unwritten, choice?
So I get to start screaming about unwritten rules now, right?
You still have yet to show how primary and off hand are specific to TWF. Where is this rule? I'd think after over a thousand posts on the topic you would have found it if it exists.
Quote: 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. Nope. Both of the attacks are primary hand attacks in your example. You're still trying to tie the off hand to a physical hand. Quite humorous after how much you argued that it wasn't, but I assume that you are attempting to confuse the issue more.
Look, instead, at the buckler gun. It is always an off hand attack. It is always an off hand weapon. It is always used with your off hand. Whether you are TWF or not.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote: Malachi Silverclaw wrote: 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). Regardless of what it was in previous editions, in Pathfinder they mean effort.
Since 'effort' was not a game mechanic in 3.0, and is not a game mechanic in the combat chapter in 3.5 or Pathfinder, then you must believe that the 3.5 devs deliberately changed the combat system between 3.0 and 3.5, from a system which relied on real hands to use weapons and BAB/feats to govern the number of attacks, to a system which is governed by a game mechanic called 'effort' (which is not in the glossary of game terms) measured in a unit called 'hands', which sometimes coincides with real hands and sometimes doesn't without any instructions on how to adjudicate that, and that they chose to place this massive change not in the combat chapter but in the description of weapon categories, and that they not tell anyone about this change for ten years.
This is not credible.
Crash_00 wrote: Malachi Silverclaw wrote: 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. Nope. Both of the attacks are primary hand attacks in your example. You're still trying to tie the off hand to a physical hand. Quite humorous after how much you argued that it wasn't, but I assume that you are attempting to confuse the issue more.
So now you are saying that 'off hand' only exists in TWF!
Quote: Look, instead, at the buckler gun. It is always an off hand attack. It is always an off hand weapon. It is always used with your off hand. Whether you are TWF or not. If used in TWF, it can only be the off hand weapon. Always.
If used when not TWF it is also an off hand weapon. Always.
This isn't up for debate. It is explicitly stated: "a buckler gun is always considered an off-handed weapon"
Quote: So now you are saying that 'off hand' only exists in TWF! You're going to explain how you got there from what I said. Seriously.
Just because iterative attacks always use primary hand (excluding a specific rule stating otherwise like the buckler gun) does not mean that the the off hand only exists in TWF. We know from the rules (clarified by the devs as well) that the off hand is used in THF as well.
Does the off hand not have to exist to be used?
So this is what we know from the rules:
Off Hand exists for TWF.
Off Hand exists for THF.
Off Hand exists for specific one handed weapons when not TWF.
Two of those facts are not related to TWF at all. So, how is it implied that the Primary Hand and Off Hand are only exist for TWF?
Yet again, you seem to be ignoring the things the poke holes in your theory. I see a pattern here.
Quote: This is not credible. Yet, that is exactly how it works. Before the devs confirmed it, you were told that is how it works. Now the devs have confirmed it, and it is still how it works. What are you hoping to gain here? You've been told exactly how it works by multiple people. Three devs have chimed in on how it works. They were all in agreement on how it works.
So, the devs are no longer credible?
Crash_00 wrote: Off Hand exists for TWF. Yep.
Quote: Off Hand exists for THF. Nope. According to the page you're fond of quoting, two-handed weapons don't mention the 'primary' or 'off hand' at all, just both hands. But you keep telling us that the 'primary' and 'off hand' aren't real hands at all. But the two hands used on a 2HW are real, so the lack of mention of the 'primary' and 'off hand' (which are measures of 'effort' according to you) shows that the primary and off hand 'effort' are not used on a 2HW.
You'll change your standards of evidence again, to show that 'both' hands aren't real hands either, but are the (unwritten) amalgamation of the two measures of effort.
'Schrödinger's hand' yet again.
Quote: Off Hand exists for specific one handed weapons when not TWF. There is no reason to think that this non-core item changes 'off hand' to suddenly be meaningful outside TWF.
Quote: Yet, that is exactly how it works. Before the devs confirmed it, you were told that is how it works. Now the devs have confirmed it, and it is still how it works. What are you hoping to gain here? You've been told exactly how it works by multiple people. Three devs have chimed in on how it works. They were all in agreement on how it works. In your imagination the devs were supporting your construct of measurable quantities of 'effort' was the new combat system invented for 3.5 but not in 3.0. However, the rest of us realise that the devs were talking exclusively about TWF when answering a TWF question about using 2HWs in TWF. Any mention they made of 'primary' and 'off hand' were precisely because they were discussing TWF.
Right. So your argument is essentially to ignore the rules and to ignore what the devs have stated. I'm pretty sure I already mentioned that above. It's your standard MO now.
Explain to me how this:
Quote: The core rulebook is a little vague here, but if you look at the rules for two-handed weapons on page 141, it is clear that it uses two hands. Now this is where the confusion comes in. An attack does not have to actually be a "hand", but it does have to be assigned to your "primary" or "off". Unfortunately the two-handed weapon description does not spell that out properly. However, taken in context of the two paragraphs before it, that a light weapon and a one handed weapon both speak to the "primary" or "off" language, it can be understood that the two-handed weapon is taking up both. is only related to TWF.
If, to use the lead designer's word, "the two-handed weapon is taking up both" (referring to Primary and Off Hand), how can they only exist for TWF.
If they said the two handed weapon prevented either the Primary or Off Hand from being used, then you'd get a shiny penny for being right. However, they didn't. They explicitly stated that the two handed weapon takes both hands (Primary and Off). They have to exist for it to take them.
As they agree, it isn't explicitly stated, but it is understandable that the hands referred to by two handed weapon are the Primary and Off hand. It's an odd concept called context that I've mentioned before. You should really look it up.
If I am penniless you can prevent me from getting money, but you can't take money from me that doesn't exist.
Again, basic logic is being used here. It only breaks down if you ignore the rules, as you continue to do.
blackbloodtroll wrote: 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. Quoted for clarity. There are more than three posters that agree with this ruling. I think that most that agree (such as myself) see no reason to post as it is already clear to us. I am posting now to dispute the notion that because there are less people posting in favor of the ruling that it automatically means we are a minority. It doesn't mean we are a majority either, but I believe we would be.
I also believe that the first two posts, in just a few sentences, make the ruling clear and are easy to understand.
I'm sorry, but claiming that mentioning primary and off-hand in page 141 is "just a courtesy" or that "two-handed weapons don't mention the 'primary' or 'off hand' at all, just both hands" is, frankly, absurd. Taken in context it is clear (at least to me) that mention of hands is there for a reason and the "both hands" refers to both the primary and off hand. What other hands would it refer to?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Lord Twig wrote: Taken in context it is clear (at least to me) that mention of hands is there for a reason and the "both hands" refers to both the primary and off hand. What other hands would it refer to? Your left hand and your right hand?
Now I contend that Primary hand and off hand do refer to your left and right hands, but others believe through convoluted reading that they are separate entities.
In 3e your Primary hand and your Offhand were set as left and right or right and left. This is not debated.
In 3.5e tracking of handedness was removed. This is also not debated.
Now the question becomes did 3.5e completely separate 'hands' from hands? There is no support for this, and trying to assume it to be true leads to absurdities. It also contradicts explicit FAQ entries in both the 3.5 FAQ and the Pathfinder FAQ.
Now the devs are wishing to alter the RAW (which is their job after all), but they are not completely sure what they want from it. They do seem to wish to deny TWFing with a two-handed sword and armor spikes, but do not have problems with a longsword, shield, and armor spikes.
I don't know about you, but even some posters who claimed 'they've always played it this way' got that one 'wrong'.
When asked about logical consequences of the way they were putting forth their desire, they needed more time to think it through. That is very responsible. It is an integral part of the combat system, and needs to be not only coherent but easily understood and extrapolated from.
Some posters have claimed that the 3.5 rules and the Pathfinder rules already had these dev changes within them. That the dev statements were already RAW. This is incorrect and has been debated in a number of threads. It is somewhat academic, but such discussions are always helpful in that people should be aware of the rules surrounding other rules. This facilitates a system that promotes immersion rather than defies logic. The devs, being gamers themselves, understand this and discuss such things with us, the consumer. This makes for a better product, and is frankly why I support Paizo as the wonderful company that it is.
I have no doubts that when they put their minds to doing a full errata on the combat system to achieve their goals that they will do a better job than WotC originally did, and that they will clean up a number of mistakes and ambiguities that we've had to endure for the past decade.
-James
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Crash_00 wrote: Quote: 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! What is effort measured in then, James? It is simply measured by the categories: Light Weapon, One-handed Weapon, and Two-handed weapon. This is just as the rules on p141 expressly state and you have quoted on multiple occasions.
Crash_00 wrote: Effort absolutely has to be measured in hands as that is the only unit given to us to measure it with. I'm sorry, but light weapons and one-handed weapons are different levels of effort. They require the same number of hands however you wish to count them. Your supposition is thereby shown to be incorrect.
Likewise there does not need to be a listed scale of effort. The rules are simply saying that there is a demarcation. It says that it gives that demarcation by weapon category, nothing more.
You wish to remove a facet of those categories, namely hands. And then you claim that there is an ambiguity, again namely hands. It is an ambiguity of your own making. The number of physical hands needed for most weapons of the respective category is indicated (special exceptions notwithstanding of course, like any of the rules). This becomes apparent when you extend your statement that hands always refers to 'effort' and not actual 'hands' to other instances where hands should refer to hands. When asked if they could refer to effort and not hands, you realize these problems yourself. Please take a second to step back and analyze your reading of these rules and you might find the problems within it yourself.
The rest of your post was quoted without attribution, but was not made by me. If you are going to mix and match in a reply, could I ask you to include such attributions to maintain clarity? Thank you.
-James
Quote: It is simply measured by the categories: Light Weapon, One-handed Weapon, and Two-handed weapon. This is just as the rules on p141 expressly state and you have quoted on multiple occasions. "This designation is a measure of how much effort it takes to wield a weapon in combat."
So, to you, Light, One-Handed, Two-Handed, these are declarations of how much effort is required to wield the weapon, but no units of effort are ever given to actually wield them with? That is your stance on this?
Quote: I'm sorry, but light weapons and one-handed weapons are different levels of effort. They require the same number of hands however you wish to count them. Your supposition is thereby shown to be incorrect. This is blatantly a false claim if you bother to look at the sentence. Let's break it down real quick.
"This designation is a measure of how much effort it takes to wield a weapon in combat."
Part A) This designation is a measure of
Ok, we know that we are about to discover what this is
Part B) how much effort it takes to
This is what they are.
Part C) wield a weapon in combat.
This is what you do with what they are
They cannot be effort when they are a measure of how much effort it required. It isn't effort, it requires effort. Just like a bill isn't money, it requires money.
If you are going to propose a theory, I suggest at least looking it over for a moment first.
The ambiguity is not of my making, it is created by the rules themselves. They are written ambiguously, hence the reason why I have shown multiple readings for them. The problem with the rules is that they reference one thing, imply that another thing is also required, and use a term that implies the opposite of what they actually say. I did not write the rules, so you cannot fault me for what they say.
Quote: Now the devs are wishing to alter the RAW (which is their job after all), but they are not completely sure what they want from it. They do seem to wish to deny TWFing with a two-handed sword and armor spikes, but do not have problems with a longsword, shield, and armor spikes.
I don't know about you, but even some posters who claimed 'they've always played it this way' got that one 'wrong'.
No. I doubt they like the rules. I don't like these rules. They are written absolutely horribly for an instruction manual (which is what a RPG book is). That said, they are trying to stay true to what the rules say (instead of what they feel the rules should say). This is why THF and TWF is not allowed and TWF with a OHW and AS is allowed with a shield. The rules allow the later but not the former. It's really quite plain and simple.
The only people that have issues with their interpretation of the rules are people that simply don't want to believe it. You're willing to cling to a blatantly flawed theory (effort require = effort) in order to disbelieve what the rules say. Malachi is willing to claim that the rules are in context with unreferenced rules in a different chapter rather than seeing that the TWF rules reference these rules. Both of you have had your theories shot down by devs and still cling to these beliefs.
They have a house rules forum for people that don't like the RAW. Please take your "theories" that contradict the rules there. Doubly so when your theories blatantly contradict what the devs have stated to be RAW. All your assertions manage to do here is confuse people that don't understand the issue in full and haven't read the devs comments on the subject.
james maissen wrote: The rest of your post was quoted without attribution, but was not made by me. If you are going to mix and match in a reply, could I ask you to include such attributions to maintain clarity? Thank you. I believe the quote was from Jason Bulmahn.
James is saying (and he'll correct me if I'm wrong) that if you say that 'primary' and 'off hand' are not actual hands, but a measure of 'effort', then reading p141 shows that the exact same 'effort' is required for light and 1H weapons.
Ergo, that the two categories are, in fact, one category.
Which we know isn't true.
Lord Twig wrote: james maissen wrote: The rest of your post was quoted without attribution, but was not made by me. If you are going to mix and match in a reply, could I ask you to include such attributions to maintain clarity? Thank you. I believe the quote was from Jason Bulmahn. The first quote was from me. The second two quotes were not.. which do you wish to attribute to Jason, the second or the third?
The entire discussion on TWF seems to be directed at Malachi rather than myself, so I could suppose one was from him. I'm not sure, hence the request to attribute them to their sources.
-James
They were from Malachi, James. They were part of this same thread so I assumed everyone involved would be able to piece it together.
Quote: James is saying (and he'll correct me if I'm wrong) that if you say that 'primary' and 'off hand' are not actual hands, but a measure of 'effort', then reading p141 shows that the exact same 'effort' is required for light and 1H weapons.
Ergo, that the two categories are, in fact, one category.
Which we know isn't true.
Not at all. Look at the rest of the categories. Both require the Primary or Off Hand, but how you use them on the weapon is treated differently. How so? Well, it specifies the difference between using both of them on the weapons. Light weapons do not benefit from two hands of effort on them. One-Handed weapons do benefit from two hands of effort on them. In addition, you can use the Light weapon in a grapple.
Of course if you ignore the differences, then yes, you could say that they are one category. That would, of course, require ignoring part of the rules yet again.
Crash, the reason why you think these rules are badly written is because you can't make them match your construct without twisting and turning on every aspect of them.
To those of us that read them at face value (without inventing a new combat system relying on quantities of 'effort') they talk about real hands and there aren't any 'issues' at all.
Which reminds me: you mentioned that my 'interpretation' had 'issues'. I asked you what those might be and you didn't answer. What are those 'issues'?
I don't use the rules the way I'm telling you they read, Malachi. That's what house rules are for. I'm telling you the RAW. The reason the rules are badly written is for the exact reason I stated. They refer to one thing, imply another as also required, and use a term that can be mistaken to mean the opposite.
To those of you that misread them, there are issues, namely the fact that you're upset that the devs supported the RAW instead of your reading of them.
I told you what the issues were for your reading. Namely, you cannot use One-Handed weapons without resorting to unwritten rules. Secondly, armor spikes, unarmed strikes, etc. require you to have a free physical hand to use. As funny as imagining a fighter grabbing his ankle, defying gravity, and slamming his foot into the bad guys is, it hardly works. Thirdly, you assert that under your reading you can THF and TWF at the same time, but how if all these attack are using physical hands?
That's right, you ignore the fact that things treated as a light weapon still require a hand. Oh, you ignore rules. What a new and unexpected twist.
You've responded to these issues, but every single response was false because it either A) ignored rules or B) was based on faulty logic/definitions to begin with.
I guess you could read that sentence and come up with a C) option that is unstated though, because you did that with the one-handed description already.
Crash_00 wrote: I told you what the issues were for your reading. Namely, you cannot use One-Handed weapons without resorting to unwritten rules. I'm perfectly happy with the written rules for using one-handed weapons: they need one hand (there's a clue in the name).
Quote: Secondly, armor spikes, unarmed strikes, etc. require you to have a free physical hand to use. Light weapons generally require a hand to use....apart from the ones that don't. You just have to wear spiked armour, and if you kick you don't need a free hand to do so.
Quote: Thirdly, you assert that under your reading you can THF and TWF at the same time, but how if all these attack are using physical hands? Because each weapon has the required number of hands using it at the moment the attack is executed with each weapon, using free actions to re-grip when needed.
So, no problem. I never had a problem with these rules...until the recent FAQ. I just followed the rules as written.
If the devs thought that the RAW could be made to support their dislike of 2HWs in TWF (and withstand scrutiny) then they wouldn't feel the need to go and re-write the rules to make it match their dislike.
And they specify what that one hand has to be, Malachi. They can be wielded in either the Primary Hand or Off Hand. There is no written option for an nameless hand to be used on them. Stating otherwise is a reliance on something that is not written. You can be happy with it being unwritten, but that does not make it the RAW. By RAW they can only be used in one of those two hands, so by your rules, only when TWF.
Where is it written that armor spikes and kick don't use a hand? Are they not light weapons? They are both explicitly stated to be light weapons. Light weapon explicitly states that it requires one hand. WIthout an exclusion, they require a hand. Again, you're relying on unwritten exclusions to make your rules work. Those unwritten exclusions are not RAW.
How does that make TWF attacks different from iterative attacks? THF is using both hands while you make an attack with the weapon in your other hand with TWF. Again, you're ignoring rules to make your rules work.
I guess, still to this day, you're ignoring what is written to make your rules work. House rules forum is that way ->
The devs have not rewritten the rules at all. They simply refused to ignore the rules.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Crash_00 wrote: Not at all. Look at the rest of the categories. Both require the Primary or Off Hand, but how you use them on the weapon is treated differently. How so? Well, it specifies the difference between using both of them on the weapons. Light weapons do not benefit from two hands of effort on them. One-Handed weapons do benefit from two hands of effort on them. In addition, you can use the Light weapon in a grapple.
Of course if you ignore the differences, then yes, you could say that they are one category. That would, of course, require ignoring part of the rules yet again.
Of course they are different categories.
It's just that hands or 'hands' doesn't measure those differences.
That's what you've invented out of whole cloth.
When you try to measure these categories by those hands, then you have problems as light weapons and one-handed weapons require the same 'hand effort' despite being different categories.
The conclusion is not that light weapons and one-handed weapons are the same category, but rather that 'hands' isn't this system of measurement that you are claiming it to be.
When the rules say hands, they actually mean hands and not 'hands' or anything else.
And that's also why you are confused as to RAW not specifying physical hands. They do. You're simply taking it to mean something else. Something else that doesn't stand up to its own logic.
Which is why you feel the need to house rule things here. A clear sign that you might be misreading things is if everything is falling apart or if you are getting nonsensical possibilities. You are getting both from this reading of yours.
-James
Crash_00 wrote: Quote: It is simply measured by the categories: Light Weapon, One-handed Weapon, and Two-handed weapon. This is just as the rules on p141 expressly state and you have quoted on multiple occasions. "This designation is a measure of how much effort it takes to wield a weapon in combat."
So, to you, Light, One-Handed, Two-Handed, these are declarations of how much effort is required to wield the weapon, but no units of effort are ever given to actually wield them with? That is your stance on this? The action types (full-round, standard, move, swift/immediate, free) are supposed to indicate how much time and effort that action takes to perform, but we are never actually given units. It's never indicated for example that a full-round action takes 5 seconds, a standard is 3, a move is 2, and a swift/immediate is 1 second.
If the action types measure time/effort without being given specific values of "seconds," weapon types can measure effort without being given specific units of "hands" or "fraction of strength bonus."
If the devs decide they want to measure weapon effort in hands or strength fractions, they can do that, but I hope they think it through and make sure that the rules are clear when they're finished because right now I think they aren't.
james maissen wrote: When asked about logical consequences of the way they were putting forth their desire, they needed more time to think it through. That is very responsible. It is an integral part of the combat system, and needs to be not only coherent but easily understood and extrapolated from. Yes, exactly.
Quote: When you try to measure these categories by those hands, then you have problems as light weapons and one-handed weapons require the same 'hand effort' despite being different categories.
The conclusion is not that light weapons and one-handed weapons are the same category, but rather that 'hands' isn't this system of measurement that you are claiming it to be.
They require the same amount of effort and react differently if you use extra effort on them. There is a distinct difference there that is measured in hands.
Similarly, the ability to use the light weapon in can just as easily be tied to effort being used on it.
Requiring the same amount of effort has no affect on this even if it were true that they were exactly the same in their requirement.
A $1 slinky and a $1 toothbrush both require $1 from me. Does that mean they are the same?
Quote: And that's also why you are confused as to RAW not specifying physical hands. They do. You're simply taking it to mean something else. Something else that doesn't stand up to its own logic.
Which is why you feel the need to house rule things here. A clear sign that you might be misreading things is if everything is falling apart or if you are getting nonsensical possibilities. You are getting both from this reading of yours.
I'm not confused at all. I'm saying it's bad design. I don't like bad design, so I fix it when I run games. Which is more nonsensical, James, using a physical hand to kick or shoulder bump (which we know is not actually the case since you can use AS +Longsword +Shield), or people having to use their brains to see how many physical hands a weapon uses by what the rules imply?
I know, I know, some people don't like to use their brains, hence bad design.
Weirdo, please read what we are discussing if you want to chime in.
This is from the section we are talking about (weapon classifications on page 141):
"This designation is a measure of how much effort it takes to wield a weapon in combat."
If Light, One-Handed, and Two-Handed are a measure of how much effort is required, action types cannot be the effort used on them. You use the same actions on all three weapon categories. There is no difference in what is required.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Crash_00 wrote: And they specify what that one hand has to be, Malachi. They can be wielded in either the Primary Hand or Off Hand. There is no written option for an nameless hand to be used on them. Stating otherwise is a reliance on something that is not written. You can be happy with it being unwritten, but that does not make it the RAW. By RAW they can only be used in one of those two hands, so by your rules, only when TWF. Light Weapons wrote: A light weapon is used in one hand. The hand doesn't need a designation unless used in TWF, when 'off hand attacks' have modified rules.
This section doesn't state how the Str bonus works with 'normal' attacks; it doesn't need to. Those rules are in many places, including the combat chapter and the definition of Strength. But, helpfully, it describes how the Str bonus applies in non-standard situations, such as when used two-handed or in TWF. Since how the Str bonus is applied differently to your 'primary' and 'off hand' attacks in TWF, this section includes this information.
But this section is not the source of these rules. Their presence or absence in this particular section does not alter or dictate any of these rules. As demonstrated in 3.0, where no mention of 'primary' or 'off hand' is made, yet the combat system did not sneakily change between editions.
Quote: Where is it written that armor spikes and kick don't use a hand? Are they not light weapons? They are both explicitly stated to be light weapons. Light weapon explicitly states that it requires one hand. WIthout an exclusion, they require a hand. Again, you're relying on unwritten exclusions to make your rules work. Those unwritten exclusions are not RAW. Yeah, this is where you have to use your thinky bits. I don't imagine for one moment that the devs thought that we needed reminding that you kick with feet not hands, nor do I think that it needed stating that armour spikes require hands, although mileage obviously varies on that. But Jason Bulmahn himself in the most recent post-FAQ posts says that they don't need a hand to use, as demonstrated when he says that you can attack with armour spikes even with your hands full of shield and sword.
So, we can listen to the devs, just not when they state you are wrong? That's convenient.
What was the reasoning for being able to use armor spikes+Longsword+shield, Malachi? Please do tell.
Oh. That's right. The shield doesn't require the off hand. The two handed weapon does require the off hand. Oh my, Off Hand is playing a role here and it isn't tied to the physical hand. My, what a new and completely unexpected take on the rules. If only someone had ever pointed this out before.
Is it written that you don't need a physical hand to kick? To use armor spikes? If primary hand and off hand are physical hands, then it has to be written that you don't need a physical hand to kick. Otherwise kicking, as an unarmed strike, follows the same rules as every other weapon including the requirement of a physical hand.
Fortunately, Primary Hand and Off Hand are not physical so this is not the case.
Quote: The hand doesn't need a designation unless used in TWF, when 'off hand attacks' have modified rules. Source please. Where is this stated?
Please post up and debate the one handed weapon description. You know, the one we were discussing. I meant bait and switch tactics are nice and all, but we'll assume you mistakenly put up the Light weapon description instead of the One-Handed one.
Quote: This section doesn't state how the Str bonus works with 'normal' attacks; it doesn't need to. Those rules are in many places, including the combat chapter and the definition of Strength. But, helpfully, it describes how the Str bonus applies in non-standard situations, such as when used two-handed or in TWF. Since how the Str bonus is applied differently to your 'primary' and 'off hand' attacks in TWF, this section includes this information. It does state how STR bonus works with normal attacks. Pssst....I'll give you a hint. Those are the primary hand attacks, or two-handed attacks.
The devs support this. The rules support this. You are wrong. End of story. Seriously, post proof that Primary Hand and Off Hand only exist in TWF. I have yet to see any. Only your baseless assertion that this is how it must be. I've, as well as the devs, have not only shown that it doesn't have to be that way, but that it is not that way.
Where are the rules for wielding weapons at other than page 141, Malachi? Sure, we have damage reminders in other chapters, but wielding weapons is firmly on page 141 and Primary and Off Hand are the tools for wielding them.
Again, this is how the rules work, this is how the rules have been confirmed to work, so post some actual proof if you believe otherwise. At this point, I'm just going to demand proof from you, because you have shown none for your claims.
Crash_00 wrote: What was the reasoning for being able to use armor spikes+Longsword+shield, Malachi? Please do tell. Because armour spikes don't require a hand.
Quote: Oh. That's right. The shield doesn't require the off hand. The two handed weapon does require the off hand. Oh my, Off Hand is playing a role here and it isn't tied to the physical hand. My, what a new and completely unexpected take on the rules. If only someone had ever pointed this out before. Your idea of 'hands' worth of effort was invented whole cloth by you, by (perhaps deliberately?) misreading p141.
You state that 2HWs require the 'off hand' despite the rules not stating that, yet you decry my point that weapons are wielded by real hands without those hands being labelled as 'primary' or 'off hand'. Yet again applying a different standard to your own arguments than you apply to others'.
Is it written that you don't need a physical hand to kick? To use armor spikes? It doesn't need to be. If you need the rules to state that you don't need a hand to kick then there's something wrong with you, not the rules.
Quote: If primary hand and off hand are physical hands, then it has to be written that you don't need a physical hand to kick. Otherwise kicking, as an unarmed strike, follows the same rules as every other weapon including the requirement of a physical hand. Actually, primary and off hand attacks aren't necessarily made by hand-held weapons. The TWF section is written with the assumption that the combatant is holding one weapon in each of two hands, but this is not a rule. Just like p141 is written with the assumption that weapons are hand-held, but this is not a rule either.
Quote: Fortunately, Primary Hand and Off Hand are not physical so this is not the case. Correct. They are the designations of attacks in TWF.
Quote: Quote: The hand doesn't need a designation unless used in TWF, when 'off hand attacks' have modified rules. Source please. Where is this stated?
The absence of a designation, or the need for a designation, does not need to be stated.
Quote: Please post up and debate the one handed weapon description. You know, the one we were discussing. I meant bait and switch tactics are nice and all, but we'll assume you mistakenly put up the Light weapon description instead of the One-Handed one. Are you seriously arguing that light weapons don't need the 'effort' of a specifically 'primary' or 'off hand', but one-handed weapons do?
The weapon category rules aren't trying to introduce new combat rules, so they are not formulated like computer code. The inclusion of 'a light weapon is used in one hand' is written because, unlike the other two categories, it isn't named after the number of hands required. The one-handed weapon description doesn't need to state that 'one-handed weapons require one hand! The devs credit us with some intelligence.
Quote: Quote: This section doesn't state how the Str bonus works with 'normal' attacks; it doesn't need to. Those rules are in many places, including the combat chapter and the definition of Strength. But, helpfully, it describes how the Str bonus applies in non-standard situations, such as when used two-handed or in TWF. Since how the Str bonus is applied differently to your 'primary' and 'off hand' attacks in TWF, this section includes this information. It does state how STR bonus works with normal attacks. Pssst....I'll give you a hint. Those are the primary hand attacks, or two-handed attacks.
Once again, those terms are only applicable to TWF.
Quote: The devs support this. The rules support this. You are wrong. End of story. Seriously, post proof that Primary Hand and Off Hand only exist in TWF. I have yet to see any. Only your baseless assertion that this is how it must be. I've, as well as the devs, have not only shown that it doesn't have to be that way, but that it is not that way. In your blind arrogance you saw the devs as supporting your 'hands' of 'effort' general combat rules, when in fact they were talking strictly about TWF.
Quote: Where are the rules for wielding weapons at other than page 141, Malachi? Sure, we have damage reminders in other chapters, but wielding weapons is firmly on page 141 and Primary and Off Hand are the tools for wielding them. This is where you go off the reservation. Real hands are what these rules talk about, and 'primary' and 'of hands' are TWF terms, included so that the Str bonus to damage is as clear for the different TWF attacks as possible. My evidence is that the rules worked the same (and perfectly well) without any reference to 'primary' and 'off hand' in this section, as illustrated by this very same section in 3.0.
To persuade us differently, you must persuade us that the entire combat system changed between editions from one which is governed by real hands and BAB/feats to one governed by 'hands' worth of 'effort', all without being in the combat chapter or being mentioned for ten years. That is not credible!
I don't need to post several large blank spaces which show the lack of the use of 'off hand' in any circumstance that isn't specific to TWF! Every single reference to 'off hand' can be understood in terms of TWF. The rules were deliberately changed between 3.0 and 3.5 to remove 'off hand' from the game except when dealing with TWF.
Crash_00 wrote: They require the same amount of effort and react differently if you use extra effort on them. There is a distinct difference there that is measured in hands.
No, they are not measured in hands. Nor are they measured in the ability to use within a grapple, nor the penalties for using them as an off-hand weapon in TWFing.
These are the features of the weapon categories.
Quote:
This designation is a measure of how much effort it takes to wield a weapon in combat.
The designation is a measure.. nothing more.
That's what the RAW says.
You wish to read into it that they must mean a special term when they say 'hands' rather than mean hands.
Then you have problems with the rules that they do not mention hands with weapons...
Consider for a second that you are reading the rules wrong. Now the rules do mention hands, and everything works just fine.
-James
I considered that, then I reread them and realized that I was right to begin with, James. That is a key part of critical analysis. I'd suggest that you try the same. Who's side the devs rule on, James?
If three devs that have been in the industry for a decade disagree with you, maybe you should really look into how you're interpreting things.
I want you to really think about what you are saying for a moment. You are suggesting that their is a designation that is a measure of effort required, but that there is never any effort required. That is exactly opposite of what is said.
If a sign says that an item is $5, do I not need $5 to buy the item (assuming no tax)? Sure, there are multiple resources available to buy the item (cash, credit, check, etc.), but the bottom line is that the $5 is a requirement to buy the item. Now, you could argue that you don't have to buy the item, but that isn't the point here.
If wielding a weapon takes effort, and weapons are measured in the amount of effort they take to wield, then it follows that there has to be a unit of effort to apply to the weapons.
Otherwise, how do we know that are characters are capable of applying Light, One-Handed, or Two-Handed levels of effort?
The only resources given to wield the weapons are hands. If you see something else, please post it.
Now, Malachi, please answer the following:
Quote: Because armour spikes don't require a hand. Direct contradiction to rules, pg. 141 and the FAQ clarification. Source for this specific rule please?
Quote: It doesn't need to be. If you need the rules to state that you don't need a hand to kick then there's something wrong with you, not the rules. Direct contradiction to the rules and to dev clarification. Unarmed Strikes (and armor spikes) are light weapons. Light weapons require one hand. Please source this specific rule that your are referencing.
Quote: You state that 2HWs require the 'off hand' despite the rules not stating that, yet you decry my point that weapons are wielded by real hands without those hands being labelled as 'primary' or 'off hand'. Yet again applying a different standard to your own arguments than you apply to others'. Pg. 141 states it if read in context with the entire weapon wielding section. Buckler description, FAQ, and dev comments all clarify. Please post your source for your theory that they are all wrong.
Quote: Actually, primary and off hand attacks aren't necessarily made by hand-held weapons. The TWF section is written with the assumption that the combatant is holding one weapon in each of two hands, but this is not a rule. Just like p141 is written with the assumption that weapons are hand-held, but this is not a rule either. So, primary and off hand are no longer hands. Thank your for admitting it. Off Hand Attacks are made with the Off Hand. If an Off Hand Attack can be made without a hand, then the Off Hand must not be a real hand.
This is using your own logic for One-Handed Weapons.
Quote: Correct. They are the designations of attacks in TWF. Source please? This is a direct contradiction to the FAQ, dev comments, and the rules.
Quote: Are you seriously arguing that light weapons don't need the 'effort' of a specifically 'primary' or 'off hand', but one-handed weapons do?
The weapon category rules aren't trying to introduce new combat rules, so they are not formulated like computer code. The inclusion of 'a light weapon is used in one hand' is written because, unlike the other two categories, it isn't named after the number of hands required. The one-handed weapon description doesn't need to state that 'one-handed weapons require one hand! The devs credit us with some intelligence.
By the rules you proposed, that would be the case. Hence why it is an issue with the rules you proposed.
These are not combat rules. They are equipment rules. They are rules for wielding weapons. What are weapons, Malachi? That is right, they are equipment.
Do weapons overlap with combat? Yes. Should the entirety of the weapon rules be in Combat instead of Equipment now?
So, the devs credited us with One-Handed Weapons, but then felt the need to clarify that Two-Handed Weapons need two hands? Your ship is losing water...quickly.
Quote: Once again, those terms are only applicable to TWF. Once again, source please? You still haven't dug this one up.
Quote: In your blind arrogance you saw the devs as supporting your 'hands' of 'effort' general combat rules, when in fact they were talking strictly about TWF. I suggest rereading what the devs said. It was not strictly related to TWF. Two handed weapons were called out to specifically use the Primary and Off Hand as were Light and One Handed weapons. It was never stated that this is only the case when TWF. To the contrary, it cannot be only related to TWF since THW cannot be used with TWF.
Then again, maybe I'm arrogant for having basic reading skills.
Quote: This is where you go off the reservation. Real hands are what these rules talk about, and 'primary' and 'of hands' are TWF terms, included so that the Str bonus to damage is as clear for the different TWF attacks as possible. My evidence is that the rules worked the same (and perfectly well) without any reference to 'primary' and 'off hand' in this section, as illustrated by this very same section in 3.0. Good to know I'm off the reservation. I guess I'll have to join the devs in the asylum for the criminally literate.
I'd really like to know how reading the current edition of the rules by what they say, is crazy talk, but reading the current edition of the rules based on what a past edition with different rules said is the perfectly sane and logical approach here.
Rules in 3.0 are different from the rules in 3.5. There is blatant evidence of this. Do the rules say the same thing in both editions? No? You mean the text has changed? Oh my, what could that mean? This is madness.
Please provide the source that states we are supposed to play based on 3.0 rules. I haven't seen it.
Quote: To persuade us differently, you must persuade us that the entire combat system changed between editions from one which is governed by real hands and BAB/feats to one governed by 'hands' worth of 'effort', all without being in the combat chapter or being mentioned for ten years. That is not credible! So the devs are not credible. I get it. Burden of proof is on you to prove that the devs are wrong. So, please post the text from 3.0 and the text from 3.5 and show that it is the same exact text. Show that there are no changes in the text. Oh, wait...they changed the text. Oh my.
Quote: I don't need to post several large blank spaces which show the lack of the use of 'off hand' in any circumstance that isn't specific to TWF! Every single reference to 'off hand' can be understood in terms of TWF. The rules were deliberately changed between 3.0 and 3.5 to remove 'off hand' from the game except when dealing with TWF Source please? This is your assumption. The only thing that was actually removed from the rules was handedness of characters. Nowhere is it stated that the Off Hand (and Primary Hand) only exist in TWF. If it were stated, then you would have provided the source by now.
What an amazingly blind reaction. Every single response you made in this post is refuted by the very post you're quoting!
Armour spikes don't require a hand because they are attached to armour and you don't need a free hand to use armour. We don't need a quote to understand that.
The devs certainly did not say you need a free hand to kick or to use armour spikes. On the contrary, Jason himself makes clear that you can use armour spikes even if your hands are full.
Post any mention of 'off hand' in the CRB and I'll show that it refers to TWF.
'Primary' and 'off hand' are terms for primary and off hand attacks in TWF. They needn't be made with a hand if the weapon itself doesn't require a hand, such as armour spikes and unarmed strike.
None of the recent dev posts concerning this has said that 'primary' and 'off hand' are referencing anything outside of TWF. You like to think that because it seems to match your invention of a combat system of 'hands' worth of 'effort', but no dev has said that these are the game's combat rules outside of TWF.
There is absolutely no way that the devs changed the combat system without mentioning in the combat chapter or mentioning it for a decade.
It's not possible to provide quotes for only using 'off hand' in TWF but not outside, because by definition such quotes do not exist! There is nothing to quote, which is the point. The only quotes available are in the context of TWF.
There are some things which changed between 3.0 and 3.5, but the way combat works was not one of them. In fact, the only rule relevant to this subject which did change was to remove handedness and the 'off hand' from the game with the sole exception of TWF! The absence of the off hand for any other purpose is eloquent; I don't need to quote an absence. The section on weapon categories changed it's wording to include how the Str bonus to damage applies to the 'primary' and 'off hand', but they refer to the only place where these terms have meaning: TWF. They did not change the entire combat system.
Locking. Please keep the back and forth hostility out of the conversation.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
