|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
So how does this weapon work for purposes of two-weapon fighting? Or doesn't it? It's classified as a light melee weapon, but you wear it on your head so both hands are still free. Can it be used for two-weapon fighting along with a two-handed weapon? Or if you're wielding two weapons, can it be used as a third weapon akin to a bite natural attack? Just wondering how this would work.
Helmet, Dwarven Boulder: This heavy, reinforced helmet can be used to make melee attacks. The wearer may also use the helmet when attempting bull rush maneuvers, granting a +2 circumstance bonus on the check, but after completing the maneuver (whether successful or not), the wearer is staggered until the end of his next turn. In addition, the helmet grants a +2 circumstance bonus to the wearer's AC against critical hit confirmation rolls. A dwarven boulder helmet adds 20% to the wearer's arcane spell failure chance. It occupies the head slot and is made of metal, not stone, meaning that it can be crafted from unusual materials as a metal weapon. A dwarven boulder helmet can be enchanted as a weapon (not as armor, despite providing some protection).
I imagine that it works much like armor spikes: both hands are taken up by your two-handed weapon, so you can't use it to Two-Weapon Fight. You could still Two-Weapon Fight with it if you were using a weapon in one hand.
The stated basis for the armor spikes FAQ was that you had to have an actual hand to wield armor spikes. You don't need any hand to use a helmet.
Sure, there was a lot of talk about metaphorical hands and the like, but all of that is internal design meta-rules that the designers keep assuming that players know. None of that made it into the FAQ or errata, so as it stands there's no basis in RAW for metaphorical hands, and as far as I've read there's nothing in RAW disallowing TWF with a greatsword and boulder helmet--or a greatsword and unarmed strike, for that matter.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The "hand" of actions stuff never made it into any rules text, FAQ, or errata, so I ignore it on the grounds that it is silly and shatters immersion to think that the number of hands on your sword somehow affects your ability to headbutt.
I can't say I'm mad about being wrong this time. Always thought the Armor Spike thing was silly, and ignore it anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RAW, attacking with a two-handed weapon means that your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks. Period.
It doesn't matter if it's a two handed weapon, what matters is if you're using two hands on the weapon. For instance, the Flambard is a two handed weapon that you can wield in one hand. Or a one handed weapon can be used in two hands.
Likewise, you couldn't use an armored gauntlet to do so, as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks."
It's debatable is they are talking about a hand or a "hand". What I mean is that they might mean that physical off hand is in use from the two handed weapon use and not the off "hand" of effort. It's a big steaming pile of confusion...
Unfortunately, you can't bite and use a boulder helmet in the same round anyway.
Core Rulebook: You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used for each attack. For example, you cannot make a claw attack and also use that hand to make attacks with a longsword.
This too is debatable. The head doesn't seem to conform to the standard. For example bite and gore are both allowed even though they are both on the same 'limb'.
1 LOL I assume so, but you can't take that for granted. If someone wanted to get technical, they could argue against you two weapon fighting with a Flambard wielded in one hand.
2 The way it reads it sure SOUNDS like it's talking about a physical hand. If it isn't, how does it affect two weapon fighting? It's using an offhand that shouldn't exist because they only exist in two weapon fighting. It's a catch 22/chicken and egg situation unless it's talking about more than the normal "offhand". A MUCH better way to say it would have been that using a weapon two handed prevents the use of two weapon fighting instead of bringing in an offhand.
3 Yep, but it sure does come up often that gore and bite shouldn't be allowed. And with weapons/natural attacks it says "although often a creature must forgo one natural attack for each weapon clutched in that limb". This is clearer that the other quote and makes it clear that it's held weapons getting in the way of attacks (weapon instead of claw, tentacle, or slam).
1 It was talked about at the time it came out. The flambard is the opposite of a bastard sword. It's a two handed weapon you can use in one hand as long as you are proficient in it and the bastard sword. At least that was the word of the DEV at the time. As far as I know, they didn't make an FAQ on it.
Also, "This two-handed sword has a wavy blade that is especially useful for cutting through wooden weapons. If you are proficient with this weapon, you gain a +4 bonus on any sunder attempts made against weapons with a wooden haft; otherwise you may use this sword as a bastard sword."
2 but offhands only exist in two weapon fighting. How is something affecting two weapon fighting when you aren't using it? It's like saying you're at -20' swim speed then you're are running on the ground. One isn't currently have anything to do with the other.
As I said, I can understand it not allowing two weapon fighting, I just can't see how it uses something that doesn't exist (an off hand outside of two weapon combat).
3 Not disagreeing. However, most ways a PC can acquire natural weapons don't. Except for the head "limb", it's best to assume only one.
|
So how does this weapon work for purposes of two-weapon fighting? Or doesn't it? It's classified as a light melee weapon, but you wear it on your head so both hands are still free. Can it be used for two-weapon fighting along with a two-handed weapon? Or if you're wielding two weapons, can it be used as a third weapon akin to a bite natural attack? Just wondering how this would work.
Yes and no.
You can totally use this as a light weapon to pair with another weapon for the purposes of two weapon fighting. This is no different than having horns or a tail attack (or a tail mounted weapon).
Without an additional feat/class ability, you can't utilize a two handed weapon with two weapon fighting. This has to do with the dual weapon rules, not the number of weapons held.
You can, however, employ a shield or cast spells with a free hand while two weapon fighting with the other hand and your head.
Personally, I think one of the really cool features of this "weapon" is that you can field a PC with a one-handed weapon of each weapon damage type (bashing on head, slashing in one hand, piercing in the other.).
Unfortunately, almost none of the arcane spell failure reduction rules apply to this item because it is not armor.
The main use of this weapon that I see is using a reach weapon and having the helmet threaten at 5'. Some people don't want/like covering themselves with spikes or kicking people and dwarves get to use the helmets as martial weapons.
|
|
The main use of this weapon that I see is using a reach weapon and having the helmet threaten at 5'. Some people don't want/like covering themselves with spikes or kicking people and dwarves get to use the helmets as martial weapons.
Was under the impression that only the weapons you actively wield are counted for threatening. If your wielding a two-handed weapon, the helmet doesn't threaten, right?
Just like a spell caster with a dagger, but casting spells. He doesn't threaten with the dagger because he's not actively using it, right?
Same as armored spikes.
There is no attack option for an off off hand.
Kazaan, replace fighter the character with the player running the fighter. Now reread Murdock Mudeater's post.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's a problem with any rules based PnP game. If you want to just smash things as a player running a fighter, you may want to consider LARPing, the SCA, or various martial arts.
I think the point was that there are players that want to play a simple character with a minimum of rules and fiddly bits. It's a leap from that to LARP. Hands and "hands" adds more rules and makes the game more complex, for better or worse.
|
Hands and "hands" adds more rules and makes the game more complex, for better or worse.
I disagree.
If "hands" didn't exist, we'd have all manner of corner case questions arising (like this very thread), and each one would devolve into endless debate (like they do now).
But if everyone was on board with and understood "hands", all of those questions go away.
You automatically know the answer: count up the # of hands required to perform the action you're attempting. If that # is greater than 2, you can't do it.
Once I started looking at it as each character having two hands worth of utility, everything fell into line.
But, for some reason, it's a really hard concept for people to grasp (evidenced by this being one of the most frequently asked questions ever), so debate won't end until it gets an FAQ (in either direction).
I want to make an FAQ request about this very topic, but because it's such a big question I want to get it right.
I messaged Mark Seifter asking for any advice on the wording, so I could get it right, but no reply, yet.
Sometime this week I'll gather up all the appropriate links and go to task on it.
|
|
The problem is that "hands" make no logical sense at all, especially when you look at natural attacks and other things that specifically break the "hands" rules.
If a Tengu can make an attack with a two handed weapon and a bite, why does it make any sense that a dwarf can't make an attack with a two handed weapon and a boulder helmet? It's the same amount of effort.
If a Monk making a flurry of blows to two-weapon fight can make an attack with a Sansetsukon and a kick, why can't the unarmed fighter?
If a gillman can make a two-weapon attack with a spear and a sea-knife, why can't a human make a two-weapon attack with a spear and armor spikes?
The rules are inconsistent, confusing, and the unwritten rule of hands of effort is unrealistic and doesn't help matters.
That said, I am all for a FAQ that deal comprehensively with this issue, even if it means that certain combinations that should work don't, just so we can stop having this argument over and over again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The easy solution to this is just to cut off an enemy's head, put the helmet on it, and two-weapon fight with that.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree.If "hands" didn't exist, we'd have all manner of corner case questions arising (like this very thread), and each one would devolve into endless debate (like they do now).
But if everyone was on board with and understood "hands", all of those questions go away.
And right there we run into my problem. No one REALLY knows when a rule element says hand, does it mean hand, "hand" or both. So it's added complexity and added SO many more questions then it ever hoped to solve.
Take Combat Juggling from the juggler bard. They can wield up to 7 one handed weapons in their hands. (and they have a free hand too) SO they can have at least 8 hands. Now nothing stops you from two handing those weapons so can I two weapon fight with multiple weapons used in two hands? I have plenty of hands to do it and the only thing I can't do is gain attacks. How about a magus multiclass and Spell Combat? A one handed weapon wielded in two hands is "wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand" and you have a free hand.
Really, "hands" isn't helping a bit for me. Maybe you have an easier time parsing hands and "hands" but to me it's added confusion for no gain. I don't see a simple FAQ managing to answer this as it seems only a major rule rewrite would do. But at least it's solved the uber abuse of two handed weapon/spiked armor two weapon fighting so it wasn't for nothing... [in case it wasn't clear, the last sentence was sarcasm]
The head doesn't seem to conform to the standard. For example bite and gore are both allowed even though they are both on the same 'limb'.
That's because tusks glorious enough to gore with are limbs to themselves, the head being the "body" to these limbs. Just as you'd be able to body check an individual and then punch him with one of your puny bendy fleshy bits.
Yeah, getting an AoO from every adjacent enemy you attack is a liiiittle terrible.
|
|
I understand that specific exceptions apply and are delineated explicitly. It makes logical sense from game balance perspective. It does not make sense from a perspective of realism.
The exceptions should be the general rule as "hands" is a construction that makes no sense in a real combat. You can make an attack with a two-handed weapon and kick something.
Moreover, this is a common move in fantasy fiction and films. You should not be forced to rely on natural attacks, the monk/brawler class, or bizarre racial weapons that prevent you from walking to do such a move.
|
|
I agree, and it's not enough to make me stop playing a game that I love. It's not even that good of a move, as the feats required and the lack of accuracy makes TWF almost always not worth it.
But again, it's really frustrating to have a concept not work in game that does work in real life.
Anyway, I'm letting this one go now.
Graystone, replace superficial understanding with a deeper and more intellectual analysis. Now re-read my post.
"The Fighter knows nothing of economy. Characters don't know anything about action or attack economy or the grid or checks or anything; those are all tools of the players. There are no "rounds" for the character, all combat happens seamlessly.":
I see a LOT of mention of players in this fine example of your post. Rereading it lead to the same conclusion as before
"This is not a simple game... if you really are the kind of person who just wants to smash things, honestly, you're playing the wrong kind of game.": This was your ONLY mention of a the player, in an otherwise character oriented post. If that last sentence was your point, maybe you should have expanded on THAT and not made the main thrust about the character's perspective. You can come down off your high horse now, the air must be getting thin up there.
That first post, where I suggested rereading it was NOT meant as snarky. Your post read (and still reads) to me that you didn't get his point. After the "replace superficial understanding with a deeper and more intellectual analysis", THIS post has the appropriate amount of snarkiness though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just my two cents. As far as I know there is no offhand except in two-weapon fighting in RAW. I can switch my sword and shield around as much as I like between my arms and fight and defend equally well even if I decide that my character is right handed. The offhand comes in when I choose which is my "primary" weapon, and which is my "off-hand" weapon.
I assume that the first attack is the one I put my full effort and strength into and the second one is a quick add on that has less strength and effort behind it. I'd just assume that this means that any "off-hand" attack whether it be from a physical hand or another weapon options such as the helmet counts as filling a hand slot for the turn.
Otherwise, you could make a case of three weapon fighting where you attack with both hands and your helmet and whatever other weapons you could possibly wield not in a physical hand.
"This is not a simple game... if you really are the kind of person who just wants to smash things, honestly, you're playing the wrong kind of game."
Only mention of the player? Try the sentence immediately following that one... and the one after that... in fact, all sentences after this one you quote are about the player directly. Say nothing about how the whole paragraph needs to be taken as an integrated whole to be fully understood; it is about the relationship between character and player, not just one or just the other.
Dude I LITERALLY posted the last sentence you posted. I don't know what you wish me to read. Let me repost your post. Where ARE all those sentences after the one I quoted? Please take note of that last sentence.
EDIT: I most likely should have said in that other post that you focused on characters instead of saying not mentioned to be more accurate.
The Fighter knows nothing of economy. Characters don't know anything about action or attack economy or the grid or checks or anything; those are all tools of the players. There are no "rounds" for the character, all combat happens seamlessly. But us, as players, need ways to translate the seamless world of the characters into something we can work with. Thus, we need rounds and initiative, grids and reach, uses per day and action economy, etc. You are not your character. This is not a simple game... if you really are the kind of person who just wants to smash things, honestly, you're playing the wrong kind of game.
And you didn't offend me per se, I just find your condescending tone annoying. If you disagreed with me, just say so. Insulting my intelligence doesn't help things.
Indeed, it feels wrong to classify a weapon as purely Off-Hand. It sounds as, if you want to just make a headbutt you can't, you HAVE to strike with your sword first, which doesn't make sense. These "off-hand" weapons should be properly classified as light weapons since the penalties for fighting with them are only -2 when TWFing.
Picture this, a 16th level Fighter uses his first attack with a two-handed frostbrand Greatsword and destroys an fire elemental with it. He then drops the Greatsword as a free action, draws 2 flaming short swords as another free action thanks to Quick Draw and proceeds to attack the Ice Golem next to him. If he wants to TWF with the 2 short swords, how many attacks does it still have?
# As I understand, even though it seems to not be written anywhere, everybody has up to 1 attack for every +5 BAB they have.
# Everybody may make one Off-Hand ATTACK with -10/-6 penalties (-4/-4 TWF feat; -2/-2 TWF feat + light weapon as off-hand).
# To make that Off-Hand ATTACK, you may use any One-handed, Light or any end of a Double weapon, including any part of your body as an Unarmed Strike.
# So even if you are holding/wielding a bunch of light/one-handed weapons, it's not like you're a monster with a bunch of extra hands, but you may use any of them to make the attacks you can make.
# When you make 1 two-handed attack, you have effectively spent both 1 main hand attack and 1 off-hand attack, if you had one.
# So, if you have BAB +16 and GTWF, you can make a total of 4 attacks as main hands and an extra 3 as off-hands.
# The main hand attacks can be used with any weapon, light, one-handed or two-handed, but every attack with a two-handed weapon consumes a possible off-hand attack you could make.
# If that Fighter makes 2 attacks with a two-handed weapon, he can still make 2 main hand attacks and 1 off-hand attack with any weapon other than a two-handed weapon.
# If he makes 3 attacks with a two-handed weapon, now he can no longer make off-hand attacks, but he may still use his last main hand attack to strike with the two-handed weapon again.
# Also, even if you spent all your turns attacks with any weapon you have, you still threaten all squares you can attack with any weapon you wield as long as you have attacks of opportunity to use.
# Also, if someone readies an action to strike you at the precise moment you are also striking with a two-handed weapon, I think you should not be able to use the hands (or wtv) you are using to wield the two-handed weapon to make AoO with.
After thinking this though again, I think the FAQ about Armor Spikes and Two-Handed Weapons is inaccurate. I think you can't make all your BAB attacks with a Two-Handed Weapons and then make the extra GTWF off-hand attacks with the Armor Spikes, just like you couldn't drop the two-handed weapon after you're done attacking with it and then draw a short sword for the extra off-hand attacks. BUT, it should be possible to mix them during the full attack (complicated but possible) and you should be able to make AoO with any weapon you have threat.
Even if the FAQ makes it seems you can't TWF/THF because of the armor spikes, everybody is already doing it all the time with unarmed strikes. Anybody with Improved Unarmed Strikes and an Spear can make all it's attacks with the spear and still threaten the squares adjacent to him with Unarmed Strikes. Having a boot-knife or a dwarven boulder helm should be no different than that.