You know this many totally come out of left field but. Did you know the rules are complicated with lots of parts even experienced players are not aware of?
We.solve this with innumerable paradigm either those explicitly or implicitly in the rules. Furthermore these paradigm are conveyed through group interactions.
Really you need to accept they exist understand them and move on. Challenging them does nothing.
Nefreet: Developer posts aren't official unless it's in FAQ form so even if it was 100% hashed out back then it isn't RAW.I'm well aware of the Stephen Radney-MacFarland quote. I even made a thread addressing the problems it raises.
This is different.
I don't see how. Unless and until it's an actual rule, it's a real nifty house-rule hidden in the threads. You know, the EXACT reason Stephen Radney-MacFarland gives for non-FAQ posts being unofficial. You aren't expected to have to use search-fu to hunt for the rules. So again, it's nowhere near RAW. (Not a blog post, FAQ, errata or in a book) I didn't make the rules, I'm just pointing them out.
If it's "such a complicated issue, a few sentences tossed up as an FAQ couldn't handle it all", then it shouldn't have been put out as a FAQ if they couldn't cover it. Sounds like a perfect blog post IMO, like the monks. Maybe they could call it "The unwritten rules of fighting with multiple weapons".
|
We have an FAQ. It is an official Paizo ruling stating that a Core race can't fight with a two-handed weapon in conjunction with an off-hand weapon.
But because it is such a complicated issue, a few sentences tossed up as an FAQ couldn't handle it all. For an in-depth explanation with examples, we need to turn to those discussions for our answers.
If we maintain your POV, we're going to keep rehashing those debates year after year, and we're going to come to the same conclusion again and again.
And I'm not really keen on wasting another year (or more) doing that.
I didn't repost because it had absolutely nothing to do with my point.
Fact: Nothing in the discussions are RAW.
Why: Stephen Radney-MacFarland quote.
Reason?: "it does not force anyone playing the game to participate in or wade through message board threads (some of which can be a thousand or more posts long) in order to find official rulings."
Nothing in the part I cut off changes ANY of that. The Stephen Radney-MacFarland forces "rehashing those debates year after year", not I. "Messageboard posts on subjects made by the design and development team are not "official rulings" on the games. Clarifications in FAQ posts and errata are official rulings."
So you are asking me to house-rule what a separate messageboard post wrote and call it RAW even though that's the 100% incorrect thing to do? No thanks. I'll stick to "Clarifications in FAQ posts and errata are official rulings."
i find this all rather boring, saying "you can house rule this however you want" is the same as saying the discussion is pointless because nothing discussed will hold any weight. That's how basically every discussion is, people discuss on the forum with that in mind.
so, as far as i can see, there are no rules on 2-handing when you have multiple off-hands. so, the correct answer is YOU MUST create house rules to cover such an instance.
Also, vestigial arms, appear to still be usable as off-hands(you just don't gain any new ones), and can wield weapons. I still can find no actual proof or mention of these hands of effort either. They seem more like a myth like the holy grail than a ruling, a lot of people talk about it but no one can seem to show me an actual grail that existed (even with a bunch of digging I still only find mention of them).
I have to ask though, if you don't have a free arm due to vestigial arms, what can you do with them while your normal hands are used?
|
That's covered under ignorance. The root word is 'ignore'; you must be aware of something in order to ignore it. To be 'ignorant' of a fact is to be aware of it, but to ignore that knowledge. If one weren't aware in the first place, they would be 'innocent' of the knowledge and then, it's a matter of laziness as it's just a matter that they didn't do the brain-work to comprehend it.The only excuse for finding it confusing is laziness or ignorance.Or willful misinterpretation.
a : destitute of knowledge or education <an ignorant society>; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified <parents ignorant of modern mathematics>
b : resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence <ignorant errors>a : unaware, uninformed
— ig·no·rant·ly adverb
— ig·no·rant·ness noun
See ignorant defined for English-language learners »
See ignorant defined for kids »
Willful misinterpretation is the deliberate misreading of a message — in order to distort the message — of a source or other news-maker. Such an act would simply fall into the realm of punditry if it weren't for the added twist of distorting a message for partisan reasons.
Plenty of both on the forums. Ignorance is correctable: Willful Misinterpretation is not.
You can houserule however you wish at home, so long as you recognize what the actual rule is that you're changing.
Agreed. I was just pointing out that your suggestion of looking at the old thread would yield no rules. At best, you could call it RAI but even that is debatable. Naturally multiarmed creatures and that FAQ is a grey area.
Trying to combine the two-threads, since they both just eventually end in the same place.
Could you two-weapon fight with a two-hander by having your "off-hand" be an unarmed strike?You can't TWF with a 2 hander and an offhand because that is three hands.
Apparently the amount of hands doesn't matter much, just whether or now a weapon is wielded as a primary hand, a off hand, or as two-hander. <- this honestly should be the best way of making this distinction. There should be no business about metaphorical handed stuff, just how a weapon is wielded and how it uses actions when like that.
like:
primary hand: when a weapon is wielded it is usually considered to be in your primary hand, in such a case your Primary hand is considered used. This hand uses your full strength bonus for attacks. The primary hand only needs to be known during any given full attack action, at any other time any attack is considered your primary hand(regardless of what you usually use as your primary hand).
off-hand: If your Primary hand is already being used, then any additional weapons wielded, are considered to be in your off-hand. Your off-hand attacks use half your strength mod for any attack, but still use it's full penalty if you have one. Off-hand attacks do not increase with iterative attacks.
Two-handed: When a weapon is wielded with both a primary hand and an off-hand it is being wielded as two-handed. Two-handed attacks apply 1.5 their strength mod. Certain weapons MUST be wielded with two-hands, if a weapon is ever wielded by two off-hands, it is still considered an off-hand attack.
then you apply the two-weapon fighting penalties only when a weapon is ever wielded as an off-hand with your character.
then just say vestigial arms DO NOT give you an additional off-hand or primary hand, but are still considered a free-hand.
this is how I am ruling it.
|
Two-handed: When a weapon is wielded with both a primary hand and an off-hand it is being wielded as two-handed. Two-handed attacks apply 1.5 their strength mod. Certain weapons MUST be wielded with two-hands, if a weapon is ever wielded by two off-hands, it is still considered an off-hand attack.
This is of course, going to under the assumption that the off-hand, is, and must be, an actual hand?
This is of course, going to under the assumption that the off-hand, is, and must be, an actual hand?
Two-handed: When a weapon is wielded with both a primary hand and an off-hand it is being wielded as two-handed. Two-handed attacks apply 1.5 their strength mod. Certain weapons MUST be wielded with two-hands, if a weapon is ever wielded by two off-hands, it is still considered an off-hand attack.
Yes. Anything that can wield a weapon is effectively a hand. so, claws/paws/pirates hook can be hands too.
I Actually wrote down in my house rule section this to cover hands because of your question.
Hands: anything that can wield a weapon is considered a hand for purposes of qualifying for being a primary hand, or an off-hand. If it can mimic to a good degree (GMs discretion) the use of a hand, then it also counts as a free hand when not in use.
also, I added the part about a hand being used from primary to also include off-hands.
How would you handle the Dwarven Boulder Helmet, Boot Blade, Sea Knife, Barbazu Beard, Kobold Tail Attachments, and Ratfolk Tailblade?
if it's a weapon, and your wielding it, then it is being wielded by a "hand" only capable of wielding a weapon. You can say it is your primary or your off-hand at your leisure. Yes, you're feet/tail/neck can now be hands, but only when they're holding a weapon. so two-handed fight with a blade boot away. They'd all be light weapons so you can't two-handed them(which I forgot to add that as well to my actual text).
the only funny thing I can think of coming up, is someone using two-boot blades... He could do it, if he could fly... but otherwise it seems silly :P
Another option I just thought of is a "body" slot, if a weapon specifically is stated to not be wielded in a hand or requires no hands to be wielded, then it interferes with all other weapons not wielded in a hand. as blade boot and boulder helmet would require some flexibility.
also aren't tail attachments "natural weapons" still? they modify the natural attack, they don't actually replace it.
Funnily enough, i can;t actually find text that states you wear blade boots on your feet, or a boulder helmet on your head...
The reason this keeps coming up is that the rules in the books do not match the FAQ.
The book is vague and easily interpreted in several different ways.
Also by logic there should be no reason to forbid Two Hander + Armor spikes or Two Hander + unarmed strike as the penalty to TWF means you are doing less DPR and paying a feat + enchanting more than one weapon for what comes down to be flavor.
Now if you have some ability that triggers on each attack such as poison or the critical feat tree the extra attacks at the cost of DPR can be worthwhile, however poison is prohibitively expensive and the crit trees come online late in life and are not substantially enhanced by this ability, definitely not over say TWF with kukris.
By the FAQ I believe combining any other weapon except natural weapons via TWF with a two hander is disallowed though. This is unfortunately the ruling that was made as far as I can see.
This really does not make any sense as it prevents such things as using TWF to be able to Kick or boot blade while using a Two-hander. It is however the rule.
I understand why BBT is seemingly upset, as the idea of having a unwritten metaphorical set of "Hands" which both are and are not hands is upsetting to me as well, however the FAQ does seem to leave little ambiguity in where the PDT stands on this issue.
I find it a disappointing ruling and do espouse a potential review of it, but as we are in the rules forum I must concede that the answer to the original question is no for all natrual two armed races.
I used to teach martial arts and weapon arts. Power comes from the legs and body moving together. The arms are used at the end. Thrust, push-cut, and pull-cut are all driven by the whole body. Having four arms would not be twice as effective as two. You would be interfering with your own lines of attack.
This is one of those few instances where the rules make a bit of sense to a simulationist. Capping the total strength bonus at 1.5 seems to make sense. You can't move in four directions at once.
If I had a four-armed character I would put two short defensive weapons in my bottom set of hands - probably bucklers. I would use these extra hands to grab when the opportunity arose.
A four armed character could be an incredible grappler.
I don't know why nobody seems to be listening to this guy.
The weight that is thrown around when wielding a two-handed weapon would seem to be impossible to use for two separate two-handed weapons for a four armed person. As for a three armed person, I imagine it would make it pretty difficult to effectively use a one handed weapon as part of a two weapon fighting maneuver in conjunction with such a weapon.
When rules and logic conflict, it would seem to usually have the logic change the rules. Most of the stuff that gets errata'd seems to support this concept. Thus, if you think about it from a fighting standpoint, it would seem that the tactics behind two-handed weapon use, imply an additional arm/weapon would be nearly useless.
The other problem with this concept, is that it is calling for rules on a subject that has no form. If the person is still mostly humanoid, with the "extra" arms being below the normal ones,then they might be helpful to this concept, but only in limited situations.
If they were on the persons back, but at the same shoulder height, I suppose they could have additional weapons to bring to bear in a sort of whirlwind attack. They really can't write such a quick/dirty rule without further...
I am sorry, but I strenuously object to this. "Logic" or "Realism" dictating rules for a game leads to horrible game balance.
If we used logic we would say "Hey Mr. 20th level with a trait for swim, a feat for swim, 32 Strength, max swim ranks and Swim as a class skill! You are wearing full-plate carrying 200 pounds of gear and holding a shield. NO SWIM FOR YOU!"
Why?
Because "Realism lol" or "It's logical lol".
In any game where people are capable of falling from orbit and walking it off, or taking magma walkies logic and realism have left the building.
Now internal consistency and balance, those are important, but D&D is not and has never really been a simulator game, so the argument should never be "Well in the real world" or "Well this is how it works in my real world experience".
This is of course my opinion, but I believe "Logic" and "Realism" are what got us the Rogue.
Y'all are missing a key point here. What this 3 or 4 armed critter needs is a three-handed sword or a four-handed sword! Think of the POWER!!!!
<g>
Seriously, if this guy has multiattack, I'd let him use 2 hands fora 2-handed sword and light weapons for his extra "off" hands, but I'd have to rule that the greatsword is his primary attack. It's be easier if he just held, say, a shield and a wand in those extra hands. Without the multiweapons feat, the malusses would be horrendous for multiple attacks, though.
IMHO, the spirit of the rules supports the above, even if it's never explicitly mentioned in RAW
I would rule that the player can do whatever they want... but I would simply assign a +0.5 STR bonus on off hand attacks for each off hand used; so two off hands wielding a two handed sword would do +1x STR mod instead of the +1.5x STR mod that a primary and off hand would combine for. And yes that means the primary hand adds in +1x STR when used.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am sorry, but I strenuously object to this. "Logic" or "Realism" dictating rules for a game leads to horrible game balance.
If we used logic we would say "Hey Mr. 20th level with a trait for swim, a feat for swim, 32 Strength, max swim ranks and Swim as a class skill! You are wearing full-plate carrying 200 pounds of gear and holding a shield. NO SWIM FOR YOU!"
Why?
Because "Realism lol" or "It's logical lol".
In any game where people are capable of falling from orbit and walking it off, or taking magma walkies logic and realism have left the building.
Now internal consistency and balance, those are important, but D&D is not and has never really been a simulator game, so the argument should never be "Well in the real world" or "Well this is how it works in my real world experience".
This is of course my opinion, but I believe "Logic" and "Realism" are what got us the Rogue.
actually, realism has show that it is possible to do it. There area few video in internet of that:
In Japanese armorplate armor
And those are normal men, not 20th level characters.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
then you apply the two-weapon fighting penalties only when a weapon is ever wielded as an off-hand with your character.
then just say vestigial arms DO NOT give you an additional off-hand or primary hand, but are still considered a free-hand.
this is how I am ruling it.
I can't say I followed you nor know your conclusion.
But if your conclusion is that you can two hand a weapon and attack with unarmed strike with a humanoid with two base hands, then your conclusion didn't follow the set out logic.
You have a primary hand and a off hand. Pick how you want to use them. If you have non-claw natural weapons then you can also take those attacks. But you can't use claws extra nor can you grow an arm and take another attack (unarmed strike, armor spikes, or whatever.)
then you apply the two-weapon fighting penalties only when a weapon is ever wielded as an off-hand with your character.
then just say vestigial arms DO NOT give you an additional off-hand or primary hand, but are still considered a free-hand.
this is how I am ruling it.
I can't say I followed you nor know your conclusion.
But if your conclusion is that you can two hand a weapon and attack with unarmed strike with a humanoid with two base hands, then your conclusion didn't follow the set out logic.
You have a primary hand and a off hand. Pick how you want to use them. If you have non-claw natural weapons then you can also take those attacks. But you can't use claws extra nor can you grow an arm and take another attack (unarmed strike, armor spikes, or whatever.)
I'm saying that the current rules don't properly cover these phenomena so, you HAVE to make a house rule for it, so that is what i house ruled. I want/like rules that work under any circumstance, so that they still work outside of expected situations.
that is all, no more or less.