as stated above, i've been trying to figure out how exactly do you handle a two-handed weapon wielded in two-off hands(1/2 strength or 1-1/2 strength), and if it is able to be used for bonus attacks via two-weapon fighting.
Two handed weapons require a primary hand and an off-hand. They cannot be wielded with two off-hands. CRB pg 141 under Light, One-Handed, and Two-Handed Melee Weapons:
well, there's one mystery down.
Never had a player try to use a two handed weapon for an off hand attack but I would go with .5x Str damage. The extra attacks from two weapon fighting are explicitly called off hand attacks and off hand attacks deal .5x Str damage. (1x Str damage with double slice)
You will need to reference the unwritten rules.
You do that enough for everyone.
If I recall, the rules say you have to use 'both' hands to use a two handed weapon. It NEVER states what to do when you have more than two. It never states that 'both' must be primary + offhand. So there isn't ANY RAW on wielding 2 2-handed weapons.
The rules assume you are using someone with two hand and TWF or a creature with more than two hands and multiweapon fighting. Any other combination goes into GM discretion territory, and even then the rules assuming you are one handing a weapon, not trying to use two hands and still get extra attacks. Basically there are no rules for this other than "ask the GM".
If I recall, the rules say you have to use 'both' hands to use a two handed weapon. It NEVER states what to do when you have more than two. It never states that 'both' must be primary + offhand. So there isn't ANY RAW on wielding 2 2-handed weapons.
It doesn't matter how many physical hands you have, you only have two metaphysical "hands of effort." And it is your metaphysical hands of effort which actually wield weapons. So, no, you cannot TWF with THW under any circumstance, ever. Even with 100 arms, you still couldn't do it.
BigDTBone: SO a race with 4 natural arms only has two metaphysical "hands of effort"? I call BS as multiweapon fighting states that creatures with 3+ arms gain more than that.
BigDTBone: SO a race with 4 natural arms only has two metaphysical "hands of effort"? I call BS as multiweapon fighting states that creatures with 3+ arms gain more than that.
As far as I know, a naturally four-armed race would have one primary hand and three off hands.
BigDTBone: SO a race with 4 natural arms only has two metaphysical "hands of effort"? I call BS as multiweapon fighting states that creatures with 3+ arms gain more than that.As far as I know, a naturally four-armed race would have one primary hand and three off hands.
Yes, and that adds up to more than two metaphysical "hands of effort" as he said in replying to me talking about it not stating what to do if you have more than 2. And since it's never stated how you two=handed weapons interact with 4 armed races, we can't assume 'both' requires a specific primary/off-hand combination. Both off-hands satisfies the 'both' requirement for two handed use.
by the way, I am talking for argument's sake about someone with say a dagger in their main hand, and a long sword being wielded in both off hands.
|
Why is this discussion spread out over two threads?
The "two metaphorical hands" issue only applies to standard races. Those "born" with two arms. People forget that SKR kept referencing standard, core races when those debates took place last year.
If you're playing a naturally multi-armed race, you're going to have to invent your own rules, because none exist outside of the Multi-Weapon Fighting feat.
Yes, and that adds up to more than two metaphysical "hands of effort" as he said in replying to me talking about it not stating what to do if you have more than 2. And since it's never stated how you two=handed weapons interact with 4 armed races, we can't assume 'both' requires a specific primary/off-hand combination. Both off-hands satisfies the 'both' requirement for two handed use.BigDTBone: SO a race with 4 natural arms only has two metaphysical "hands of effort"? I call BS as multiweapon fighting states that creatures with 3+ arms gain more than that.As far as I know, a naturally four-armed race would have one primary hand and three off hands.
A two handed weapon requires a primary and off hand, not two off hands.
|
|
It seems there are quite a few people spread out over these two threads who weren't around last year, when this was a really hot topic. Suffice it to say that these discussions were hashed out with a Developer at the time, and going over them again is really pointless. I strongly suggest you search for those threads, and read them, before posting anything more on the matter here.
Otherwise there will be thousands (literally) of duplicate posts.
A two handed weapon requires a primary and off hand, not two off hands.Yes, and that adds up to more than two metaphysical "hands of effort" as he said in replying to me talking about it not stating what to do if you have more than 2. And since it's never stated how you two=handed weapons interact with 4 armed races, we can't assume 'both' requires a specific primary/off-hand combination. Both off-hands satisfies the 'both' requirement for two handed use.BigDTBone: SO a race with 4 natural arms only has two metaphysical "hands of effort"? I call BS as multiweapon fighting states that creatures with 3+ arms gain more than that.As far as I know, a naturally four-armed race would have one primary hand and three off hands.
No, it requires both. If you have a quote from one of the books that states what you just said please post it.
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.
No, it requires both. If you have a quote from one of the books that states what you just said please post it.A two handed weapon requires a primary and off hand, not two off hands.Yes, and that adds up to more than two metaphysical "hands of effort" as he said in replying to me talking about it not stating what to do if you have more than 2. And since it's never stated how you two=handed weapons interact with 4 armed races, we can't assume 'both' requires a specific primary/off-hand combination. Both off-hands satisfies the 'both' requirement for two handed use.BigDTBone: SO a race with 4 natural arms only has two metaphysical "hands of effort"? I call BS as multiweapon fighting states that creatures with 3+ arms gain more than that.As far as I know, a naturally four-armed race would have one primary hand and three off hands.
Quoted it several times.
CRB pg 141Light weapon: primary Or off hand
One-handed: primary Or off hand
Two-handed: Both primary And off hand.
You must have a different book than I. Mine says "Two hands are required to use a twohanded melee weapon effectively." CRB pg 141 How are two off hands NOT two hands as per the core rule book?
You must have a different book than I. Mine says "Two hands are required to use a twohanded melee weapon effectively." CRB pg 141 How are two off hands NOT two hands as per the core rule book?
Well I do have a second printing. (Light hearted emoticon) I simply read in context. The "two hands" refer to the primary and off hands mentioned in the same passage. Otherwise it's stating "two handed weapons require two hands." I could have figured that out myself.
You must have a different book than I. Mine says "Two hands are required to use a twohanded melee weapon effectively." CRB pg 141 How are two off hands NOT two hands as per the core rule book?Well I do have a second printing. (Light hearted emoticon) I simply read in context. The "two hands" refer to the primary and off hands mentioned in the same passage. Otherwise it's stating "two handed weapons require two hands." I could have figured that out myself.
but that's the point, we're no longer in the realm that that context covered, aka only have 2 arms.
but that's the point, we're no longer in the realm that that context covered, aka only have 2 arms.You must have a different book than I. Mine says "Two hands are required to use a twohanded melee weapon effectively." CRB pg 141 How are two off hands NOT two hands as per the core rule book?Well I do have a second printing. (Light hearted emoticon) I simply read in context. The "two hands" refer to the primary and off hands mentioned in the same passage. Otherwise it's stating "two handed weapons require two hands." I could have figured that out myself.
If you're talking alchemist, you do not gain either extra primary hands or off hands.
If you're referring to a natural three (or more) armed race, then you get extra off hands but not extra primary hands.Again, these are the rules as they are. If you are the GM, then change them however you want. I am not in any way trying to say it would be overpowered or broken.
but that's the point, we're no longer in the realm that that context covered, aka only have 2 arms.You must have a different book than I. Mine says "Two hands are required to use a twohanded melee weapon effectively." CRB pg 141 How are two off hands NOT two hands as per the core rule book?Well I do have a second printing. (Light hearted emoticon) I simply read in context. The "two hands" refer to the primary and off hands mentioned in the same passage. Otherwise it's stating "two handed weapons require two hands." I could have figured that out myself.If you're talking alchemist, you do not gain either extra primary hands or off hands.
If you're referring to a natural three (or more) armed race, then you get extra off hands but not extra primary hands.Again, these are the rules as they are. If you are the GM, then change them however you want. I am not in any way trying to say it would be overpowered or broken.
but i have still yet to see manifest proof that you NEED a primary hand for a 2-hander.
I went back and read some of the old threads on this, and couldn't seem to find any actually proof there either. People just kept bringing up rules designed for people with 2 arms.
also, vestigial arms say they can wield a weapon and can be part of a attack action. so they can attack and can wield arms, they ARE NOT GIVING EXTRA ATTACKS ANYWHERE.
but i have still yet to see manifest proof that you NEED a primary hand for a t-hander.but that's the point, we're no longer in the realm that that context covered, aka only have 2 arms.You must have a different book than I. Mine says "Two hands are required to use a twohanded melee weapon effectively." CRB pg 141 How are two off hands NOT two hands as per the core rule book?Well I do have a second printing. (Light hearted emoticon) I simply read in context. The "two hands" refer to the primary and off hands mentioned in the same passage. Otherwise it's stating "two handed weapons require two hands." I could have figured that out myself.If you're talking alchemist, you do not gain either extra primary hands or off hands.
If you're referring to a natural three (or more) armed race, then you get extra off hands but not extra primary hands.Again, these are the rules as they are. If you are the GM, then change them however you want. I am not in any way trying to say it would be overpowered or broken.
It's in th CRB, there's a FAQ, I don't know what more you need (or why it's my job to provide it). You asked, I've tried to explain. Run it as you wish. You said you were the GM.
still I WANT TO KNOW WHY.
I've read the CRB with the FAQ and i feel that explanation doesn't hold ground. yet, everyone seems to think it's a matter of fact from the threads of yesteryear. WHY? i read them, many people today who say no, doesn't work, were fighting tooth and nail to say it was still legal.
"as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks."
this seems to apply off-hand to physical hands, and the term both only applied to 2 objects in correct english, but it is possible to have many hands, and even more off-hands via race.
people, keep referencing the unwritten rule, and i'd really like to know what that is.
still I WANT TO KNOW WHY.
I've read the CRB with the FAQ and i feel that explanation doesn't hold ground. yet, everyone seems to think it's a matter of fact from the threads of yesteryear. WHY? i read them, many people today who say no, doesn't work, were fighting tooth and nail to say it was still legal.
"as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks."
this seems to apply off-hand to physical hands, and the term both only applied to 2 objects in correct english, but it is possible to have many hands, and even more off-hands via race.
people, keep referencing the unwritten rule, and i'd really like to know what that is.
Primary and off hands is a matter if effort, not physical hands. Your "off hand" could be your left hand, either foot, a headbutt, or a hip check if you wanted. Think of it this way: you can make an unarmed strike even if your hands are full. So you have two daggers, your primary dagger deals 1x Str damage, and your off hand deals .5x Str. Can you also kick, or headbutt, etc.? With a two handed weapon, or a one handed weapon in two hands, you require your primary and off hand deal 1.5x Str damage. Can you also kick or headbutt, etc.?
|
still I WANT TO KNOW WHY.
You problem is that you don't accept the idea that the rules are written for biped races with 2 arms, 2 legs, 1 head.
That is a unwritten assumption of all the rulebooks, with some limited exception, mostly in the ARG. The exceptions generally have specific rules.You want to use a 3 armed character.
So you have to look the specific rules for his race or condition and follow the following rules:
Rule 1: if he is a member of a race with the standard build that has somehow sprouted a new arm or tentacle he normally is subject to the limitations of the standard races. Unless the ability that make him grow the new arm say differently, he is still limited to two hands of efforts when attacking with manufactured weapons.
Rule 2: if he is a member of a race with 3+ arms you must look how the race work. The race can make 1 attack with manufactured weapons with each arm? Then he can make 3+ hands worth of effort when attacking with manufactured weapons, if he can't (there are races with multiple arms that can use only 2 arms for manufactured weapons) he is limited to two hands of effort.
- * -
but i have still yet to see manifest proof that you NEED a primary hand for a 2-hander.I went back and read some of the old threads on this, and couldn't seem to find any actually proof there either. People just kept bringing up rules designed for people with 2 arms.
also, vestigial arms say they can wield a weapon and can be part of a attack action. so they can attack and can wield arms, they ARE NOT GIVING EXTRA ATTACKS ANYWHERE.
What is the modifier for using a 2 handed weapon in a secondary hand while using a different weapon in the primary?
Armor Spikes: Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?No.
Likewise, you couldn't use an armored gauntlet to do so, as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks.
|
The FAQ is a CRB FAQ, the Kasatha has specific rules that supersede the FAQ.And now the Kasatha who are explicitly listed as having ONE "Main hand" and "3 Off-Hands"
who essentially by current FAQ do not gain any mechanical advantage over 2 armed beings due to the "two metaphorical hands" issue.
Good point. Then how about a Marilith then (less likely as a pc but i can't assume every GM ever will only use 6 one handed weapons).
The fact is there are currently NO published rules that clarify exactly how multi-armed creatures should be allowed to attack with (2 handed) weapons.
Just one, by the unwritten rules.
Or, maybe not. They are unwritten, so no one can real prove what they say.
Seems ludicrous to me that there are two "off-hands" you would wield a longsword with while wielding a dagger in your "main hand".
If I was playing a three armed race I would totally wield a greatsword in two arms and a shortsword/klar/scizore/kukri in my third, off- hand.
I love the concept. Not getting involved in the rules hotmess however.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why is this discussion spread out over two threads?
The "two metaphorical hands" issue only applies to standard races. Those "born" with two arms. People forget that SKR kept referencing standard, core races when those debates took place last year.
If you're playing a naturally multi-armed race, you're going to have to invent your own rules, because none exist outside of the Multi-Weapon Fighting feat.
That is what I keep saying. People need to understand that once you step outside of the rules expectations they really have to make up their own rules. We can just guess at what we think the designers would do.
As a reminder to everyone more then 2 hands = MWF. So trying to use TWF means you have to houserule.
|
Alchemist Vestigial Arm:
The arm does not give the alchemist any extra attacks or actions per round, though the arm can wield a weapon and make attacks as part of the alchemist’s attack routine (using two-weapon fighting).
So if the character normally would wield a 2 handed weapon and suddenly had an extra, functional arm; he could wield a shield in addition.
So if the character normally would wield a 2 handed weapon and suddenly had an extra, functional arm; he could wield a shield as a weapon and as part of TWF full attack action and get 2 attacks (via TWF).
So if the character normally would wield a 2 handed weapon and suddenly had an extra, functional arm; he could wield a one handed weapon and as part of TWF full attack action and get 2 attacks (via TWF).
Wielding 2 two handed weapons seems to defy the off hand requirement for TWF that the off hand is one handed. Thus I'd say that defies the specific exception for vestigial arm to utilize TWF rules.
Just my perspective.
Edit: as far as str bonuses from the OP; I'd follow 1.5 / 0.5 as per primary / off hand but I can see a judge forcing 1.0 / 0.5 via TWF rules
|
|
It doesn't matter how many physical hands you have, you only have two metaphysical "hands of effort." And it is your metaphysical hands of effort which actually wield weapons. So, no, you cannot TWF with THW under any circumstance, ever. Even with 100 arms, you still couldn't do it.
Incorrect.
Creatures with more than two hands can wield a weapon in each hand. The Multiweapon Fighting feat even addresses the modifiers and states the normal condition.
This has long since been hashed out in the synthesist debates involving Kali builds.
|
|
Alchemist Vestigial Arm:
The arm does not give the alchemist any extra attacks or actions per round, though the arm can wield a weapon and make attacks as part of the alchemist’s attack routine (using two-weapon fighting).
So if the character normally would wield a 2 handed weapon and suddenly had an extra, functional arm; he could wield a shield in addition.
So if the character normally would wield a 2 handed weapon and suddenly had an extra, functional arm; he could wield a shield as a weapon and as part of TWF full attack action and get 2 attacks (via TWF).
So if the character normally would wield a 2 handed weapon and suddenly had an extra, functional arm; he could wield a one handed weapon and as part of TWF full attack action and get 2 attacks (via TWF).
Wielding 2 two handed weapons seems to defy the off hand requirement for TWF that the off hand is one handed. Thus I'd say that defies the specific exception for vestigial arm to utilize TWF rules.
Just my perspective.
Edit: as far as str bonuses from the OP; I'd follow 1.5 / 0.5 as per primary / off hand but I can see a judge forcing 1.0 / 0.5 via TWF rules
The FAQ say no to 2 and 3. Same thing for the rules about vestigial arms.
|
|
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.
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.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seems to me like there is a lot of misinformation floating around in this thread.