Two Weapon Fighting with a Bow and Unarmed Strike


Rules Questions

151 to 200 of 214 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Chess Pwn wrote:
...

Except that little bit you left out, (a weapon) actually says Two handed weapon.


KuntaSS wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
...
Except that little bit you left out, (a weapon) actually says Two handed weapon.

Is a two handed weapon not a weapon? I feel the FAQ is clear it's not about the weapon but the wielding of the weapon that prohibits two-weapon fighting. Are you proposing that only as you use two hands to wield a two handed weapon is this applicable? If so then that means you support that if I use two hands on a longsword that I could then attack with my armor spikes. Is this right?


Well there's the checkmate I was waiting to see.


Chess Pwn wrote:
KuntaSS wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
...
Except that little bit you left out, (a weapon) actually says Two handed weapon.
Is a two handed weapon not a weapon? I feel the FAQ is clear it's not about the weapon but the wielding of the weapon that prohibits two-weapon fighting. Are you proposing that only as you use two hands to wield a two handed weapon is this applicable? If so then that means you support that if I use two hands on a longsword that I could then attack with my armor spikes. Is this right?

The question had been, are ranged weapons that use two hands treated like melee two handed weapons. I don't see how replacing a melee weapon for another melee weapon solves anything. I expect any melee weapon wielded in two hands to fall under the same rules.

The issue is that in the normal use and operation of a bow you are required to hold the bow in one hand and must retrieve another weapon* and fire it from said bow. Since wield is everything from hold to attack with, it seems that during your free action, you're wielding a second weapon. Some how, you need 3 hands to use a bow if the off hand is all used up. It's clearly using different rules than melee weapons.

* An arrow used as a melee weapon is treated as a light improvised weapon.


Used in two hands != two-handed weapon.

Two-handed weapons are a specific category of weapon. You can find the complete list on table 6-4 of the CRB. You will notice that bows aren't categorized as such.

Did you have a specific quote which says "bows count as two-handed weapons?"

As for evidence that a bow isn't a two-handed weapon, also check out table 6-4. It is listed under "ranged."

Sczarni

Are you implying that a bow can be used in one hand?


Krodjin wrote:
Are you implying that a bow can be used in one hand?

I'm not implying anything. I'm directly stating that bows don't have handedness at all.

Liberty's Edge

What they are saying is that a 2 handed weapon is a specific subset of weapons in the rules, not simply weapons that require 2 hands.

Sczarni

BigDTBone wrote:
Krodjin wrote:
Are you implying that a bow can be used in one hand?
I'm not implying anything. I'm directly stating that bows don't have handedness at all.

Okay. I see. I agree that bows are not defined in the same way as melee weapons; light, one-handed, two-handed... But that's only a measure of the effort it takes to wield a melee weapon in combat. Nothing more.

Many projectile weapons, including bows, specifically require two hands to use.

There is absolutely nothing to suggest otherwise.

So it's reasonable to conclude that a bow is a two-handed weapon because the rules state it requires two hands to use it.

So if you're using two hands to use your bow - you can't TWF.

Use a crossbow.


Krodjin wrote:
So it's reasonable to conclude that a bow is a two-handed weapon because the rules state it requires two hands to use it.

I disagree. The game must specifically tag items to "count as" if they do.


So lemme get this straight. First, there's this FAQ:

FAQ wrote:

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.

Then, there's Player A and Player B.

Player A says, "A Longbow requires two hands to use, so this FAQ applies, and I can't two-weapon fight with, say, a longbow and an unarmed strike."

Player B says, "A Longbow is under the 'Ranged Weapon' category as opposed to the 'Two-Handed Weapon' category, so this FAQ doesn't apply. It is unknown whether I can two-weapon fight with a longbow and an unarmed strike."

Is this the scope of the argument?


voideternal wrote:

So lemme get this straight. First, there's this FAQ:

FAQ wrote:

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.

Then, there's Player A and Player B.

Player A says, "A Longbow requires two hands to use, so this FAQ applies, and I can't two-weapon fight with, say, a longbow and an unarmed strike."

Player B says, "A Longbow is under the 'Ranged Weapon' category as opposed to the 'Two-Handed Weapon' category, so this FAQ doesn't apply. It is unknown whether I can two-weapon fight with a longbow and an unarmed strike."

Is this the scope of the argument?

Pretty much, although I would say that player B is closer to "A Longbow is under the 'Ranged Weapon' category as opposed to the 'Two-Handed Weapon' category, so this FAQ doesn't apply. Two-weapon combat section in the core rulebook has no restrictions on ranged weapons so I believe I can two-weapon fight with a longbow and an unarmed strike."


I can kind of imagine Player A and B arguing with each other, so I'll just go ahead and FAQ.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Earlier in the discussion there was mention of the 1.5x Str limit "rule" which was the reasoning behind the FAQ. Balance is in question if a character is allowed to benefit from 1.5x Str bonus from wielding his weapon 2-handed AND getting in an extra .5x Str attack with TWF. That makes it 2.0x Str and Devs don't want to allow for that.

Although it is unwritten, it was the standard by which the Devs held to when creating the FAQ.

Using a Bow with two hands does not grant the 1.5x Str bonus. Nor does TWF with a Bow and an Unarmed Strike break the limit. Shooting your target with an arrow and 5ft stepping to kick or headbutt him doesn't push you beyond 1.5x Str. Plus doing so with any skill gets expensive in feats and combat penalties.

So I honestly don't see the big deal in allowing for it regardless of your interpretation. It doesn't exactly break the game.

<shrug>


Krodjin wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Krodjin wrote:
Are you implying that a bow can be used in one hand?
I'm not implying anything. I'm directly stating that bows don't have handedness at all.

Okay. I see. I agree that bows are not defined in the same way as melee weapons; light, one-handed, two-handed... But that's only a measure of the effort it takes to wield a melee weapon in combat. Nothing more.

Many projectile weapons, including bows, specifically require two hands to use.

There is absolutely nothing to suggest otherwise.

So it's reasonable to conclude that a bow is a two-handed weapon because the rules state it requires two hands to use it.

So if you're using two hands to use your bow - you can't TWF.

Use a crossbow.

You see I feel the thing is the FAQ isn't about THW. It's about having both your hands used to wield it. This is why the bow and longsword can stay in their respective categories and still fall under this FAQ. Since the FAQ says, "as you are using both hands to wield (a weapon)" not "since you are wielding (a weapon)" where (a weapon) is a THW. The fact that they put in the "using both hands to wield" would imply it's not the weapon that limits it, but the way it's being used.


graystone wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
KuntaSS wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
...
Except that little bit you left out, (a weapon) actually says Two handed weapon.
Is a two handed weapon not a weapon? I feel the FAQ is clear it's not about the weapon but the wielding of the weapon that prohibits two-weapon fighting. Are you proposing that only as you use two hands to wield a two handed weapon is this applicable? If so then that means you support that if I use two hands on a longsword that I could then attack with my armor spikes. Is this right?

The question had been, are ranged weapons that use two hands treated like melee two handed weapons. I don't see how replacing a melee weapon for another melee weapon solves anything. I expect any melee weapon wielded in two hands to fall under the same rules.

The issue is that in the normal use and operation of a bow you are required to hold the bow in one hand and must retrieve another weapon* and fire it from said bow. Since wield is everything from hold to attack with, it seems that during your free action, you're wielding a second weapon. Some how, you need 3 hands to use a bow if the off hand is all used up. It's clearly using different rules than melee weapons.

* An arrow used as a melee weapon is treated as a light improvised weapon.

So you require anyone using a bow to take Quick Draw?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

What is the mechanical difference, between two-weapon fighting with a Sling, and an Unarmed Strike, and two-weapon fighting with a Bow, and an Unarmed Strike?


Sling: You can fire, but not load, a sling with one hand.

So this right here says it's one of the ranged weapons that only takes 1 hand to use, like the crossbow. Both Allow you to attack aka use it with only one hand. But you can't reload.

While the bow says it requires two hands to use. Thus to use it requires two hands, different from crossbows and slings.

If you mean difference it strength of them. why you can do one and not the other. It requires a move action to load the sling, so you get one turn to do TWF and then you'd need to load which provokes and punch if you want your sling to TWF next round. You can't manyshot it. Also it can't be done at so far of range.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

A think an important part of the Longbow description, is being ignored.

Longbow wrote:
You need two hands to use a bow, regardless of its size.

If the Longbow were treated as a two-handed weapon, instead of a Ranged weapon that required two hands to use, then a small Longbow would only require one hand to wield it, if used by a medium PC.

This is not the case, because functionally, the Longbow is not a two-handed weapon, and does not have the same rules as a two-handed weapon, but rather, follows the rules of Ranged weapons, that require two hands to use.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

A think an important part of the Longbow description, is being ignored.

Longbow wrote:
You need two hands to use a bow, regardless of its size.

If the Longbow were treated as a two-handed weapon, instead of a Ranged weapon that required two hands to use, then a small Longbow would only require one hand to wield it, if used by a medium PC.

This is not the case, because functionally, the Longbow is not a two-handed weapon, and does not have the same rules as a two-handed weapon, but rather, follows the rules of Ranged weapons, that require two hands to use.

^^^ good stuff right there.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I know some find the idea of two-weapon fighting with a Longbow, and an Unarmed Strike, to be "silly".

I find the idea that a small, or tiny Shortbow, being equivalent to a Greatsword, to much more silly.


It's not the equivalent to a greatsword. It just always needs the use of two hands. A melee weapon needs different amounts depending on the size. Using your hands uses up your hands. The Bow is ALWAYS A RANGED WEAPON AND NEVER A TWO-HANDED WEAPON, bows just always needs two hands to wield for use. And the FAQ is about wielding weapons with hands, not the type of weapon wielded.

If you want to keep saying that we're saying the bow is a two-handed weapon then there's nothing to debate. You'd be being obstinate and there's nothing to discuss if you can't understand the points we're making. I've said many times how we're never counting the bow as a THW, never making the bow a THW. It's always a ranged weapon that takes two hands to use.

Also, please elaborate why you feel the tiny shortbow is equivalent to a Greatsword? Unless it's in how many hands do you need to use it. in which case, Why wouldn't the tiny bow take two hands? Are you going to shoot your bow one handed just because it's smaller? but other than that there's not much in common. damage dice are different. different crit ranges. Different crit mods. The stat used for attack rolls is different. melee to ranged. Slashing to piercing. Yeah, nothing in those is equivalent.


Also, if you say the FAQ is only for THW, then the FAQ allows longsword wielded with two hands and armor spikes, correct? I just want to make sure that this is what you're saying. Because if you say yes the FAQ doesn't cover that then there's nothing left to discuss. Please don't reference any "unwritten rules" since they don't exist as rules. Only the FAQ modify and sets the rules, so if the FAQ allows it then no "unwritten rule" can stop it.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

It would be equivalent, in regards to how it would restrict two-weapon fighting, and the availability of the off-hand, for an attack, as a two-handed weapon, or one-handed in two hands would, even though it is not a two-handed weapon, or an one-handed weapon wielded in two hands.

That is what is being said, yes?


blackbloodtroll wrote:

It would be equivalent, in regards to how it would restrict two-weapon fighting, and the availability of the off-hand, for an attack, as a two-handed weapon, or one-handed in two hands would, even though it is not a two-handed weapon, or an one-handed weapon wielded in two hands.

That is what is being said, yes?

Also, the one- handed weapon in two hands meets the "wield in two hands threshold" that @ attack time use(2) and hold(2).

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

So, whilst a tiny Greatsword can be used by a medium PC, to two-weapon fight, a tiny Shortbow, could not, but not because it is a two handed weapon, but because it requires two hands, which falls under the FAQ regarding two-handed weapons, and two-weapon fighting, even though the FAQ only references two-handed weapons.

I am right so far?

This is the "common sense" understanding, as it stands?


yes, BBT that sounds right on both posts.

I just want to clarify that you do believe the FAQ applies to one-handed weapons in two hands. Just from the merits of the FAQ. Right?

note, that the tiny greasword would be wielded as a light weapon for a medium, not a two-handed weapon, thus only needing one hand to wield, thus able to two-weapon fight with as a medium person.

Inappropriately Sized Weapons:
The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder's size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. For example, a Small creature would wield a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon. If a weapon's designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can't wield the weapon at all.

and that the FAQ is about wielding because they put that in there. If it was just the weapon category they could have left out the part about, "as you are using both hands to wield" and said, "as it's a TWH you cannot." Leading to reason that it's not the weapon type, but that the way that the weapon is wielded while being used that limits TWF.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Oh?

So, if that is the case, then a Mounted PC can two-weapon fight with Lances, and gain all the benefits of Power Attack, as it is the hands used that limit off-hand hand attacks, correct?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Krodjin wrote:
Are you implying that a bow can be used in one hand?

Ever read The Dark Knight Returns?


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Oh?

So, if that is the case, then a Mounted PC can two-weapon fight with Lances, and gain all the benefits of Power Attack, as it is the hands used that limit off-hand hand attacks, correct?

Wasn't the AM Barbarian all about dual wielding lances? Perhaps I'm mistaken on that.

And yes that you can dual wield them, note that in power attack it says, "This bonus to damage is halved (–50%) if you are making an attack with an off-hand weapon or secondary natural weapon." thus 3/2=1.5 rounded down to 1. and since it's an off hand, "When you deal damage with a weapon in your off hand, you add only 1/2 your Strength bonus. If you have a Strength penalty, the entire penalty applies." it's only .5 str too.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

So, even though a Lance continues to count as a two-handed weapon, when wielded in one hand, the FAQ doesn't apply?

Now, this means a Bow has the same restrictions as a two-handed weapon, but a Lance, does not?

Sczarni

9mm wrote:
Krodjin wrote:
Are you implying that a bow can be used in one hand?

Ever read The Dark Knight Returns?

No. Is it written using the Pathfinder mechanics?

Sczarni

blackbloodtroll wrote:

A think an important part of the Longbow description, is being ignored.

Longbow wrote:
You need two hands to use a bow, regardless of its size.

If the Longbow were treated as a two-handed weapon, instead of a Ranged weapon that required two hands to use, then a small Longbow would only require one hand to wield it, if used by a medium PC.

This is not the case, because functionally, the Longbow is not a two-handed weapon, and does not have the same rules as a two-handed weapon, but rather, follows the rules of Ranged weapons, that require two hands to use.

You do realize your own statement is counter to your argument, right?

The bottom line is if you are using both of your hands to use your bow (which you acknowledge, regardless of the bows size) you do not have an "off-hand" with which to TWF.

Do you seriously need the Devs to clear this up for you?


Krodjin wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

A think an important part of the Longbow description, is being ignored.

Longbow wrote:
You need two hands to use a bow, regardless of its size.

If the Longbow were treated as a two-handed weapon, instead of a Ranged weapon that required two hands to use, then a small Longbow would only require one hand to wield it, if used by a medium PC.

This is not the case, because functionally, the Longbow is not a two-handed weapon, and does not have the same rules as a two-handed weapon, but rather, follows the rules of Ranged weapons, that require two hands to use.

You do realize your own statement is counter to your argument, right?

The bottom line is if you are using both of your hands to use your bow (which you acknowledge, regardless of the bows size) you do not have an "off-hand" with which to TWF.

Do you seriously need the Devs to clear this up for you?

No reason to be snippy. BBT has a perfectly valid reading of the rules. You disagree and that is fine. But you don't have to be a jerk.

Sczarni

Until someone explains how they are able to use their bow with one hand, there is no valid reading of the rules that justifies this question.

I've been asking for the evidence or ability that allows a character to use their bow in this manner since the start of the debate.

Still have not seen anything relevant.

If I'm coming across as snippy or as a jerk, I apologize for that - it's not my intent.

I just need someone to explain the other sides position to me (slowly if necessary)... Because if anyone is able to point out how this is even a question I will gladly hit the FAQ button.


Krodjin wrote:

Until someone explains how they are able to use their bow with one hand, there is no valid reading of the rules that justifies this question.

I've been asking for the evidence or ability that allows a character to use their bow in this manner since the start of the debate.

Still have not seen anything relevant.

If I'm coming across as snippy or as a jerk, I apologize for that - it's not my intent.

I just need someone to explain the other sides position to me (slowly if necessary)... Because if anyone is able to point out how this is even a question I will gladly hit the FAQ button.

If you don't see it then no worries. The arguments have all been made, you don't agree. If you don't think there is any ambiguity then don't click the button.

BBT, myself, and some others think this is a messy corner case that is leftover from the FAQ in question. We believe that the game works better and is more intuitive without the FAQ. I really would hope that rather than answer this question that they rewrite the other one so that it is more clear, or in a fantastic world, reverse that FAQ.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Look, if we go by the FAQ alone, then it applies to Two-handed weapons only. Full stop.

If we say it applies to One-handed wielded in two hands, and Ranged weapon that require two-handed weapons to use, then we must have a reason why.

So, we have some that say that any attack, regardless of what that weapon is, that utilizes two hands, uses up the off-hand, as a two-handed weapon does, as noted in the FAQ, even though the FAQ never mentions any other weapon.

Then, we have those that say this is applies to any attack that adds x1.5 strength to damage, as the off-hand is used up in additional x0.5 to damage.

Now, either way, we have to read a little bit more than is written in the FAQ.

I hope we can, at the very least, agree to the latter statement.

Alright?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I really wish they just went with the x1 strength to primary, and x0.5 to off-hand, regardless of the weapon used.

Solves the problem they saw, and creates much less confusion.


At the end of the day, longbows are under the "Ranged Weapon" category, and that's what matters to some people. The weapon categories are black-and-white.

On the other hand, the number of hands required to operate a weapon is really case-by-case (especially for ranged weapons*). There are players and GMs who look to the black-and-white weapon categories as a way to interpret the FAQ. There are also players and GMs who read each weapon entry to judge what weapon is two-handed and what weapon is not.

I think this thread would not have been necessary if, in the core rulebook, there was a list of weapons that requires two hands to operate, and that list was specifically called out in the FAQ. Such a list does not exist, so we have different players claiming different things.

* As an example, say a player has Rapid Reload, a light crossbow, an unarmed strike, and Improved Two Weapon Fighting. The crossbow is already loaded, so there is no concern that he can two-weapon fight with the first iterative with crossbow and unarmed strike. However, reloading the crossbow requires two hands. Can said player make the second iterative attack with the light crossbow and unarmed strike? This is slightly different than the longbow, which always requires two-hands to use, but really, is that the 'line'? Isn't it more black-and-white to just go by the weapon categories? If only there was a centralized list of weapons that required two hands, or a common property for weapons that required two hands, such as the disarm property.

Edit: Upon further thought, I think a list of weapons requiring two hands is too messy, and it's really too late to alter the core rulebook. I just wanted to say how this issue is confusing to some people, including me.


voideternal wrote:

At the end of the day, longbows are under the "Ranged Weapon" category, and that's what matters to some people. The weapon categories are black-and-white.

On the other hand, the number of hands required to operate a weapon is really case-by-case (especially for ranged weapons*). There are players and GMs who look to the black-and-white weapon categories as a way to interpret the FAQ. There are also players and GMs who read each weapon entry to judge what weapon is two-handed and what weapon is not.

I think this thread would not have been necessary if, in the core rulebook, there was a list of weapons that requires two hands to operate, and that list was specifically called out in the FAQ. Such a list does not exist, so we have different players claiming different things.

* As an example, say a player has Rapid Reload, a light crossbow, an unarmed strike, and Improved Two Weapon Fighting. The crossbow is already loaded, so there is no concern that he can two-weapon fight with the first iterative with crossbow and unarmed strike. However, reloading the crossbow requires two hands. Can said player make the second iterative attack with the light crossbow and unarmed strike? This is slightly different than the longbow, which always requires two-hands to use, but really, is that the 'line'? Isn't it more black-and-white to just go by the weapon categories? If only there was a centralized list of weapons that required two hands, or a common property for weapons that required two hands, such as the disarm property.

Edit: Upon further thought, I think a list of weapons requiring two hands is too messy, and it's really too late to alter the core rulebook. I just wanted to say how this issue is confusing to some people, including me.

I think the easiest and most elegant solution is the 3.5 FAQ that says you can two-weapon fight with whatever you want. The DPR math shows that it is a weaker option than every other fighting style (except mis-matched two-weapon fighting). It removes the need for lists, and judgement calls, and opens up player options in a balanced way.

Maybe a small bit of errata to the two-weapon fighting section of the CRB. That section could be altered to make it clear that any weapon combination is valid and still fit in the same space.

Sczarni

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Look, if we go by the FAQ alone, then it applies to Two-handed weapons only. Full stop.

If we say it applies to One-handed wielded in two hands, and Ranged weapon that require two-handed weapons to use, then we must have a reason why.

So, we have some that say that any attack, regardless of what that weapon is, that utilizes two hands, uses up the off-hand, as a two-handed weapon does, as noted in the FAQ, even though the FAQ never mentions any other weapon.

Then, we have those that say this is applies to any attack that adds x1.5 strength to damage, as the off-hand is used up in additional x0.5 to damage.

Now, either way, we have to read a little bit more than is written in the FAQ.

I hope we can, at the very least, agree to the latter statement.

Alright?

I'll a closer look at the FAQ (I presume you mean the Armor spikes FAQ?), but the gist of my position is that because you can only use a longbow with two hands, you cannot TWF with it. The rules that support my position are contained wholly within the description for projectile weapons and the longbow. No FAQ required.

I will admit right here/right now, that the power creep in Pathfinder has muddied the waters regarding two-handed weapons being use in one hand and so forth... Take for example Thunder & Fang, which allows you to TWF with a two-handed weapon and a one handed weapon (effectively treating them each as a category lighter).

But again, none of that relates to or pertains to a longbow.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

You do realize that the combination of Longbow and Unarmed Strike, creates no balance issues, whatsoever, right?


Krodjin wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Look, if we go by the FAQ alone, then it applies to Two-handed weapons only. Full stop.

If we say it applies to One-handed wielded in two hands, and Ranged weapon that require two-handed weapons to use, then we must have a reason why.

So, we have some that say that any attack, regardless of what that weapon is, that utilizes two hands, uses up the off-hand, as a two-handed weapon does, as noted in the FAQ, even though the FAQ never mentions any other weapon.

Then, we have those that say this is applies to any attack that adds x1.5 strength to damage, as the off-hand is used up in additional x0.5 to damage.

Now, either way, we have to read a little bit more than is written in the FAQ.

I hope we can, at the very least, agree to the latter statement.

Alright?

I'll a closer look at the FAQ (I presume you mean the Armor spikes FAQ?), but the gist of my position is that because you can only use a longbow with two hands, you cannot TWF with it. The rules that support my position are contained wholly within the description for projectile weapons and the longbow. No FAQ required.

I will admit right here/right now, that the power creep in Pathfinder has muddied the waters regarding two-handed weapons being use in one hand and so forth... Take for example Thunder & Fang, which allows you to TWF with a two-handed weapon and a one handed weapon (effectively treating them each as a category lighter).

But again, none of that relates to or pertains to a longbow.

The armor spikes FAQ clarified (read: changed) how TWF worked. Before that FAQ you absolutely could TWF with a great sword and armor spike. TWF in the CRB makes no restrictions on doing so. The trick is that you needed to have a way to "access" your "off-hand" attack while your hand (actual) were full of great sword. This armor spikes or IUS. There was a 3.5 FAQ which specifically ok'd this combo, and the TWF rules in PF are are word for word copy of the 3.5 OGL.

So to say "I don't need the FAQ to tell you you can't" is a demonstrably incorrect statement, because without that FAQ there would be absolutely no doubt that you could. That FAQ uses the specific game term "Two-handed weapon" of which a bow is not.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
You do realize that the combination of Longbow and Unarmed Strike, creates no balance issues, whatsoever, right?

For some reason people just don't believe this point. I'm going to have to work up a sample build to prove it.

Sczarni

blackbloodtroll wrote:
You do realize that the combination of Longbow and Unarmed Strike, creates no balance issues, whatsoever, right?

Absolutely! I've never claimed it did. In fact in a previous post I stated that the test of whether or not an attack got 1.5x damage or not was not a valid test to determine if it precluded it from being used in conjunction with TWF.

I also agree that it's really easy to imagine how TWF with a longbow and UAS would work: you shoot the guy in front of you & kick the guy behind you.

Heck, I play a Zen Archer character that routinely made AoO's with his UAS before the class ability allowing him to make AoO's with his bow came online.

At the end of the day though it's not about balance - it's about what the rules say. And currently they say that you have to use two hands to use a bow.

It wouldn't shock me if at some point they published a feat that changed that though... They gotta sell new books somehow. Adding new feats/abilities that don't always mesh with the core rules seems to be how they intend to do that.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Ah. I thought the believe of a balance issue was implied.

My apologies.

151 to 200 of 214 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Two Weapon Fighting with a Bow and Unarmed Strike All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.