So, we agree that you can attack with your right hand twice and your left hand twice in the same full attack, when grappled? On the grounds that each attack is a one handed attack, and being grappled only prevents an action if it uses both hands?Because that is how iterative work. You can make any attack with any weapon you have ready without penalty. The first attack has no impact on the second.Then how are you allowing both hands being used in your example of iterative attacks?
I know I would, because none of the attacks are using two hands, but why would you allow it, when each hand is being used to attack? It seems inconsistent with your position.
As long as those attacks are granted via iterative bab and not via TWF.
I was going to raise my hand, but I've come to grips with the way you are handling this situation. I've got to hand it to you, this is an amusing thread, hands down.
|
The rules worked perfectly and made perfect sense when hands were hands, and acknowledging when things were worn instead of held....
...except that some people (including, apparently, the devs) thought that those who used TWF with a two handed weapon and another weapon that didn't need to be held was somehow 'getting something for nothing'.
This despite the fact that all the feats you take, the attack penalties and the small damage die of these secondary weapons, despite the fact that they had already ruled that letting go of a two handed weapon with one hand (and re-gripping it) was a free action, thus making attacks with this weapon combo both feasible and within the rules, despite that it would still be weaker than using twin light weapons, despite the fact that it would be FAR, less powerful than using a single two handed weapon with power attack (which does more DPR and costs fewer feats), despite all this, they decided to nerf it (even though D&D 3rd ed had written a FAQ years earlier allowing this very thing, and none of these rules had changed between editions), and instead of nerfing it by saying 'you can't use a two handed weapon in TWF', they decided to say that 'imaginary hands' was the reason it couldn't be done....but they'd come back to the issue later....!
I wish they'd hurry up.
I didn't even know this was a thing. Then again, there's a good reason I play home games only.
Sorry, but for my groups, and ever since I started (way back with 2nd), it was always run where I could run a dwarf with a 2-hander axe, armor spikes, attack (boulder) helmet, boot blade, whatever the hell I wanted. Extra attacks from TWF rules (regardless of edition) were just that, usable with any weapon... As long as you alternated weapons.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Kazaan
The question was actually can you two-hand a great sword and then attack with armor spikes or a kick. And in 3.5 the clarifying FAQ specifically allowed it, PDT changed it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still believe my proposal of simply limiting x1 Strength to the Main Hand attack, and x0.5 to the Off-hand attack(barring feats and abilities) was actually quite elegant.
No matter what was being used to attack(outside natural attacks).
No metaphorical hands. No change in available attack styles.
Neat, and easy to implement.
They still addressed using a gauntlet with a 2-h weapon in the same FAQ. And the fact still stands that if you think of it in terms of attack economy and hands, rather than "hands" vs hands, there is no confusion whatsoever.@Kazaan
The question was actually can you two-hand a great sword and then attack with armor spikes or a kick. And in 3.5 the clarifying FAQ specifically allowed it, PDT changed it.
It would take care of it if they were easily separable terms and the confusion was just over the designation. But that's not the case here.
PROOF: If attack economy and hands were ACTUALLY easily separable then there would be no question that one could attack with a longbow using both of their physical hands and part of their attack economy and then attack with armor spikes using 0 physical hands and the rest of their attack economy.
If you really think it's that clear then start a thread asking about longbow and armor spikes and see what happens. I'll wait here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They still addressed using a gauntlet with a 2-h weapon in the same FAQ. And the fact still stands that if you think of it in terms of attack economy and hands, rather than "hands" vs hands, there is no confusion whatsoever.@Kazaan
The question was actually can you two-hand a great sword and then attack with armor spikes or a kick. And in 3.5 the clarifying FAQ specifically allowed it, PDT changed it.
There would be less confusion with attack economy and hands IF the game had used those terms from the ground up. Unless you go back and replace every instance of hand in the rules with attack economy when needed, confusion will still abound. It's like Racial Traits and Race Traits except there are a few thousand more instances of hands and/or "hands" in the rules.
There would be less confusion with attack economy and hands IF the game had used those terms from the ground up. Unless you go back and replace every instance of hand in the rules with attack economy when needed, confusion will still abound. It's like Racial Traits and Race Traits except there are a few thousand more instances of hands and/or "hands" in the rules.They still addressed using a gauntlet with a 2-h weapon in the same FAQ. And the fact still stands that if you think of it in terms of attack economy and hands, rather than "hands" vs hands, there is no confusion whatsoever.@Kazaan
The question was actually can you two-hand a great sword and then attack with armor spikes or a kick. And in 3.5 the clarifying FAQ specifically allowed it, PDT changed it.
And don't forget that in the rules "hands" aren't marked off with quotes. So hands and "hands" are both just hands.
|
I still believe my proposal of simply limiting x1 Strength to the Main Hand attack, and x0.5 to the Off-hand attack(barring feats and abilities) was actually quite elegant.
wait this looks pretty good.
can you explain more?
is it kind of like, "If you choose to TWF, you can use whatever combinations you like, but you give up the ability to add 1.5x ST to damage by any means?"
They still addressed using a gauntlet with a 2-h weapon in the same FAQ. And the fact still stands that if you think of it in terms of attack economy and hands, rather than "hands" vs hands, there is no confusion whatsoever.@Kazaan
The question was actually can you two-hand a great sword and then attack with armor spikes or a kick. And in 3.5 the clarifying FAQ specifically allowed it, PDT changed it.
It would take care of it if they were easily separable terms and the confusion was just over the designation. But that's not the case here.
PROOF: If attack economy and hands were ACTUALLY easily separable then there would be no question that one could attack with a longbow using both of their physical hands and part of their attack economy and then attack with armor spikes using 0 physical hands and the rest of their attack economy.
If you really think it's that clear then start a thread asking about longbow and armor spikes and see what happens. I'll wait here.
There wouldn't be confusion if you think of it in terms of using a Bow requires the attack economy of a 2-h weapon. Now, person A understanding it in those terms and not being confused doesn't mean that person B who fails to comprehend it in those terms will have their confusion alleviated, mind you. It's up to each player to adjust things in their own mind and read between the lines. But it's pretty obvious that if it has to do with attacking, you consider attack economy (and usually, hands as well). If it doesn't have to do with attacking, it's just hands. In some rare cases, it's attack economy but not hands (ie. attacking with a kick or other non-hand unarmed strike, armor spikes, boulder helmet, etc). If you are still confused, you haven't properly adjusted your thinking in the way I described; try it again, but this time with feeling.
...Kazaan,
in your own game, would you allow a character to
Explain to me exactly why you would assign the bow to have a two-handed attack economy.
|
|
When you require two hands to attack with a weapon, this doesn't mean that you need to grip it in two hands when you're not attacking with it.
Since it's a free action to let go/re-grip a weapon with one hand while holding it in the other, and since multiple attacks are sequential rather than simultaneous (yes, that includes the bonus off hand attacks from TWF), then according to the rules actually in the CRB you can attack with a weapon in two hands AND attack with bonus off hand attacks granted by TWF, as long as you don't have to draw/let go of that secondary weapon (meaning it's worn or is an unarmed strike).
When you require two hands to attack with a weapon, this doesn't mean that you need to grip it in two hands when you're not attacking with it.
Since it's a free action to let go/re-grip a weapon with one hand while holding it in the other, and since multiple attacks are sequential rather than simultaneous (yes, that includes the bonus off hand attacks from TWF), then according to the rules actually in the CRB you can attack with a weapon in two hands AND attack with bonus off hand attacks granted by TWF, as long as you don't have to draw/let go of that secondary weapon (meaning it's worn or is an unarmed strike).
The FAQ disagrees.
I'll give you a hand doing this if you promise to give me a hand afterwards.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The FAQ disagrees.When you require two hands to attack with a weapon, this doesn't mean that you need to grip it in two hands when you're not attacking with it.
Since it's a free action to let go/re-grip a weapon with one hand while holding it in the other, and since multiple attacks are sequential rather than simultaneous (yes, that includes the bonus off hand attacks from TWF), then according to the rules actually in the CRB you can attack with a weapon in two hands AND attack with bonus off hand attacks granted by TWF, as long as you don't have to draw/let go of that secondary weapon (meaning it's worn or is an unarmed strike).
Yep.
The fact that the FAQ disagrees with me shouldn't bother anyone (else).
The fact that the FAQ is making a ruling which introduces elements not in the game rules (the imaginary 'hands of effort', two-handed weapons 'consuming' an off hand attack, 'unwritten rules' being used to justify a prohibition against using a 2H weapon in TWF, knowing that the people who designed the game showed step by step in a FAQ of their own exactly how using a 2H weapon in TWF is done, throwing out the 15 years of knowing that the number of attacks you get in a full attack is based on BAB and feats/abilities/TWF and not 'hands of effort) should bother us.
You didn't answer my question. Why exactly should a bow take up all of your attack economy? This is an incredibly important point about separation of terms.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was incorrect in my assessment.
Nope, you where correct given the rules at the time. The DEV's changed/added to the rules. The fact that the new rules make sense to you doesn't alter the fact that they changed them. All you need to do is look at the item barbazu beard. "A barbazu beard can be used as an off-hand weapon that requires no hands to use; thus, a warrior could combine use of a barbazu beard with a two-handed weapon."
There are several other weapons that say similar things so it's super clear that the intent before the FAQ didn't involve some mysterious 'hands' or effort and you JUST had a primary attack and an offhand attack. There really isn't any way to look at this other than they created new rules from new cloth. Unlike you, I put this in the same category as "layered sources" or different "effects related to race" rulings. None of them IMO add anything to the game but confusion and extra work.
It would be one thing if it prevented a loophole that allowed clearly superior options but that isn't the case here. It seems to be made JUST to prevent the option for some non-mechanical reason. I don't think bringing in 'hands of effort' was worth the dubious 'gain'.
You didn't answer my question. Why exactly should a bow take up all of your attack economy? This is an incredibly important point about separation of terms.While ranged weapons don't have "effort to wield" categories like melee weapons, there is still a certain amount of implied parity between the two. A Bow requires both hands in order to use. Moreover, they require both hands regardless of size so even if you use a bow one or two sizes too small for you, it still takes both your hands to operate it. Since this is a matter of wielding and making attacks, we can consider this a matter of not only requiring physical hands to grasp/manipulate the item, but also a matter of attack economy. It's a matter of parity; the same rule should apply in a consistent manner. As I said previously, based on my discussion with SKR, you could potentially attack with a weapon requiring your full attack economy and still make an attack with an off-hand weapon, but you lose one off-hand attack for each two-handed attack made. So if you have three iteratives and three off-hand attacks, you could attack twice with a Bow, then once with an off-hand punch or kick (or stab with your arrow as an improvised weapon), but that first off-hand attack would be at -10 (the one from GTWF) because your standard and ITWF attacks were "eaten" when you made two attacks with the Bow. After your -10 off-hand, you have a "debt" that obligates you to make your remaining main-hand attack one-handed. Since a Bow can't be used in only one hand, your only option would be to use a different weapon (ie. unarmed strike, armor spikes, drop the bow and quickdraw, etc). It's all a matter of mechanical consistency.
So, the only thing that is indicating to you that a bow should consume your full attack economy is that it must be held in two hands? And you think that hands and attack economy are seperate things which could be easily separated if only the terms were less ambiguous?
What about the idea that the ONLY thing that attack economy represents is your STR mod bonus on damage rolls? Why doesn't that play a roll in your assessment?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They were in a crunch to get the CRB out so they didn't take a lot of time to refine it and make all the mechanical terminology consistent.
The game mechanic had existed for a decade already; all PF did was cut&paste this part of the rules totally unchanged. They were already consistent.
They thought that players were smart enough to figure that TWF and 2-h weapons don't work together.
The creators of the game showed in a FAQ exactly how they did work together! Since this part of the rules didn't change one single iota between editions, don't you think that the PF devs should be 'smart enough to figure' that it does work? Especially since they can read that FAQ to discover how?
And now, they don't want to drastically change the CRB and create conflicts with old issues.
So, they leave the rules unchanged, but take the very words that meant one thing for ten years and now claim it means another?
So, they present a FAQ that explains how the rules ought to be parsed by a competent and intelligent player.
The competent and intelligent 3rd ed devs already did this. How can other devs read the same rules and the FAQ explaining how it works, and come to the conclusion that it doesn't work, based on 'unwritten rules', imaginary hands of effort' and 'two-handed attacks consume both a main attack and an off hand attack', none of which are actually rules in either 3rd ed or PF?
It's a matter of system balance and consistency; pure and simple.
Actually, fighting this way is less powerful than using twin light weapons, and even that is much less powerful than using a single two-handed weapon. If actual game balance were the issue, why nerf one of the worst ways?
The problem is not that this way of fighting is actually more powerful than others, it's that it's perceived to be more powerful! It seems like using a 2H weapon as your main attack is getting you something for nothing, so the emotional response is to nerf it. But what you gain on the swings you lose on the roundabouts; the off hand attack must be made with a weapon that doesn't need a hand to hold it, and that list of weapons is poor in comparison to which can be held, like kukri (18-20 crit range) or light pick (x4 crit modifier). Any feat which applies to a single weapon type only affects half you're weapons, instead of both when you use twin weapons.
And that's ignoring the main problem: TWF is feat intensive anyway, and the attack penalty leads to less DPR than a single 2H weapon with a single feat: Power Attack.
So the desire to nerf it was based on emotion, and goes against the logic of the actual game balance issues.
And to nerf it, let's not forget all the rules twisting and changing to justify it.
So if you truly believe that makes actual sense and isn't some random stuff you just pulled out of your nethers, AND you think that the concept is so simple that just changing "hands" to attack economy will instantly make it clear; then post a new thread proposing it using the bow as an example and see what happens.
I'll wait here.
How does 18 months of of Alpha and Beta play-testing constitute a "rush job that left bits dangling that paizo actually wanted and intended to fix despite the fact that other items later explicitly acknowledge the 3.5 FAQ?" Even if that is true, how is that more likely than they just decided to change the rule because they "felt" it was "too strong" in the 8 minute conversation they had about it and then made up the "metaphysical hands of effort" story to cover it?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I agree the whole thing looks like a mess, the idea of punching someone with your sword hand in the same six seconds as slashing with that sword is not entirely ridiculous. Actually it is kind of cool.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I agree the whole thing looks like a mess, the idea of punching someone with your sword hand in the same six seconds as slashing with that sword is not entirely ridiculous. Actually it is kind of cool.
But it's SO powerful! It's almost as powerful as normal two weapon fighting! :P
I'm at a point where I can tolerate the existence of an overpowered option in the name of keeping things simple.
But: I see nothing either overpowered OR simple here.
I still can't believe that a one-handed lance charge is two-handed damage while all of this is going on.
Count me in support of whatever resolution gives the most clarity with the least page count. The designers can scorch the earth on the CRB for all I care, just make it simple and obvious.
If that should mean two weapon fighting means "any two weapons" and you can punch someone while holding a sword, then I say we let it happen. I'd even let the person waive the off-hand penalty, since they're not using their off-hand.
Why? Because it's the simplest solution to just interpret the RAW and not get caught up in these semantic debates. And because the resulting sword-punch feels more like a gritty cinematic sword fight, which this game needs.
|
|
Note that I specified making the terminology mechanically consistent. Yes, the mechanics were there, but they weren't precisely what Paizo wanted. But they didn't take the time to make sweeping changes throughout the book so they just left it like it was on the gamble that people would figure it out. We didn't. The creators of 3.5 made a FAQ that showed one thing, but Pathfinder isn't 3.5. If everything that applied to 3.5 applied to Pathfinder, there would be no purpose in having Pathfinder... we'd just continue using 3.5. The fact that Pathfinder exists indicates there were undesirable elements of 3.5 that warranted changing.
See, I get that Paizo wanted to change some things and wanted to leave some other things the way they were.
I even worked out a method how I could tell one from the other: if they wanted a rule to change, then they changed the words that were written. If they wanted to keep how a rule worked unchanged, then they left the words unchanged.
Can you explain how the fact that they left this entire section of the rules unchanged means that PF players would 'figure out' that these rules were now meant to be understood differently than the way they had been shown they work before?
While i am no where near as eligant as your being Kazaan, i compleatly agree with what your trying to explain with attack econimy, and i for one dont find the task at all dificult to grasp. i have been keeping my home group to this the whole time weve been playing since jan of 2013. it really not that limiting and i dont understand getting so upset about not being able to do some of the things people are saying they wanna do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can someone point me towards where the new rules are laid out? A quick search through the FAQ for metaphorical hands didn't turn anything up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can someone point me towards where the new rules are laid out? A quick search through the FAQ for metaphorical hands didn't turn anything up.
You mean the unwritten rules the DEV's used for the FAQ? It's right next to the section on nested/multiple sources...
If you want to see the FAQ that spawned it, it's here: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qw9
Can someone point me towards where the new rules are laid out? A quick search through the FAQ for metaphorical hands didn't turn anything up.You mean the unwritten rules the DEV's used for the FAQ? It's right next to the section on nested/multiple sources...
If you want to see the FAQ that spawned it, it's here: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qw9
Okay, I see that, but I still am not sure what is forming the basis for the rest of the questions in this thread. Are conclusions and questions being inferred from that FAQ? Are they based on posted explanations of it from Paizo? Or what.
Okay, I see that, but I still am not sure what is forming the basis for the rest of the questions in this thread. Are conclusions and questions being inferred from that FAQ? Are they based on posted explanations of it from Paizo? Or what.Can someone point me towards where the new rules are laid out? A quick search through the FAQ for metaphorical hands didn't turn anything up.You mean the unwritten rules the DEV's used for the FAQ? It's right next to the section on nested/multiple sources...
If you want to see the FAQ that spawned it, it's here: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qw9
Whenever an FAQ comes out, the team will post the FAQ in the threads that are actively talking about the issue. In the aftermath of the armor spike FAQ, it was the explanation of the FAQ in those thread that are the basis for the questions/conclusions. To boil it down, the dev's are making rulings based on "hands"* even though only hands are ever mentioned in the rules. Those are some of the unwritten rules.
* "hands", metaphorical hands, action economy, ect.
Thanks.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, that's quite easy to explain. Your fundamental premise, your "method" is incorrect. If it were correct, then we wouldn't even be having this discussion. After all, they didn't change the wording of the Lance between versions, did they? But in 3.5's FAQ, they say that a Lance wielded in one hand while mounted counts as a 1-h weapon whereas, in Pathfinder, it still counts as a 2-h weapon (and this makes more sense, given the presumption of having a lance brace). No change, yet two different interpretations by the FAQs. TeamPathfinder read the rules from 3.5, and interpreted them their own way and presumed that other players would interpret them similarly. They may have been incorrect in their estimate of how many people would interpret them this way, but that doesn't change the fact that their interpretation is, for the sake of mechanical consistency, a better option. After all, how much sense, mechanically, does it make that a person wielding a Greatsword can manage to swing the sword and also throw a kick while the person wielding a pair of daggers can't swing both daggers and throw a kick?
The PF devs who somehow read the existence of 'hands of effort' into the rules which are discussing actual hands (a unit of measurement which is never referred to again, has no feats, spells or special abilities manipulating it in the way that there are for actual hands) would have been put right by the 3.5 FAQ which took you through, step by step, exactly how using a 2H weapon and a worn weapon works in TWF.
PF not only uses FAQs to answer questions on how the game works, they also use them to change how the game works; stealth errata.
Conceptually, I don't have a problem with using FAQs that way, so long as they make it clear that it is a change. Sometimes, they get the rules they inherited wrong, and change them retro-actively.
The PF FAQ definitely changed the rule, and did so for the worse. It is ill-thought out, and a knee-jerk reaction because it nerfs something that seems to be an abuse, but when analysed really is not abusive. It then has knock-on effects, by trying to square these new rules with the rest of the system which was written for the old rule, not just written for 3.5 but also in PF for years. The various worn weapons (like the boulder helmet) are some examples.
I don't mind PF changing rules for the better. I don't like them changing rules for the worse, and I really hate when they give a totally made-up and spurious justification for a bad rules change, and hate it when they pretend they didn't change anything!
@Mala: You didn't address my example; If you could swing a Greatsword and throw a kick, why can't you swing a pair of daggers and throw a kick? It takes the same number of limbs and the daggers, combined, weigh a quarter what the Greatsword weighs. The purpose of most non-hand weapons such as Boot Blades, Armor Spikes, Boulder Helmets, etc. isn't to be able to TWF with a 2-h weapon; it's to have a free hand for other purposes such as handling a shield, maneuvering a horse by the reins, manipulating an item, etc. Or, alternatively, to allow you to threaten adjacent while wielding a 2-h reach weapon. I hate made-up, spurious, un-thought-out rules changes as well; I called them out on their half-breed FAQ, among others. But this issue doesn't qualify for that. You are the one expressing the emotional, knee-jerk reaction. How, precisely, does this make PF "worse"? You've thrown that around a few times, but I haven't seen a single explanation on it. From where I sit, this reinforces a sense of mechanical consistency where the number of attacks you can make isn't tied to physical limbs but rather a consistent economy of attack. And the only "casualties" are what you've already admitted are sub-par, corner-case builds. How is that "worse"? Quite frankly, if you really must consider this a change, it is nothing other than a change for the better. Or, alternatively, nothing has changed except that now we know we've been wrong all along, simply because we got used to an obsolete precedent. In no case can I see any valid evidence for the claim that it worsens the game.
I see arguments about greatswords and bows and monks and such - but really this boils down to using armor spikes or a spiked gauntlet to threaten close while using a reach weapon.
That is the corner case that the ruling is meant to lock down - although the knight with a greatsword and a boot knife and a spiked helm and a spiked gauntlet and elbow spikes and such I'm sure was another concern.
Honestly there are some things I think are silly but they are what they are - take 'wielding' for example - I hate that in order to get the benefit from a defending weapon you have to make an attack with it. But it does prevent certain cheese from making it's rounds which makes defending weapons less useful for certain builds.