Yes, ruleswhise other hand =/= offhand
Diminuendo: Even if the buckler is strapped to the arm, its implementation so as to make a shield bash counts as an off-hand attack, as any shield bash is considered to be per those rules. But no, forget all of that, because you don't buy it.
So, we go ahead an allow for the attack to be made. As you say, the buckler only uses the damage dice and critical modifier of a light shield, but nothing else because, as you say, the buckler totally isn't a light shield at all. Again, as you say, the buckler uses no other aspects of the light shield rules (because it isn't a light shield), so we can assume the buckler is just a standard off-hand attack, as per any shield bash according to the rules for such (this one is just made while the hand is empty). As you say. Here comes the fun part.
Again, as you say, the buckler doesn't literally count as a light shield, only uses its damage and critical modifier, so welcome to the wonderful world of making an off-hand attack with something that isn't, or isn't even considered to be, a light weapon, like a shield bash made with a light shield is considered to be. Hey, as you say, the buckler totally isn't a light shield in this case, because the buckler only uses the light shield's damage and critical modifier, nothing else. In any event, the rules only state that light shields are considered light weapons when used to make a shield bash, and a buckler isn't a light shield as you have so aptly demonstrated, so we can't even argue that it would get the "light weapon" designation. As the buckler so obviously uses no other light shield rules, welcome to having a -4 penalty to hit with your buckler bash. Also, have an additional -4 penalty to hit with your Precise Strike too, just because that's how things work when an off-hand attack isn't made with something that is, or is considered to be, a light weapon. See? When we follow your arguments to their eventual conclusion, you do get to have your cake and eat it too, just not with the creme cheese filling. Pretty awesome, no?
Or is the cake not tasting good enough still, such that this conclusion is also utterly wrong, and only needs the slightest bit more Rules Lawyering to bring things to the desired conclusion? ;)
|
it's actually strapped to my arm. Not in my hand.It is strapped to your arm but when in use it is held in hand.
I suggest doing a Google image search for buckler, in every image it is held in hand.It seems to me that any form of TWF would eliminate Precise Strike.This would make the long excepted parrying dagger Duelist that uses TWF to have an extra attack to given up for the parry ability illegal.
In the real world you use a buckler in one hand. In pathfinder, it's strapped to you arm and your hand is free. This is not realistic, but it is what the rules say.
I'm not looking for a loophole, I am searchig for information that disproves such a build.
There is no ruleing in all of Pathfinder that an Off-hand attack counts as using a hand, unless the offhand weapon needs to be held in said hand.
Link me to the FAQ or book page that says otherwise and I'll gladly accept it, but as Just a Guess said Off-Hand does not equal Other Hand, and nowhere in the rules it says it does
I honestly never intend to use such a build, I wanted to clarify if the exception that allows the use of a Buckler in Precicse Strike includes when it is used as a weapon.
Saying a weapon is historically used in a certain way in the real world has no effect on this fictional game about wizards, elves and dragons; we go by the in game discriptions.
I also find FAQs about wielding a two handed weapon and armor spikes while TWF irrelevent to wielding a onehanded weapon and a buckler, which by the rules can not have armor spikes
|
I dont know where you got a shield must be a weapon because you can attak with it.
Theoretically you can attack with a potion, that doesnt make it a weapon.
I dont really understand the fuss, multiclassing swashbuckler hurts more than it helps. If the problem is "munchkinism" it would be important to point that there are far more ways to twf.
Im also aware a "hand" faq could be useful, i wouldnt mind having one so that I can finally clarify that mess that are kasathas
Rondelero Duelist 5 class feature:
At 5th level, a rondelero gains a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls when wielding a falcata and buckler that applies to attacks made by either hand. These bonuses increase by +1 for every four levels beyond 5th. With a full-attack action, a rondelero may alternate between using his falcata or his buckler for each attack. This does not grant additional attacks or incur penalties as two-weapon fighting does. This ability replaces weapon training 1.
Emphasis mine.
This would allow you to, with TWF, replace all your off-hand buckler attacks for mainhand falcata attacks, basically falcata flurry.
I would love to see a Juggler Bard/Swashbuckler attacking with only their main hand but still making each attack with a different weapon.
|
|
Even with such an FAQ, the Kasatha would remain unaffected, as it is not a normal, bipedal, two-armed humanoid creature.
If they rule pcs have only one off hand, or only 2 " metaphorical hands", at all times regardless of the number of places where the off hand attacks con originate or something like that it would be affected
I dont know where you got a shield must be a weapon because you can attak with it.
Theoretically you can attack with a potion, that doesnt make it a weapon.
I dont really understand the fuss, multiclassing swashbuckler hurts more than it helps. If the problem is "munchkinism" it would be important to point that there are far more ways to twf.
Im also aware a "hand" faq could be useful, i wouldnt mind having one so that I can finally clarify that mess that are kasathas
so first point, attacking with a potion would be an improvised WEAPON whos stats would be subject to GM discreation.
second thing, why is it so bad that this class clearly intends for you to only get an attack with the main hand and the main hand only? balance wise its not worse that some other classes, sure its no wizard but it can still hold its own. RAI you are not to get any secondary attacks from any source as its takes time balance and precition to use a weapon in this mannor.
Exactly. Eihter paizo meant exactly what they wrote or they worded the ability or they worded it very poorly.
If the rules meant "cannot attack with a weapon in her off-hand," they could have said exactly that. But they didn't.
And if Paizo did make a mistake the can FAQ it.
I imagine they won't bother, and instead expect people to approach issues in a logical manner, because they really do not have the free time to address every "question of wording" that pops up. The issues they will address are those which amount to fundamental problems, of which there are few, and this is not one of them. If you are not satisfied with any of the explanations then I am guessing you will receive no satisfaction.
And it's apparently illogical to think if they meant off-hand they would of written off-hand?
|
|
I imagine they won't bother, and instead expect people to approach issues in a logical manner, because they really do not have the free time to address every "question of wording" that pops up. The issues they will address are those which amount to fundamental problems, of which there are few, and this is not one of them. If you are not satisfied with any of the explanations then I am guessing you will receive no satisfaction.
My logical assumption is one, you have other logical assumption. Thats the reason erratas/faqs are made
|
I'm curious how you can be so confident as to the RAI. Do you have some source other than the 23 words that the rest of us have to use?
Discussions with Paizo Designers over the last couple years in this very forum. Back-and-forth discussions that newer posters were never a part of. And so this debate keeps getting renewed. And the headache it causes increases.
Once you finally have an understanding, and feel like you can at last move on with the game, a new profile pops up on the forum, and the entire debate is recycled from square one.
It's the primary reason why I really, really dislike the ruling by Stephen Radney-MacFarland that forum posts by Designers are essentially worthless.
A *lot* of work got tossed out the window with one statement. A lot of progress was lost.
It's only served to strengthen the whiny voices of the "but that's not RAW!" crowd. It makes dialog more hostile, and grinds logical debate to a halt.
And it just keeps happening.
I've always thought the ability would allow two weapon fighting as long as the off hand was empty. I would think a buckler on ur other arm would be a tough sell. But a knee or kick imo shouldn't be an issue imo. I don't like the whole precise strike ability as most real duelist used a dagger in there offhand.
I agree with OP, RAW this works.
Since OP asked specifically to avoid the RAW vs RAI argument, I will not delve too deeply in this matter, but I still feel like giving my opinion.
Pathfinder developers are not as good as Pathfinder and 3.5 users at finding rules loopholes and wording issues, because they are not as motivated as players to overcome limitations. They don't even try.
They expect good faith and common sense. This is a poor, irrational way of writing rules, but this is what we get. Pathfinder, unfortunately, is not written in a technically univocal way as Magic The Gathering.
This combo only works because they weren't able to foresee the consequences of their word choices!
I am 99% sure that RAI they wouldn't allow it. Naturally, this bears no weight in a pure RAW discussion.
If RAW is all you're interested in, this works; 100%, no doubt.
----
OT: I wish they hired more hardened power players in their ranks to check for abuse before printing stuff.
If PF had the same degree of precision as a TCG, there would be zero problems of RAW vs RAI.
Actually, I think the web is full of people that could make a job like that.
If they ever release a second edition of Pathfinder (and we aren't that far, in my opinion!) I hope they follow this route.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
lets avoid the RAW vs RAI arguement, this clearly not a RAI situation, but I'm curious if this would be an option;
To use this deed, a swashbuckler cannot attack with a weapon in her other hand or use a shield other than a buckler.Buckler Bash (Ex)
At 2nd level, a buckler duelist can perform a shield bash with a buckler (use the same damage and critical modifier as for a light shield).
So I am not attacking with any weapon in my hand (as my Buckler is strapped to my arm) and I am not using a shield other than my Buckler.
Sound legit to you guys for TWF with Precise Stirke?
Considering that wearing a Buckler doesn't disallow Slashing/Fencing Grace (because it's on your forearm, as stated by the relevant FAQ), and the Buckler Bash ability says you bash with your Buckler (which is also on your forearm), it is allowable by RAW.
Keep in mind that I would allow it as a GM, if only because of the Slashing/Fencing Grace FAQ wording serving a pretty important precedent amongst other subjects besides "Can I TWF with it," and the Buckler Bash ability simply saying "shield bash with the buckler," and not "shield bash with a buckler as if it were a Light Shield," which does require occupying a hand to attack with (and would be grounds for disallowment).
Of course, a GM can still rule that way if he feels that using your forearm to attack isn't really a feasible means to carry out the Shield Bash, but YMMV.