| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Many abilities come with the phrase, "may not be used when holding/carrying a weapon or shield in the off hand," or something similar that implies carrying and does not mention wielding.
One example is the Dervish Dance feat:
When wielding a scimitar with one hand, you can use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on melee attack and damage rolls. You treat the scimitar as a one-handed piercing weapon for all feats and class abilities that require such a weapon (such as a duelist’s precise strike ability). The scimitar must be for a creature of your size. You cannot use this feat if you are carrying a weapon or shield in your off hand.
Bolded for emphasis.
So the question is, if you are carrying a weapon that doesn't require a hand to use (such as a boot blade or armor spikes), then are you always considered to be "carrying a weapon in your off hand" even when not wielding that weapon?
If not, then how does it work, considering the RAW on "off hands" doesn't actually have anything to do with using the body part "hand?"
Any FAQ hits are appreciated. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, one thing that can be said for sure is this: if you're aggressive about being allowed to use armor spikes or kicking or whatever to make an end-run around that kind of restriction, there are plenty of people who will be quite prepared to call you some very hurtful names.
I don't think that is his intent, BadBird. If I understand his question, the scenario is something like this.
"I have a scimitar in one hand and my other is empty. I also have armored spikes. If I attack with both my scimitar and armor spikes, I can't use the Dervish Dance feat, because wielding the spikes counts as using a second hand (even though my actual hand is still empty).
But if I only attack with my scimitar, not using the spikes at all, then can I use the Dervish Dance feat? That is, do the armor spikes fill my 'hand' even if I am not actively using them?"
But I could be misinterpreting him.
I don't think that is his intent, BadBird. If I understand his question, the scenario is something like this.
"I have a scimitar in one hand and my other is empty. I also have armored spikes. If I attack with both my scimitar and armor spikes, I can't use the Dervish Dance feat, because wielding the spikes counts as using a second hand (even though my actual hand is still empty).
But if I only attack with my scimitar, not using the spikes at all, then can I use the Dervish Dance feat? That is, do the armor spikes fill my 'hand' even if I am not actively using them?"
But I could be misinterpreting him.
Nope, that's exactly what I'm asking. :)
Because your armor spikes/boot blade/whatever are always "prepared" to be used in the offhand, there is a really good argument to be made that you're "carrying/holding" them in your off hand.
I thought so. If you are like me, you like to have a wearable weapon or two for emergency backup or for special, occasionally used tactics. But if just wearing them were to interfere with your primary tactics, then it might not be worth it.
I don't think they count as occupying a 'hand' unless you are using them to attack. My reasoning is based on this FAQ.
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.
They are saying that attacking with the spikes would take a 'hand,' but both are taken up with your weapon. Only two 'hands' are available at one time. We already agree on this.
But if the spikes counted as taking up a 'hand' even when not used to attack, then in their scenario there wouldn't be two 'hands' available to wield the two-handed weapon. The fact that they draw a distinction between wearing the spikes while wielding a two-handed weapon and fighting with the spikes while wielding a two-handed weapon tells me that the spikes only count as occupying a 'hand' when they are being used to attack.
|
You don't have an Off-hand, until you use the Full-Round Action, to two weapon fight.
It is all about context.
For Dervish Dance, you need a free hand. The "off-hand" in this context, is just your other hand. That is where it ends.
The idea that a player with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, is completely incapable of having the Dervish Dance function for them, is mind-bogglingly inane.
I fully understand it's all just a mess of terminology (hand vs "hand"). I'm just curious to see, officially, how deep the hole they've dug because of it goes.
I would say you're ok on the RAW, especially if you're not trying to TWF. In my opinion, it would be against the RAI.
I fully understand it's all just a mess of terminology (hand vs "hand"). I'm just curious to see, officially, how deep the hole they've dug because of it goes.
It's the devs that have dug the hole... well I guess it is, but only because the players forced them to. They like to completely ignore RAI and will argue about every single word and if something isn't specifically called out then it must be legal regardless of the fact that it's exactly the same thing as what is called out:
It just says "beans" it doesn't say "baked beans" so baked beans are legal.My point is, don't blame the devs for the mess, we've brought this crap on ourselves.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I fully understand it's all just a mess of terminology (hand vs "hand"). I'm just curious to see, officially, how deep the hole they've dug because of it goes.It's the devs that have dug the hole... well I guess it is, but only because the players forced them to. They like to completely ignore RAI and will argue about every single word and if something isn't specifically called out then it must be legal regardless of the fact that it's exactly the same thing as what is called out:
It just says "beans" it doesn't say "baked beans" so baked beans are legal.My point is, don't blame the devs for the mess, we've brought this crap on ourselves.
LOL First, we're in the 'rules question' section. RAI SHOULD be put to the side as it's about the actual words and not what they where meant to be. the only time to pull out RAI is if the words can be read differently.
Second, words have meaning.
It just says "beans" it doesn't say "baked beans" so baked beans are legal."
Replace those works with 'crossbow' and 'light crossbow' and you seem to be the silly person and not the person thinking a light crossbow is a kind of crossbow...
I fully understand it's all just a mess of terminology (hand vs "hand"). I'm just curious to see, officially, how deep the hole they've dug because of it goes.It's the devs that have dug the hole... well I guess it is, but only because the players forced them to. They like to completely ignore RAI and will argue about every single word and if something isn't specifically called out then it must be legal regardless of the fact that it's exactly the same thing as what is called out:
It just says "beans" it doesn't say "baked beans" so baked beans are legal.My point is, don't blame the devs for the mess, we've brought this crap on ourselves.
Yeah, I know those dirty subhuman scumbag players ruin all my games by trying to actually PLAY in them! What bastards! The game would be so much better without them!
Yeah, I know those dirty subhuman scumbag players ruin all my games by trying to actually PLAY in them! What bastards! The game would be so much better without them!I fully understand it's all just a mess of terminology (hand vs "hand"). I'm just curious to see, officially, how deep the hole they've dug because of it goes.It's the devs that have dug the hole... well I guess it is, but only because the players forced them to. They like to completely ignore RAI and will argue about every single word and if something isn't specifically called out then it must be legal regardless of the fact that it's exactly the same thing as what is called out:
It just says "beans" it doesn't say "baked beans" so baked beans are legal.My point is, don't blame the devs for the mess, we've brought this crap on ourselves.
So true, and so relevant to we was said. [/sarcasm]
|
For a hand to be counted as 'free' it has to be capable of holding an object (on the grounds that isn't holding an object right now).
If your left hand is wearing a spiked gauntlet then it is able to hold an object. If it isn't holding an object then it counts as 'free', and so can be used to Deflect Missile, Crane Wing and so forth, and is also not holding a weapon or shield so the Duelist is okay to use his abilities.
I don't think that your left hand holding a light shield would count as free, even though you can clearly hold things with that hand.
I think the distinction is going to have to be more clear than just based on the ability to hold things.
But I also believe that Malachi is correct that wearing a gauntlet should not be a problem.
i think as long as you're not trying to TWF with the scimitar and a boot blade (or whatever weapon is not held in hand) that you should be fine.
The intention was to prevent TWF with dex to damage using Dervish Dance.
Using Dervish Dance, and kicking, isn't exactly hitting the high marks, on any kind of power level.
Well... it wouldn't take that much creativity to put some kicking to good use completely crushing normal Dervish Dance damage on something like a Dawnflower Dervish. Not that there's really anything wrong with that if you're investing in TWF.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dervish Dancer(not Dawnflower Dervish) with Slashing Grace/Fencing Grace, is already stronger.
Wait, you can use Slashing Grace, with a Scimitar, and none of these "hand" restrictions?
Hell, you could duel wield Scimitars, using dex to damage, with Slashing Grace.
Of course, you know, using Dervish Dance, with a kick thrown in, that's like, overpowered, right?
Yeah, I know those dirty subhuman scumbag players ruin all my games by trying to actually PLAY in them! What bastards! The game would be so much better without them!
Except they don't. They just argue about what might or could be. I think if more people on these forums actually played the game, there'd be a lot less arguing. If they wanted to play the game, they could just say "Hey GM, how would you rule this?".
|
|
Except they don't. They just argue about what might or could be. I think if more people on these forums actually played the game, there'd be a lot less arguing. If they wanted to play the game, they could just say "Hey GM, how would you rule this?".
Yeah, I know those dirty subhuman scumbag players ruin all my games by trying to actually PLAY in them! What bastards! The game would be so much better without them!
Some could be doing both.
Some could be in something like PFS, where table variation is a real issue.
You both are not entirely right, but not entirely wrong either.
If the same PC had Snake Fang would you allow him or her to make AoOs with unarmed while using Dervish Dance? Would it matter if the PC had Monk levels and the player described those AoOs as being kicks? If the Monk levels were as a Master of Many Styles could that same PC use Crane Wing while using Dervish Dance and taking AoOs?