Off Hand Longbows


Rules Questions

101 to 150 of 352 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

No.


BBT you best bet would be to gather all of you Metaphysical hands questions and make one new thead for clarifcation. As it is right now unless a blog post is done we might get the answer to 2hw and shield but not longbow and shield.


Rewriting the FAQ would be implementing new words to convey a completely different meaning. That's not what I did.

What I did was show that the type of weapon involved (be it ranged, two-handed, etc.) is irrelevant to the point the FAQ makes by simply providing the same exact FAQ without it involving a type of weapon; that's the strawman I'm calling out, because the type of weapon mentioned in the FAQ (which you were using to support your claim) doesn't change the point the FAQ makes: If you're using two hands for a weapon, ANY WEAPON AT ALL, whether it's a two-handed weapon, a one-handed or light weapon used in two hands, or a ranged weapon that requires 2 hands to use you have no hands left over to use another weapon (for the purposes of TWF), meaning you can't TWF that way. And that's because you're trying to use both weapons in question and make attacks at the same time, using the same action, as evidenced by the attack order FAQ for TWF.

In other words, the Armor Spikes FAQ shows us that the amount of "physical hands" and the amount of "hands of effort" needed for a weapon that requires two hands to use, are identical, for the purposes of TWF. If a weapon needs 2 hands to use, it takes 2 hands of effort, end of discussion. What the FAQ (secretly) tells us is that a weapon that doesn't normally take a physical hand to use (such as the Armor Spikes) still takes at least 1 hand of effort, and when you're using more hands of effort than what's allowed from TWF (2), it no longer becomes a legal TWF method.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Rewriting the FAQ would be implementing new words to convey a completely different meaning. That's not what I did.

What I did was show that the type of weapon involved (be it ranged, two-handed, etc.) is irrelevant to the point the FAQ makes by simply providing the same exact FAQ without it involving a type of weapon; that's the strawman I'm calling out, because the type of weapon mentioned in the FAQ (which you were using to support your claim) doesn't change the point the FAQ makes: If you're using two hands for a weapon, ANY WEAPON AT ALL, whether it's a two-handed weapon, a one-handed or light weapon used in two hands, or a ranged weapon that requires 2 hands to use you have no hands left over to use another weapon (for the purposes of TWF), meaning you can't TWF that way. And that's because you're trying to use both weapons in question and make attacks at the same time, using the same action, as evidenced by the attack order FAQ for TWF.

In other words, the Armor Spikes FAQ shows us that the amount of "physical hands" and the amount of "hands of effort" needed for a weapon that requires two hands to use, are identical, for the purposes of TWF. If a weapon needs 2 hands to use, it takes 2 hands of effort, end of discussion. What the FAQ (secretly) tells us is that a weapon that doesn't normally take a physical hand to use (such as the Armor Spikes) still takes at least 1 hand of effort, and when you're using more hands of effort than what's allowed from TWF (2), it no longer becomes a legal TWF method.

You took a game term, "Two-handed weapon" which comprised the entire scope of the FAQ and turned it into "weapon."

That is clearly a rewrite of intention and scope of the FAQ. I don't have any interest in discussing your hypothetical revised FAQ.


"Last I checked, "using" a weapon (regardless of if it's a ranged or two-handed or one-handed weapon), as provided by the Defending property FAQ, means you're making attacks with it.":

Darksol the Painbringer, use and wield can't mean attacking with as a default or parts of the game break down. Do you really think the staff magus only gains his Quarterstaff Defense the exact moment of attack? Secondly, looking at crossbows they point out that they use two hands but you only need one hand to attack. This clearly shows that attacking with and uses are different.


BigDTBone wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Rewriting the FAQ would be implementing new words to convey a completely different meaning. That's not what I did.

What I did was show that the type of weapon involved (be it ranged, two-handed, etc.) is irrelevant to the point the FAQ makes by simply providing the same exact FAQ without it involving a type of weapon; that's the strawman I'm calling out, because the type of weapon mentioned in the FAQ (which you were using to support your claim) doesn't change the point the FAQ makes: If you're using two hands for a weapon, ANY WEAPON AT ALL, whether it's a two-handed weapon, a one-handed or light weapon used in two hands, or a ranged weapon that requires 2 hands to use you have no hands left over to use another weapon (for the purposes of TWF), meaning you can't TWF that way. And that's because you're trying to use both weapons in question and make attacks at the same time, using the same action, as evidenced by the attack order FAQ for TWF.

In other words, the Armor Spikes FAQ shows us that the amount of "physical hands" and the amount of "hands of effort" needed for a weapon that requires two hands to use, are identical, for the purposes of TWF. If a weapon needs 2 hands to use, it takes 2 hands of effort, end of discussion. What the FAQ (secretly) tells us is that a weapon that doesn't normally take a physical hand to use (such as the Armor Spikes) still takes at least 1 hand of effort, and when you're using more hands of effort than what's allowed from TWF (2), it no longer becomes a legal TWF method.

You took a game term, "Two-handed weapon" which comprised the entire scope of the FAQ and turned it into "weapon."

That is clearly a rewrite of intention and scope of the FAQ. I don't have any interest in discussing your hypothetical revised FAQ.

If the game term had relevance to the point the FAQ makes, then you'd be correct, and I'd concede. Unfortunately, you can't prove that the game term has relevance. I ask you again, what difference does it make if it's a two-handed weapon or a weapon that requires two hands? Because apparently, according to the "hands of effort," I can TWF with 2 bows, using 2 hands, since apparently I only ever need 1 hand to use a bow for TWF.

And that's assuming they're even using the game term; there are several instances where they use game terms for literal definitions, and who is to say that this wouldn't be one of them?


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Rewriting the FAQ would be implementing new words to convey a completely different meaning. That's not what I did.

What I did was show that the type of weapon involved (be it ranged, two-handed, etc.) is irrelevant to the point the FAQ makes by simply providing the same exact FAQ without it involving a type of weapon; that's the strawman I'm calling out, because the type of weapon mentioned in the FAQ (which you were using to support your claim) doesn't change the point the FAQ makes: If you're using two hands for a weapon, ANY WEAPON AT ALL, whether it's a two-handed weapon, a one-handed or light weapon used in two hands, or a ranged weapon that requires 2 hands to use you have no hands left over to use another weapon (for the purposes of TWF), meaning you can't TWF that way. And that's because you're trying to use both weapons in question and make attacks at the same time, using the same action, as evidenced by the attack order FAQ for TWF.

In other words, the Armor Spikes FAQ shows us that the amount of "physical hands" and the amount of "hands of effort" needed for a weapon that requires two hands to use, are identical, for the purposes of TWF. If a weapon needs 2 hands to use, it takes 2 hands of effort, end of discussion. What the FAQ (secretly) tells us is that a weapon that doesn't normally take a physical hand to use (such as the Armor Spikes) still takes at least 1 hand of effort, and when you're using more hands of effort than what's allowed from TWF (2), it no longer becomes a legal TWF method.

You took a game term, "Two-handed weapon" which comprised the entire scope of the FAQ and turned it into "weapon."

That is clearly a rewrite of intention and scope of the FAQ. I don't have any interest in discussing your hypothetical revised FAQ.

If the game term had relevance to the point the FAQ makes, then you'd be correct, and I'd concede. Unfortunately, you can't prove that the game term has relevance. I ask...

The difference is THW and OHW in two-hands get 1.5x STR to damage. The .5 STR represents the consumed effort of the off-hand attack. Bows don't get that bonus, so their off-hand of effort is still available.

Changing a game term to a generic term changes the meaning of the FAQ.

Also, as someone who was active in the conversation as it was unfolding, I can assure you that two-handed weapon in the FAQ is without question intended as a game term. When the FAQ first came out it didn't include the "or a OHW in two-hands bit," and that was one of the first questions asked. It was then revised to look as it does today. If those game terms weren't important then they would have revised the FAQ as you suggest, however, they did not.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Yes, I am referring to things like:

1) Retaining the Buckler Shield Bonus to AC.

2) Ability to make an off hand attack.

1. No. You make an attack at any case, that involves an off-hand, you lose that Buckler's Shield AC until your next turn. The only benefit of using a Bow + Buckler over a Melee Weapon + Buckler is not having to deal with the -1 to hit (with attacks involving that hand, though RAW suggests it applies to all attacks you make, barring the exceptions obviously).

2. Since a two-handed weapon requires two hands to use, the same as a Bow, the rules for TWF, in this case, would treat those two subjects as identical requirements. In other words, if you can't TWF with Spikes and a Greatsword via the FAQ, then you can't TWF with Spikes and a Bow (via the FAQ), as both require two hands to use, and you don't have a third 'hand' available to make attacks.

Um. I submit that if you're holding a bow in one hand, presumably by the handgrip, and some other weapon, say a sword, in the other hand, and you get into melee, you can use TWF, since you're not using the bow as a bow. you're using it as a staff or a club. I would agree with you if you stipulated that you're using the bow to shoot arrows.

BTW, there are four parts to a bow: two limbs, a riser (which contains the handgrip and the arrow rest), and a string. Interestingly, the spell "bowstaff" turns the bow, temporarily, into a staff. But the "stick" part of a bow (all of it, except the string) is not a "staff" (or a "stave", which applied to sticks is a misuse of the word, which is an alternative spelling of "staff" only in music).

As to the buckler's AC bonus, consider this: you are standing, nothing in your hands and no buckler. You have some AC, say 14. You strap a buckler to your left arm (you're right handed). Now you have AC 15. You pick up a bow with your right hand. Still AC 15. You switch the bow to your left hand. You're not "using" it, not shooting arrows, just holding it. I would submit you're still AC 15. Now you draw an arrow, nock it, and draw back your bowstring. I can see AC 14 at this point. However, there's "until your next turn". I don't buy that. You fire your bow, and then you're effectively (possibly) just standing there with the bow in your left hand. AC 15. Or you immediately switch the bow to your right hand. AC 15. IOW I think unless at the moment you are engaged in melee you're actively using the bow as a bow (or as a two-handed or an offhand melee weapon) you should still get the AC bonus. Perhaps that's RAI rather than RAW.


BigDTBone, you're assuming that the only possible benefit of consuming the effort of the off-hand attack is having an extra .5 STR. There are other possible benefits, such as the ability to attack with a bow in the first place. Even if there were no benefit at all, if a weapon specifies it takes two hands to attack with, it uses both your main hand's and offhand's effort - not all weapons are created equal.

Let's also remember that FAQs are not errata. They are intended to clarify the intent of the rules; ie, they show how the rules are supposed to be read in the first place. While the FAQ may only address two handed weapons, it also serves as an example of how the rules should be applied when it comes to similar questions (such as this one).


Byakko wrote:

BigDTBone, you're assuming that the only possible benefit of consuming the effort of the off-hand attack is having an extra .5 STR. There are other possible benefits, such as the ability to attack with a bow in the first place. Even if there were no benefit at all, if a weapon specifies it takes two hands to attack with, it uses both your main hand's and offhand's effort - not all weapons are created equal.

Let's also remember that FAQs are not errata. They are intended to clarify the intent of the rules; ie, they show how the rules are supposed to be read in the first place. While the FAQ may only address two handed weapons, it also serves as an example of how the rules should be applied when it comes to similar questions (such as this one).

This FAQ was definately errata despite what the PDT would have you believe. The exact same text appeared in 3.5 and it specifically and explicitly worked different. The FAQ changed the way the rules work, and that's errata.

It also isn't a similar question (in the basest sense.) The discussion leading up to that FAQ had a developer explicitly state that THE REASON the combo was disallowed was because THW granted the extra .5 STR damage. That's it, that was the WHOLE REASON as stated by the developer who wrote the post. Bows don't get that .5 STR so it is completely apropos to read the rules in such a way that TWF with a bow is completely permissible.

2nd, it uses only your physical hand, not your hand of effort.


BigDTBone wrote:
Byakko wrote:

BigDTBone, you're assuming that the only possible benefit of consuming the effort of the off-hand attack is having an extra .5 STR. There are other possible benefits, such as the ability to attack with a bow in the first place. Even if there were no benefit at all, if a weapon specifies it takes two hands to attack with, it uses both your main hand's and offhand's effort - not all weapons are created equal.

Let's also remember that FAQs are not errata. They are intended to clarify the intent of the rules; ie, they show how the rules are supposed to be read in the first place. While the FAQ may only address two handed weapons, it also serves as an example of how the rules should be applied when it comes to similar questions (such as this one).

This FAQ was definately errata despite what the PDT would have you believe. The exact same text appeared in 3.5 and it specifically and explicitly worked different. The FAQ changed the way the rules work, and that's errata.

2nd, it uses only your physical hand, not your hand of effort.

I realize that sometimes these "FAQ" turn out to effectively be errata, however they are also supposed to serve as a guide on how the rules should be interpreted in a general case. They specify two handed weapons because of the specific question asked, but we can still reference this FAQ as a guide on how to handle similar situations.

The bow uses TWO physical hands to attack with and thus also requires TWO hands worth of effort.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Though they feel they are correct in doing so, many are still adding much to the FAQ, that is not there. Perhaps they feel they have extrapolated correctly, but to say such extrapolation is indisputably certain, is decisively false.

The 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.


They probably didn't wanna write that bows are 2H weapons so players wouldn't try to use feats designed for 2H weapons (like a Greataxe) with bows.

Since some of these details aren't explicit in the rules, each group should talk things over and decide what they think is best.

I think bows work alot like 2H weapons. You can just hold a 2H weapon in one hand and grip it with 2 hands just when you are striking with it (but even if you let one hand go of the 2H weapon, since you are fighting with it in this round, that "free hand" is actualy busy with the 2H weapon still)

When you use a bow, I think a buckler in either arm would interfere with the attack. In fact, If the player was using 2 bucklers, maybe he would have twice as much penalty on the attack.

Now, personally, I would house rule that you can make off-hand attacks with a 2H weapon, a bow, a dwarven helmet, and you would threaten with them all at once too, just to save myself the trouble of dealing with those who can't take no for an answer.

Off course, all the bad guys would have boot knives.


Kchaka wrote:


Off course, all the bad guys would have boot knives.

Awesome! I love bad guys that "treat normal terrain as difficult and difficult terrain as impassable"! Sounds like a plan! ;)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

By the way, if anyone doubts the idea that these "unwritten rules" exist, you can find their confirmation here..

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:
By the way, if anyone doubts the idea that these "unwritten rules" exist, you can find their confirmation here..

I'm unsure if you are attempting humor?

In all seriousness, the whole game is designed around "a way to have fun with friends" and less about "how can I selectively interpret the rules to break the system". I'm pretty confident most of the unwritten rules are following that agenda. If you get the agenda, you have a good idea what all the unwritten rules are. So in a way they are written ;-)


James Risner wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
By the way, if anyone doubts the idea that these "unwritten rules" exist, you can find their confirmation here..

I'm unsure if you are attempting humor?

In all seriousness, the whole game is designed around "a way to have fun with friends" and less about "how can I selectively interpret the rules to break the system". I'm pretty confident most of the unwritten rules are following that agenda. If you get the agenda, you have a good idea what all the unwritten rules are. So in a way they are written ;-)

Except this rule removes options (many equate this with removing fun) and has been shown over and over and over to be less powerful than just THWs alone. The idea that THW/TWF is "broken" or "breaks the system," is a gut check reaction with no validity. You don't like how "it feels." It seems like "cheese." It is not. The power of that option is measurably lower than just simply not doing it. Continuing to spout off the broken chant of, "you're breaking the system and make people not have fun you're having BADWRONGFUN," is offensive on its face AND under scrutiny.


James Risner wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
By the way, if anyone doubts the idea that these "unwritten rules" exist, you can find their confirmation here..

I'm unsure if you are attempting humor?

In all seriousness, the whole game is designed around "a way to have fun with friends" and less about "how can I selectively interpret the rules to break the system". I'm pretty confident most of the unwritten rules are following that agenda. If you get the agenda, you have a good idea what all the unwritten rules are. So in a way they are written ;-)

One of the main issues with this is that pathfinder seems to have a different set of unwritten rules that 3.5. This is super clear JUST looking at the quote BBT linked as what was invalidated by the pathfinder unwritten rule was allowed by the 3.5 actual rules (errata/FAQ).

SO your 'if you don't try to break the system, you'll follow the unwritten rules' is false. We know the base game that pathfinder was built on played by different rules so why the change? My best guess is that someone among the dev's doesn't like the idea, not that it broke anything.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

To quote a very well known person...

"Do you see the grasshopper at your feet?"

Using various "unhanded" attacks main advantage is the fact that one does not have to draw those weapons in the heat of the moment, they are "at hand," as it were.

when you are using the bow, one of the assumptions is that the character does not have a slew of enemies around him when using the ranged weapon. To use the "unhanded" attack at all would be a rare occurrence with the bow even if it could be done.

It does take Two Hands to use, one to hold, the other to draw arrows and pull/release the string. It would be a very good movie cinematic to shoot off a bow and immediately hit the person coming up from behind with a punch, but in game terms it would be two rounds of actions.

Why, when all is said and done, would a ranged weapon using two hands to attack with would be any different than a Two Handed melee weapon? Or a One Handed weapon used with both hands?


thaX wrote:


Why, when all is said and done, would a ranged weapon using two hands to attack with would be any different than a Two Handed melee weapon? Or a One Handed weapon used with both hands?

Why would a crossbow that requires those SAME two hands to use only require 1 to attack with (and I assume one 'hand')? The same logic should apply to both, since both use two hands...


thaX wrote:

It does take Two Hands to use, one to hold, the other to draw arrows and pull/release the string. It would be a very good movie cinematic to shoot off a bow and immediately hit the person coming up from behind with a punch, but in game terms it would be two rounds of actions.

Even with iteratives? Based on what rules?

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

graystone wrote:
My best guess is that someone among the dev's doesn't like the idea, not that it broke anything.

Let's assume your guess is right. See below.

BigDTBone wrote:
Except this rule removes options ... is offensive on its face AND under scrutiny.

Just because you think it is wrong, doesn't mean everyone agrees with you. You don't need to debate the rules (or unwritten rules), since you and your GM are entirely in control of how the rules work at your table. So I don't understand the need to keep kicking this dead horse.


James Risner wrote:
graystone wrote:
My best guess is that someone among the dev's doesn't like the idea, not that it broke anything.

Let's assume your guess is right. See below.

BigDTBone wrote:
Except this rule removes options ... is offensive on its face AND under scrutiny.
Just because you think it is wrong, doesn't mean everyone agrees with you. You don't need to debate the rules (or unwritten rules), since you and your GM are entirely in control of how the rules work at your table. So I don't understand the need to keep kicking this dead horse.

The issue is the poor, poor horse isn't dead yet. It keeps floundering around taking out different things. 'Does THIS use a hand or a 'hand' or both?' keeps coming up and no one is sure one way or another because you can't look up anything to find out. It only exists in the nebulous intent of the dev's unwritten rules after all.

So it doesn't matter if you think the ruling is right or wrong, we all deserve an actual written rule to base it on and we can point to, read and understand. Instead of the FAQ bringing clarity, we now have a mess where hand in the text can mean hand, 'hand' or both without any real way to be sure which one is correct. It was simple before...


graystone wrote:
thaX wrote:


Why, when all is said and done, would a ranged weapon using two hands to attack with would be any different than a Two Handed melee weapon? Or a One Handed weapon used with both hands?
Why would a crossbow that requires those SAME two hands to use only require 1 to attack with (and I assume one 'hand')? The same logic should apply to both, since both use two hands...

Because of a specific rule in the crossbow description.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
graystone wrote:
thaX wrote:


Why, when all is said and done, would a ranged weapon using two hands to attack with would be any different than a Two Handed melee weapon? Or a One Handed weapon used with both hands?
Why would a crossbow that requires those SAME two hands to use only require 1 to attack with (and I assume one 'hand')? The same logic should apply to both, since both use two hands...
Because of a specific rule in the crossbow description.

Does it? What I see is specialty TWF rules giving it an equivalent of a melee designation. I see nothing to suggest it's a special ruling on 'uses two hands' and the 'hands' required.

Now let me ask you this. The launching crossbow lacks both the 'uses two hands' and 'can be fired in one hand'. How do you fire it and how many hands and 'hands' does it use? How about a rope dart? A sling? (it doesn't say 'uses two hands') Tube arrow shooter? Atlatl?


The rules assume that you are a physical being with bilateral symmetry and that you know how body parts work as well as the concept of not being in two places at once. If your hand is on the bottom end of a two handed sword it is not also stabbing with a dagger at the same time. Its busy.

Use that extra hand and let it go...


BigNorseWolf wrote:

The rules assume that you are a physical being with bilateral symmetry and that you know how body parts work as well as the concept of not being in two places at once. If your hand is on the bottom end of a two handed sword it is not also stabbing with a dagger at the same time. Its busy.

Use that extra hand and let it go...

That works dandy for a weapon that's actually wielded in two hands. So far nothing I've been talking about are. And going by your logic, those darn crossbow wouldn't work the way they do with all that two handed use going on.

On a secondary note, that person that can't use a two handed sword and a dagger has NO issue making two hoof attacks and a gore while using that sword but somehow it's physically impossible of making a kick... Trying to make this a logic thing doesn't work on it's face. "its busy" really doesn't cut it logically when I can make a handful of other attacks instead.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

graystone wrote:

special ruling on 'uses two hands' and the 'hands' required.

Now let me ask you this. The launching crossbow lacks both the 'uses two hands' and 'can be fired in one hand'. How do you fire it and how many hands and 'hands' does it use? How about a rope dart? A sling? (it doesn't say 'uses two hands') Tube arrow shooter? Atlatl?

Please elaborate on why you don't think using a Crossbow requires two hands.

Launching crossbow: Is a crossbow, so use standard crossbow use/loading/firing rules.

Rope Dart: like Meteor Hammer, two hands.

Sling: Same language as Crossbow.

Tube-Arrow Shooter: No specific language, so use general rule below.

UE p16 wrote:
Most projectile weapons require two hands to use

Atlatl: Same language as Crossbow.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

By the way, if anyone doubts the idea that these "unwritten rules" exist, you can find their confirmation here..

So, the balance is for there to be a maximum of (an effective) 1.5x modifier. Quite frankly, if that is the precedent, then why do we have feats like Double Slice or archetypes like Two-Handed Fighter, which break those precedents (and quite easily, I might add)? Those things should not even exist if the "rule" is "You don't get more than 1.5x modifier to damage ever."

If you're going to spout that 'there are exceptions,' why would using a Greatsword with Armor Spikes be any different of an exception than a feat or a class feature? There are many things that are exceptions that don't otherwise require feats or abilities to do; Prone Shooter, which was once a feat, instead became an option.

It's fine to say the rules don't intend TWF to be like that, but if you're going to exclude only one unintended means of the rules, it's doubly silly to allow another one that is practically identical in all respects, and that's because it creates a very unusual (and quite conflicting) rules precedent.


The unwritten rule lies not with handedness, but with armor spikes, As an ahistorical weapon we really don't know how they're supposed to be used, so its entirely up to the game. Apparently you punch with them.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
The unwritten rule lies not with handedness, but with armor spikes, As an ahistorical weapon we really don't know how they're supposed to be used, so its entirely up to the game. Apparently you punch with them.

I doubt that's the case. You can't use a Greatsword and Unarmed Strike in conjunction, if we follow the "uses more than one hand," but you can use Natural Attacks that don't use limbs that your attacks are using. So Gore, Bite, Tail, etc. And that's because Natural Weapons don't follow the same rules as Manufactured.

The "You can kick with it" excuse for Unarmed Strikes, if we take the FAQ for what people say it was made for (don't get more than 1.5x damage for all attack options), doesn't fly, because you're getting more than 1.5x damage for it. So it's not viable.

The "It's also a natural weapon" excuse also doesn't apply because it's no different a case than a Shield, which is both a piece of armor and a weapon, the same way an Unarmed Strike is both a natural and a manufactured weapon. Just because it's both doesn't mean it all of a sudden stops being one of the things that it is.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

By the way, if anyone doubts the idea that these "unwritten rules" exist, you can find their confirmation here..

So, the balance is for there to be a maximum of (an effective) 1.5x modifier. Quite frankly, if that is the precedent, then why do we have feats like Double Slice or archetypes like Two-Handed Fighter, which break those precedents (and quite easily, I might add)? Those things should not even exist if the "rule" is "You don't get more than 1.5x modifier to damage ever."

If you're going to spout that 'there are exceptions,' why would using a Greatsword with Armor Spikes be any different of an exception than a feat or a class feature? There are many things that are exceptions that don't otherwise require feats or abilities to do; Prone Shooter, which was once a feat, instead became an option.

It's fine to say the rules don't intend TWF to be like that, but if you're going to exclude only one unintended means of the rules, it's doubly silly to allow another one that is practically identical in all respects, and that's because it creates a very unusual (and quite conflicting) rules precedent.

Who are you asking this question of?

I don't think BBT would care to defend it, as I don't think he agrees with it. And I don't think the PDT will wander in here and answer it for you.


I doubt that's the case. You can't use a Greatsword and Unarmed Strike in conjunction, if we follow the "uses more than one hand," but you can use Natural Attacks that don't use limbs that your attacks are using. So Gore, Bite, Tail, etc. And that's because Natural Weapons don't follow the same rules as Manufactured.

But unarmed strikes DO use the rules as manufactured. So you're trying to use more manufactured weapons than you have hands, so that doesn't work.


James Risner wrote:
graystone wrote:

special ruling on 'uses two hands' and the 'hands' required.

Now let me ask you this. The launching crossbow lacks both the 'uses two hands' and 'can be fired in one hand'. How do you fire it and how many hands and 'hands' does it use? How about a rope dart? A sling? (it doesn't say 'uses two hands') Tube arrow shooter? Atlatl?

Please elaborate on why you don't think using a Crossbow requires two hands.

Launching crossbow: Is a crossbow, so use standard crossbow use/loading/firing rules.

Rope Dart: like Meteor Hammer, two hands.

Sling: Same language as Crossbow.

Tube-Arrow Shooter: No specific language, so use general rule below.

UE p16 wrote:
Most projectile weapons require two hands to use

Atlatl: Same language as Crossbow.

Crossbow (light and heavy): It DOES use two hands but only needs 1 to attack with.

Launching crossbow: Lacks the "specific rule" that require two handed use OR any TWF rules. As such, how is two hands justified?

Rope Dart: Logically, yes it would. Rules wise? I don't see how you can justify this either.

Sling: Same language as Crossbow? No it doesn't. it says LOADING requires two hands but it does not say it uses two hands.

Tube-Arrow Shooter: It's a crossbow and uses the general rule?

Atlatl: same...

general rule: You cut out the most important part of the 'rule', "(see specific weapon descriptions)". So the actual description gives the rules and this is meaningless since it doesn't say ALL projectile weapons require two hands unless described otherwise...

Even if we assume the 'general rule' is true, how do we assume it's not talking about most needed two hands to reload? Use, wield and attack don't have to be the same thing. (though I'll admit sometimes they can)


BigDTBone wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

By the way, if anyone doubts the idea that these "unwritten rules" exist, you can find their confirmation here..

So, the balance is for there to be a maximum of (an effective) 1.5x modifier. Quite frankly, if that is the precedent, then why do we have feats like Double Slice or archetypes like Two-Handed Fighter, which break those precedents (and quite easily, I might add)? Those things should not even exist if the "rule" is "You don't get more than 1.5x modifier to damage ever."

If you're going to spout that 'there are exceptions,' why would using a Greatsword with Armor Spikes be any different of an exception than a feat or a class feature? There are many things that are exceptions that don't otherwise require feats or abilities to do; Prone Shooter, which was once a feat, instead became an option.

It's fine to say the rules don't intend TWF to be like that, but if you're going to exclude only one unintended means of the rules, it's doubly silly to allow another one that is practically identical in all respects, and that's because it creates a very unusual (and quite conflicting) rules precedent.

Who are you asking this question of?

I don't think BBT would care to defend it, as I don't think he agrees with it. And I don't think the PDT will wander in here and answer it for you.

Don't really matter who I'm asking the question to; I'm pointing out that disallowing it for one case while allowing it for another case creates a double-standard in comparison to the FAQ. We don't know if it's disallowed solely because weapons like Armor Spikes still require at least one hand (for the purposes of TWF) or not since a Greatsword already has two, if it's because you're trying to cheat the "unwritten rule" (which is actually cheated on with a few bits of content in the game), or both.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

By the way, when someone uses the "common sense" reasoning, you have to accept that this can differ from person, to person.
So, what would seem "common sense", for one individual, may not be the same for another.

By the way, I have accepted the ruling for a two-handed melee weapon(or one-handed melee weapon wielded in two hands) as making an off-hand attack unavailable, unless a weapon notes an exception.

I don't agree with it, but I accept it.

Now, the rather extensive extrapolation that a number of individuals have made, from one FAQ, supposedly covering a mass of other situation not noted in said FAQ, I cannot accept, without viable proof.

It is even worse, when such individuals say with absolute certainty, that no other extrapolation could be made.

To take it even farther, claiming that any other extrapolation, is the work of one with nefarious intent, or of substandard intelligence, is grossly offensive.

Even I, who feel strongly about it, at least accept that differing extrapolations could be made.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

By the way, if anyone doubts the idea that these "unwritten rules" exist, you can find their confirmation here..

So, the balance is for there to be a maximum of (an effective) 1.5x modifier. Quite frankly, if that is the precedent, then why do we have feats like Double Slice or archetypes like Two-Handed Fighter, which break those precedents (and quite easily, I might add)? Those things should not even exist if the "rule" is "You don't get more than 1.5x modifier to damage ever."

If you're going to spout that 'there are exceptions,' why would using a Greatsword with Armor Spikes be any different of an exception than a feat or a class feature? There are many things that are exceptions that don't otherwise require feats or abilities to do; Prone Shooter, which was once a feat, instead became an option.

It's fine to say the rules don't intend TWF to be like that, but if you're going to exclude only one unintended means of the rules, it's doubly silly to allow another one that is practically identical in all respects, and that's because it creates a very unusual (and quite conflicting) rules precedent.

Who are you asking this question of?

I don't think BBT would care to defend it, as I don't think he agrees with it. And I don't think the PDT will wander in here and answer it for you.

Don't really matter who I'm asking the question to; I'm pointing out that disallowing it for one case while allowing it for another case creates a double-standard in comparison to the FAQ. We don't know if it's disallowed solely because weapons like Armor Spikes still require at least one hand (for the purposes of TWF) or not since a Greatsword already has two, if it's because you're trying to cheat the "unwritten rule" (which is actually cheated on with a few bits of content in the game), or both.

Well, the double standard exists and its defended by a dev. I think it's silly (but because I think the FAQ is silly) but it's the rules. You think it's silly because they shouldn't be treated differently. That's a fine way to feel, but the letter of the rule is clear (in the it says two-handed weapon, not that the interaction between bows and TWF is clear because it isn't.)


But that's ultimately the crux of the FAQ; we don't know if it's solely because of the 1.5x modifier "rule" or because a weapon that doesn't (or is assumed not to) require a hand to use, is counted as requiring a hand to use for TWF, or a mixture of both subjects. And until that is clarified from a Dev, it'll just circle ad nauseum (like it is now).

So I'll put this to bed until the Devs decide to give us an answer. And if they don't and chalk it up to a "Let the players decide it for their games," then I shouldn't have to see or speak of this sort of thing again.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Unfortunately, "Let the players decide it for their games", doesn't fly in PFS.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Unfortunately, "Let the players decide it for their games", doesn't fly in PFS.

Or causes a lot of arguments in/about PFS, both at the table and on these boards.

This is why we're unlikely to get a "let the group choose" answer... if they give one at all. Which essentially is letting the GM decide, I suppose...


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Unfortunately, "Let the players GM decide it for their games", doesn't flies in PFS.

Fixed it.

And if the PFS GM don't know what to do, then quite frankly PFS is in some trouble.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Unfortunately, "Let the players GM decide it for their games", doesn't flies in PFS.

Fixed it.

And if the PFS GM don't know what to do, then quite frankly PFS is in some trouble.

That leads to extreme table variation.

Still, not a good thing.


Don't know if this helps, but technically, a longbow is pretty much held in your off hand anyway. I mean I'm right handed, but when I shoot the only reason the bow isn't in my right hand is it's a bit easier to pull back the weight with my right hand. Now for your question, do you literally mean pull the string back with your off hand? Cause if so then yes, you get the penalties for using an off hand weapon, at least, that's how I'd rule it.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

All PCs are considered Ambidextrous.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Clarify...

Crossbows... One handed at a -2.

Bows... uses both hands.

Two Handed weapon... uses both hands.

All I wanted to point out with the previous posts. With a bow, your using that second hand to draw arrows and shoot them as the "Main" hand aims and steadies the bow.

I mean, there has been another thread saying one could hold a two handed (or a bow, in this case) in one hand so the other could draw a potion, catch an arrow ("free" hand for feat), or draw a Melee (One handed/Light) weapon for that approaching enemy. The character simply could not attack with it unless he uses both hands once again to wield the weapon instead of carry it.

This FAQ means that TWF with a Two handed weapon (or a Bow) is still not able to be done with gauntlets and the like. A Monk can still flurry while holding a Bow (he has no off hand).

I am also a bit confused as to why this would matter with Ranged weapons, as most of the time there are not enemies near the character when using the Bow.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

That is still, an extrapolation.

101 to 150 of 352 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Off Hand Longbows All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.