Brawlers can flurry with a shield in their hands, I don't see why you would disallow 2WF since they are basically the same thing.
BTW if you want to TWF with a shield I suggest go with Improved unarmed strike and kick asses.
Paizo already ruled it does not work.Really? Where?
Nowhere. He's talking about 2H + Armor Spikes that is an entirely different scenario.
The only common aspect is the fact that hand of effort and physical hand do not always coincide but that situation is the opposite of this one for this concept.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually have to wonder if he's even coming back to this thread at this point.
Paizo already ruled it does not work.Really? Where?Nowhere. He's talking about 2H + Armor Spikes that is an entirely different scenario.
The only common aspect is the fact that hand of effort and physical hand do not always coincide but that situation is the opposite of this one for this concept.
No, he wasn't. To put it in context with the sentences that came both before and after it:
What you are attempting to do is called 'three-hand fighting'.
Paizo already ruled it does not work.
A shield occupies a 'hand'.
Pretty sure he was talking about shields since he said "shield". Hence my question.
Paizo already ruled it does not work.Really? Where?Nowhere. He's talking about 2H + Armor Spikes that is an entirely different scenario.
The only common aspect is the fact that hand of effort and physical hand do not always coincide but that situation is the opposite of this one for this concept.
No, he wasn't. To put it in context with the sentences that came both before and after it:
Pretty sure he was talking about shields since he said "shield". Hence my question.What you are attempting to do is called 'three-hand fighting'.
Paizo already ruled it does not work.
A shield occupies a 'hand'.
He was clearly reaching to conclusion from that thread regardless.
Now I'm going to make a nice interpretation of what works for raw in limbed combat.
Paizo already ruled it does not work.Really? Where?Nowhere. He's talking about 2H + Armor Spikes that is an entirely different scenario.
The only common aspect is the fact that hand of effort and physical hand do not always coincide but that situation is the opposite of this one for this concept.
No, he wasn't. To put it in context with the sentences that came both before and after it:
Pretty sure he was talking about shields since he said "shield". Hence my question.What you are attempting to do is called 'three-hand fighting'.
Paizo already ruled it does not work.
A shield occupies a 'hand'.
Yeah, he's trying to add shields into that FAQ and they are talking about different things. If he wasn't, he'd never have brought up "'three-hand fighting'" as that's the only way you can come to that conclusion. The fact is the hand that a shield requires isn't the same hand of effort the FAQ talks about.
Well, I suppose there is no reason to argue what another person meant with other people as no one really knows. However, I did not reach the same conclusion as you two. To me, it sounded an awful lot like he was stating that Paizo had ruled on shields before.
Now, truth be told, I had entirely expected him to backpedal to this applying directly to the two-handed sword and armor spikes FAQ question but indirectly to shields as well. But then I would fully expect someone (myself as a possibility) to offer the rebuttal that the FAQ said nothing regarding shields.
But he didn't say that. He referenced "three-hand fighting" in conjunction with shields occupying a hand. I honestly do not think his words need any more interpretation than what is written right there.
...but then I am talking on a board full of people who love to argue over the intent of rules as written so I suppose I should know better. ;)
Metaphorical Hands don't matter. Bucklers don't matter. "Hands of effort" don't matter.
Did you attack with the shield?
No?
THEN YOU MAINTAIN THE SHIELD BONUS TO AC!
That's it.
Done.
Absolute RAW, RAI, and super easy to understand.
How do you determine that it was the intention of the writers for armor spikes to be able to be used along with a shield for two-weapon fighting? I haven't seen any examples, comments from the writers, or sample characters using this so I have a hard time seeing how that works.
That said, yes, it looks like the rules as they are written are clear. This seems more like a munchkin loophole than an explicit intention of how it's meant to work. Otherwise, basically every two-weapon fighter ever created would use them because this is a huge boost in power to a two-weapon fighter.
Metaphorical Hands don't matter. Bucklers don't matter. "Hands of effort" don't matter.
Did you attack with the shield?
No?
THEN YOU MAINTAIN THE SHIELD BONUS TO AC!
That's it.
Done.
Absolute RAW, RAI, and super easy to understand.
How do you determine that it was the intention of the writers for armor spikes to be able to be used along with a shield for two-weapon fighting? I haven't seen any examples, comments from the writers, or sample characters using this so I have a hard time seeing how that works.
That said, yes, it looks like the rules as they are written are clear. This seems more like a munchkin loophole than an explicit intention of how it's meant to work. Otherwise, basically every two-weapon fighter ever created would use them because this is a huge boost in power to a two-weapon fighter.
Currently one of the "best" two-weapon fighting styles is to use 2 shields as your weapons.
and it's not really that good as it's making you have 2 different kinds of weapons for your 2WF which is often seen as worse than 2 of the same kind of weapon. Also it's locking you into a pretty sub-optimal secondary weapon, poor damage die with poor crit.
Komodo, so you are saying flurry requires all available hands.
Then you would agree that you cannot flurry while grappled, since grappled prevents you from using one of your hands? Or would you agree that since you can flurry with as many or as few hands as you want, you can flurry and not use the hand that is occupied wielding a shield?
A brawler *may* two weapon fight when flurrying, but they need not do so. and you cannot two weapon fight and wield a shield, so clearly you are not doing that.
brawlers flurry wrote:When doing so, a brawler has the Two-Weapon Fighting feat
You *have* the feat, you are not automatically using it.
I thought I pointed out that the issue was not about physical hands but metaphysical hands. That is where all the handedness problems come from.
Brawlers use TWF when they flurry, otherwise, they do not gain any additional attacks. It is worded completely differently than the Monk's Flurry. Yes, Brawlers can use one hand to perform the flurry. But, similar to the Armor Spikes FAQ, they must use their "off-hand" action economy, even though they are not using a second hand.
Again, the issue comes down to the confusion (ruled in a FAQ but never mentioned anywhere in the CRB) that using a metaphysical "off-hand" such as Armor Spikes is not possible when your actual hands are used in other attacks, specifically mentioned in Two Handed Fighting
So, it appears some people feel that using that "off-hand" action economy would limit the ability to gain a shield's AC bonus.
I CAN"T TELL WHAT WAS WRITTEN BY WHOM!
edit: that's better.
What are you talking about?
It looks fine to me.
[Post edit, of course]
It doesn't seem very munchkiny to me. It's nice, sure, but it's not really the best way to do TWF.
Well, I suppose there is no reason to argue what another person meant with other people as no one really knows. However, I did not reach the same conclusion as you two. To me, it sounded an awful lot like he was stating that Paizo had ruled on shields before.
Now, truth be told, I had entirely expected him to backpedal to this applying directly to the two-handed sword and armor spikes FAQ question but indirectly to shields as well. But then I would fully expect someone (myself as a possibility) to offer the rebuttal that the FAQ said nothing regarding shields.
But he didn't say that. He referenced "three-hand fighting" in conjunction with shields occupying a hand. I honestly do not think his words need any more interpretation than what is written right there.
...but then I am talking on a board full of people who love to argue over the intent of rules as written so I suppose I should know better. ;)
With 'three hand combat' there are only two ways of looking at it. 3 physical hands or 3 hands of effort. As we're talking about two items that require physical hands and one that doesn't, we don't run into a physical hand issue. Therefor, we HAVE to assume it's a hands of effort issue, which is only brought up in the 'two-handed sword and armor spikes FAQ'.
Nothing stops two weapon fighting with a boulder helmet and armor spikes using no physical hands. Items like Scizore and shields require the items to be equipped and take a physical hand but take up no hands of effort unless you attack with them. So someone holding a lantern, an equipped shield, armor spikes and a boulder helmet engaging in two weapon fighting with the helmet and spikes comes up with two physical hands used and two hands of effort used.
So again, "Yeah, he's trying to add shields into that FAQ and they are talking about different things."
Just remember that unarmed strikes do not necessarily require fists
It doesn't seem very munchkiny to me. It's nice, sure, but it's not really the best way to do TWF.
Armor Spikes can't get all the neat offensive enhancements that shields can, for instance, nor can the Shield Mastery feat be applied to them to ignore TWF penalties and use armor enhancements for attacks. At the same time, as someone else pointed out, they're poor weapons with mediocre stats, their only benefit being that they are essentially always equipped and don't need to be held.
Dwarven Boulder Helmet does the same thing, basically.
Dwarves treat them as martial weapons too, so any Dwarven Fighter, can wear one, and two-weapon fight with an Axe, and a Helmet, whilst having a shield providing defense.
What rocks with dwarves is their racial weapons are awesome. Boulder helmet + long axe/hammer is a sweet reach + close range combo that requires no feats for them. They could even snag some armor spikes and fight at reach and if someone closes in, start two weapon fighting with the helmet and spikes while using the long axe/hammer for AoO.
Just remember that unarmed strikes do not necessarily require fists
But they require a 'hand'.
The buckler clearly shows that if you dedicate your shield hand to attacking with a weapon, you don't get the Shield AC. The 'hand' is being used. That is true if it is a UA or a weapon. So, in other words, if you want to use UA and kick someone with your 'off-hand' while wearing a buckler, you LOSE SHIELD AC, AND you take the Buckler's penalty to your To Hit roll.
It doesn't matter if you headbutt, elbow smash, drop roll or knee him, you still lose the shield AC!
This is particularly true because YOU CANNOT ATTACK WITH A BUCKLER.
The Improved Shield Bash clearly indicates that if you want to keep your shield AC when Bashing, you must take this feat. Otherwise, attacking with a shield and thus using that 'hand', takes away your Shield AC.
What you are attempting to do is go around the rules by declaring that "I won't attack with my physical shield arm, so I get to keep the shield AC!"
No.
You use that metaphorical 'hand' whether you are actually using the hand or something else...such as armor spikes or kicking them. There's no difference between attacking with a weapon in the hand using a buckler and attacking with anything else for purposes of the off-hand usage.
You don't get 'three hands'. It's just that simple.
This armor spikes/UA + 2h argument is VERY old...ten years or more. It all centered on what a 'hand' meant, and PF has been nice enough to define it.
Likewise, the effort to get Shield AC and keep all your TWF or 2H benefits is very old, because it's a substantial bonus.
Improved Buckler Defense was considered total cheese for archers and 2h'ers when it came out. It still took a feat to keep shield AC when using those attack styles.
Seriously, people, there's TWF feats and class abilities that are totally based around the ability to get a +1 or +2 shield benefit when using 2 weapons. If it worked the way you say it does, there would simply be no need for those things!
You've always had to devote a 'hand' to Shield AC without a proper feat saying you get to keep it. It's just the way it is. That's not an exception, that's the standard. Just like holding onto a shield doesn't mean you automatically get the Shield AC...you actually have to be USING it.
==Aelryinth
Just remember that unarmed strikes do not necessarily require fistsBut they require a 'hand'.
The buckler clearly shows that if you dedicate your shield hand to attacking with a weapon, you don't get the Shield AC. The 'hand' is being used. That is true if it is a UA or a weapon. So, in other words, if you want to use UA and kick someone with your 'off-hand' while wearing a buckler, you LOSE SHIELD AC, AND you take the Buckler's penalty to your To Hit roll.
It doesn't matter if you headbutt, elbow smash, drop roll or knee him, you still lose the shield AC!This is particularly true because YOU CANNOT ATTACK WITH A BUCKLER.
The Improved Shield Bash clearly indicates that if you want to keep your shield AC when Bashing, you must take this feat. Otherwise, attacking with a shield and thus using that 'hand', takes away your Shield AC.
What you are attempting to do is go around the rules by declaring that "I won't attack with my physical shield arm, so I get to keep the shield AC!"
No.
You use that metaphorical 'hand' whether you are actually using the hand or something else...such as armor spikes or kicking them. There's no difference between attacking with a weapon in the hand using a buckler and attacking with anything else for purposes of the off-hand usage.
You don't get 'three hands'. It's just that simple.
This armor spikes/UA + 2h argument is VERY old...ten years or more. It all centered on what a 'hand' meant, and PF has been nice enough to define it.
Likewise, the effort to get Shield AC and keep all your TWF or 2H benefits is very old, because it's a substantial bonus.
Improved Buckler Defense was considered total cheese for archers and 2h'ers when it came out. It still took a feat to keep shield AC when using those attack styles.
Seriously, people, there's TWF feats and class abilities that are totally based around the ability to get a +1 or +2 shield benefit when using 2 weapons. If it worked the way you say it does, there would simply be...
can you quote the rule saying it takes a metaphorical hand to use a shield? Or the rule saying that holding onto a shield doesn't mean you automatically get the Shield AC.
I beg you Aelryinth pleas stop with this buckler b%!#&%*~.
The buckler is an egregious inverse in the shield rules as it requires an hand of effort but not a physical hand in contrast with the "normal" shields that require a physical hand but not an hand of effort.
Unarmed strike require an hand of effort but not an actual physical hand.
For all I care I can dropkick people, normal shield just require the physical hand.
YOu Just bashed with a shield. Do you get the Shield AC? You're still holding onto it. - (See that, right in the rules. You switched from defending with the shield to using it as a weapon. It's using the same 'hand'.)
No, you don't. If the 'hand' is in use for something else, you don't get it.
Can YOU quote to me the rule that says Shields are an exception to the 'hand' rules, as defined by the FAQ, so that physical 'hand' is more important then metaphorical hand? Because that's what you're trying to argue, and it's already been shot down by the FAQ.
Can you tell me why you'd need a feat or class ability granting a shield AC when TWF if it automatically applied just by taking UA or using armor spikes?
Can you tell me where UA and Armor spikes are exceptions to and ignore the TWF rules and restrictions?
Can you tell me why there'd be a difference in the rules for primary hand and off-hand for shields? Because I hereby declare that all my attacks are UA with the feet or headbashing, and I keep my shield AC, if that's not true.
Brawlers can attack with shields just fine with their flurries, they still have to blow a feat to keep the AC.
You're absolutely trying to argue that you can get all your attacks and keep your shield AC without any sacrifice, and that's totally not the case.
==Aelryinth
I beg you Aelryinth pleas stop with this buckler b%~!$&&#.
The buckler is an egregious inverse in the shield rules as it requires an hand of effort but not a physical hand in contrast with the "normal" shields that require a physical hand but not an hand of effort.
Unarmed strike require an hand of effort but not an actual physical hand.
For all I care I can dropkick people, normal shield just require the physical hand.
You're making NO SENSE.
The buckler is the lightest and easiest to use shield.
You're arguing that it's MORE RESTRICTIVE then a larger, heavier shield. Because it's lighter and smaller.
Which is the exact opposite. With a buckler, you can shift to a better weapon and back again. With a shield, you've no choice in the matter. That 'hand' you're using to shield bash with is the same 'hand' you're using to shortsword while wearing a buckler with is the same 'hand' you're using to UA with.
There's NO difference between them.
Quit spinning up differences out of nothing just because you want to keep your SHield AC and get all your TWF attacks. Three-handedness is pure munchkinism.
If you want to devote a Hand to UA and dropkick people while using a shield, that's fine.
But as soon as you go TWF, you're ignoring your shield in favor of offense. And that applies if its a buckler or a normal shield. There's no rule anywhere that says UA or Armor SPikes are exceptions that let you keep your AC when TWF.
NONE.
Spinning that justification up out of nowhere is just plain WRONG.
If you want to find the rule that says, "Unlike all other weapons and 2H Weapons, because UA and Armor Spikes don't require the physical off-hand, you get to keep your Shield AC when attacking with them", I'll instantly concede.
But they aren't, they are treated just like all other weapons, they use up the hand, and you don't get to keep the shield AC.
==Aelryinth
No, 959.
You need to provide a link that says Armor spikes are UA are exceptions to all other weapons in that they allow you to keep your SHield AC while using off-hand attacks.
There's exactly ONE source that lets you do that, and it takes a feat...Improved Shield Bash.
If it's not clearly stated as an exception, then it doesn't work.
UA and Armor spikes have no such language as the feat. They are not exceptions.
You attack with that 'off-hand', you lose the AC. It's that simple.
And I'll backpedal on the buckler affecting a kick if you swap...but it would still affect the punch. It's just a cheesy way of getting around the penalty, not that anyone using a buckler isn't using Mithril for -0 anyways...
==Aelryinth
YOu Just bashed with a shield. Do you get the Shield AC? You're still holding onto it. - (See that, right in the rules. You switched from defending with the shield to using it as a weapon. It's using the same 'hand'.)
That's because the rules for shield bash remove the AC, nothing about having used the same 'hand'. But if I use the shield hand to "Lay on hands" or to "hold my holy item" I still get the AC because I have the shield. So shield bashing is an exception to the shield AC. If you wanted to prove me wrong I feel you'd need to show you'd lose the AC if you used that hand to "Lay on hands" or to "hold my holy item" for channel energy.
No, you don't. If the 'hand' is in use for something else, you don't get it.
If you wanted to prove me wrong I feel you'd need to show you'd lose the AC if you used that hand to "Lay on hands" or to "hold my holy item" for channel energy.
Can YOU quote to me the rule that says Shields are an exception to the 'hand' rules, as defined by the FAQ, so that physical 'hand' is more important then metaphorical hand? Because that's what you're trying to argue, and it's already been shot down by the FAQ.
What are you even talking about? A shield uses and actual hand, but not a 'hand' otherwise an alchemist with three hands couldn't use a shield and attack with a greatsword because a great sword uses two 'hands' and two hands, and the alchemist doesn't gain any 'hands' but does have an extra hand, so shields require a hand but not a 'hand'
Can you tell me why you'd need a feat or class ability granting a shield AC when TWF if it automatically applied just by taking UA or using armor spikes?
It only applies if you have a shield. Those feats and class abilities are giving you a shield bonus without needing an actual shield. As stated before, armor spikes and UA aren't often the best choices for 2WF so those give you the option to use better weapons and still get a shield bonus.
Can you tell me where UA and Armor spikes are exceptions to and ignore the TWF rules and restrictions?
They don't, we see that in the Armor spikes and greatsword FAQ, but I don't know why you feel they are needing to be an exception for something. Could you elaborate on what exception you feel they need?
Can you tell me why there'd be a difference in the rules for primary hand and off-hand for shields? Because I hereby declare that all my attacks are UA with the feet or headbashing, and I keep my shield AC, if that's not true.
I'm sorry I'm not understanding what you're trying to get at here. There's not a difference for primary hand and off-hand for shields as far as I'm aware. You're good to go with the feet and headbashing with shield AC, but I don't understand what you feel isn't true.
Brawlers can attack with shields just fine with their flurries, they still have to blow a feat to keep the AC.
yep, because of the specific rule of the shield bash overriding the normal rule.
You're absolutely trying to argue that you can get all your attacks and keep your shield AC without any sacrifice, and that's totally not the case.==Aelryinth
yes, because it is the case.
No, 959.
You need to provide a link that says Armor spikes are UA are exceptions to all other weapons in that they allow you to keep your SHield AC while using off-hand attacks.
No there's the boot blade and the boulder helmet and the beard that also do it since they don't use a hand either to attack with. Nothing in the rule say you lose your shield AC when you 2WF, the only rule to lose your shield AC is if you bash with the shield.
There's exactly ONE source that lets you do that, and it takes a feat...Improved Shield Bash.
No this lets you attack with a shield and keep it's AC, regardless if you are 2WF or only attacking with your shield
If it's not clearly stated as an exception, then it doesn't work.
An exception to what? You need to prove a rule that you feel there needs to be an exception for.
UA and Armor spikes have no such language as the feat. They are not exceptions.
Because there nothing to have an exception for. Did you shield bash? NO, do you have a shield equiped? YES, good you have shield AC.
You attack with that 'off-hand', you lose the AC. It's that simple.
I'm not attacking with the shield hand, so I don't lose AC.
And I'll backpedal on the buckler affecting a kick if you swap...but it would still affect the punch. It's just a cheesy way of getting around the penalty, not that anyone using a buckler isn't using Mithril for -0 anyways...==Aelryinth
|
Guys, you aren't going to win this arguement.
There is a big gapping hole in the middle of the Pathfinder rule set, dating back probably to 3.5 or earlier, regarding what happens when "off-hand" strikes are made with non-hands and what you can do with your other hand in that situation.
Short of a blog level FAQ on this topic, no one is going to change their mind, and none of you can show the rules because there aren't any, so half of you keep throwing around stuff that isn't in the rule book, like metaphorical hands of effort, and the other half keep throwing around "well the rules don's say I can't." Neither is a convincing argument.
FAQ and move on.
I agree with Aelryinth.
This whole thing looks like an exploit to me.
|
|
I'll ask Nefreet next time I run into him.
I don't not believe you, I just haven't seen it, and everyone on this thread is making really broad generalizations from remembered threads they don't have the link to and lack rules and FAQs that are marginally relevant. So I cannot assess whether I agree with your reading of their clarification if you can't link me to their clarification.
I am not arguing the RAW. Aelryinth has convinced me and his stated understanding is precisely the same as my own. If he cannot convince you then I cannot.
I am arguing the RAI.
The intent here is pretty clear.
And it is being ignored in favor of exploiting the RAW.
So...this whole thing looks and smells like an exploit to me.
FAQ'd.
Shields don't require a "hand of effort," weapons do.
You lose the AC bonus of a buckler if you use a weapon in that hand because you have used that physical arm. Similar to being unable to use a manufactured weapon and natural weapon with the same arm.
The amount of effort required to use weapons is listed here and in the CRB pg 141. There is no similar language regarding shields that I am aware of.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't have the link handy. Nefreet used to have it on his profile...I am not motivated to find it.
I'll ask Nefreet next time I run into him.
Yay for feeling included!
THIS was a 388 post thread about Vestigial Arms that eventually got locked because SKR was trying to explain the whole "handedness" issue and wasn't getting anywhere.
I'll paraphrase that discussion, and others that have taken place before and since:
- A "Normal" character is something bipedal, with a head, 2 arms, and 2 legs.
- The majority of the Pathfinder's rules were written assuming "Normal" characters.
- Plenty of non-Normal exceptions exist, such as the Kasatha, and their rules have never truly been defined anywhere.
- Normal characters have two "hands" of utility to work with when it comes to attacking with weapons only.
- The classic example is the Monk holding a 500lb barrel. Even though the Monk's arms (or hands) are occupied, the Monk still has the capacity to Kick twice (using two "hands" worth of utility to do so).
- Even an Alchemist with 3 arms can still hold a shield in one hand, and use the other two hands to swing a Greatsword, because only two "hands" worth of utility are being used for weapon attacks.
- A character with Boulder Helmet and Armor Spikes, whose hands are tied behind their back, could still use Two-Weapon Fighting with their available weapons, and not suffer any additonal penalties beyond TWF.
These "rules" are unwritten only because the game Designers figured they were "common sense", but we all know that common sense is rarely common.
So, Aelryinth, I hate to break it to you, but in this debate you would be incorrect. A character can absolutely protect themself with a shield (of any type), and still use two "hands" worth of utility to attack with other weapons.
In addition to the normal rules that you only lose the Shield bonus to AC when you bash with it.
EDIT: And, to confound the issue even further, those two "hands" of utility work independently of any natural attacks a creature may have, making a Tengu's Kick/Kick/Claw/Claw/Bite routine legal (since none of those limbs are being used for the same attack).
|
|
Did the thread clarify whether it takes a hands worth of effort to get the benefits of a shield? Because it seems like it would. (People have this view that the shield just sits there, but unless we are talking about a tower shield, you actually have to move it a lot for it to do any good.)
My read on that is you get two hands worth of "wielding." And to get the benefit of your shield, you have to be wielding it. That said, it is a free action to switch which hands are wielding what, So the alchemist could two weapon fight (not getting the benefit of his shield during the attack) and then switch "hands" and wield one sword and one shield while it is everyone else's turn.
For practical purposes the same, but vulnerable to a readied action to hit him when he takes his shield offline.
Also, since it is SKR, who famously says he is not a rules guy, and since, as you say, the thread got locked because he couldn't make his position clear, I stand by my assertion that the development team has never put forward a clear, concise, complete explanation of what the hands can be doing when other parts are making attacks.
|
|
Did the thread clarify whether it takes a hands worth of effort to get the benefits of a shield? Because it seems like it would. (People have this view that the shield just sits there, but unless we are talking about a tower shield, you actually have to move it a lot for it to do any good.)
My read on that is you get two hands worth of "wielding." And to get the benefit of your shield, you have to be wielding it. That said, it is a free action to switch which hands are wielding what, So the alchemist could two weapon fight (not getting the benefit of his shield during the attack) and then switch "hands" and wield one sword and one shield while it is everyone else's turn.
For practical purposes the same, but vulnerable to a readied action to hit him when he takes his shield offline.
Also, since it is SKR, who famously says he is not a rules guy, and since, as you say, the thread got locked because he couldn't make his position clear, I stand by my assertion that the development team has never put forward a clear, concise, complete explanation of what the hands can be doing when other parts are making attacks.
SKR was the one who stated that a 3-armed Alchemist using Greatsword/Shield wasn't intended when the Vestigial Arms Discovery was written, but that it works.
"Hands of Effort", "Handedness", "Hands of Utility", whatever you want to call it, only applies to making weapon attacks. Wearing a shield doesn't influence that at all.
|
|
Oh, right. Thanks brain fry. I got the two of them mixed up.
Okay, I have now read every one of SKRs posts in that thread. I want those 15 minutes of my life back.
Among them:
He clarifies that Vestigal arms, as written, does allow you to two weapon fight while wielding a shield, but it wasn't intended to. (Which seems to imply that you can't two weapon fight while wielding a shield without vestigle arms.)
He does not use "handedness" or "hands worth of effort." He quotes the rules. You may make one weapon attack (plus iteratives), or if using a light or two handed weapon you can make a second attack.
He consistently fails to explain his point in language clear enough that the people in the thread understand it, and as a result they keep coming back to him with the same wrong understanding.
And in the end he throws his hands in the air and says "look, if you are too dumb to understand me, you should just play a different character that doesn't take someone smart to play it."
Yeah. I stand by my earlier assertion. We need a Blog FAQ clarification, on the order of the recent light vs dark Blog FAQ.
|
|
SKR was the one who stated that a 3-armed Alchemist using Greatsword/Shield wasn't intended when the Vestigial Arms Discovery was written, but that it works."Hands of Effort", "Handedness", "Hands of Utility", whatever you want to call it, only applies to making weapon attacks. Wearing a shield doesn't influence that at all.
Recently, we have seen a shift from the design team that if an ability is written in such a way that it allows something it was not intended, then they errata it to work the way it was meant to work.
In light of that, I take his "It wasn't intended to do that, but the way it is written it works" to be on an order with Courageous Weapon, where the design team came back and said "look, it wasn't intended to do that. Here is what it is supposed to do."
To be clear, I think it's somewhat reasonable for a GM to rule that a shield-wielder can't get a second attack via TWF by any means. It closes down the head-butt or kick options, which I think are cool thematic combat options, but it's within the GM's prerogative.
What is crystal clear to me is that the verbiage in the written rules doesn't come anywhere close to describing such a ruling.
A rewrite of the CRB with TWF explained in terms of hands and such might clarify the designer's intentions.
SKR was the one who stated that a 3-armed Alchemist using Greatsword/Shield wasn't intended when the Vestigial Arms Discovery was written, but that it works."Hands of Effort", "Handedness", "Hands of Utility", whatever you want to call it, only applies to making weapon attacks. Wearing a shield doesn't influence that at all.
Recently, we have seen a shift from the design team that if an ability is written in such a way that it allows something it was not intended, then they errata it to work the way it was meant to work.
In light of that, I take his "It wasn't intended to do that, but the way it is written it works" to be on an order with Courageous Weapon, where the design team came back and said "look, it wasn't intended to do that. Here is what it is supposed to do."
That's not the same thing. Might they come back and say "Errata: here's how it actually works"? Sure. But I wouldn't go around turning comments like that into unofficial retroactive errata.
