TWF w / Weapon and Armor Spikes while wielding a Shield


Rules Questions

101 to 150 of 494 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

I was actually referring to a different thread. It was the one where Nefreet and I had to deal with Jiggy not understanding how it worked. I thought a dev responded to that one, but I may have been incorrect. EDIT: Or maybe we found a set of dev responses that made it clear. Memory is a little fuzzy.

FLite wrote:


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.)

It doesn't imply that at all because he was talking about a two-handed weapon and a shield. You can't wield a two handed weapon and a shield on a normal character.

RAW is 100% unequivocally clear: I only lose my shield bonus if I attack with the shield.

There is nothing anywhere else in the rules that contradicts or countermands that with regard to off-hand attacks. There's nothing that even implies that in RAW.

Quote:
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.

I thought the same thing at first, but it simply isn't in the rules or the FAQ. There is no attack cost to donning a shield or even wielding one.

Quote:
My read on that is you get two hands worth of "wielding."

That's 100% correct. And it has absolutely nothing to do with off-hand attacks.

Quote:
And to get the benefit of your shield, you have to be wielding it.

Not correct. There is no technical need to "wield" a shield if you have "donned" a shield. Light Shield and Heavy Shield armor entries specifically address what you can do with the hand on the arm of the shield. But once again, that's completely independent of Primary/Off-hand attack mechanics.

Based on your responses, you seem to be combining rules that regard "wielding" weapons and attacking with weapons. That's not completely crazy because both discussions have often found devs referring to "hands" when talking about wielding and attacking. But the two concepts function independently of one another.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

What is worse, is there are multiple uses of the word wield they each have different meanings and it isn't always clear which one the rule in question is referring. I vaguely remember a SKR post saying he wished this was more clear and it is too late to fix it.

Grand Lodge

I think that is the difference between SKR and the current design team.

The current team is willing to take the time to fix this stuff, even if it is just by blogging


1 person marked this as a favorite.
FLite wrote:


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.)

In truth, it mandates the exact opposite. It unequivocally shows that a character can use use their Primary/Off-Hand attack and still get a shield benefit because the shield is donned.

Let's walk through some logic:

1. Aelry states you only get two "hands" worth of attack. The FAQ confirms that. Despite having three physical hands, the Alchemist only gets the two-handed attack and nothing else. No separate off-hand attack.

2. The Alchemist gets the shield benefit because he has donned the shield. That is the only way to get a shield bonus to AC, it has to be donned.

3. I do not need a physical hand to make an Off-hand attack.

If we put these all together, we are left with the inevitable conclusion that donning a shield:

a) does not use up either the Primary or Off-hand attack;

b) only requires a physical hand; and

c) does not stop me from making an Off-hand attack.

Again, the vestigial limbs changes nothing about a characters Primary/Off-hand attack economy. It simply allows you to carry/don/wield another weapon. Since the 3 armed Alchemist has no more attacks than a 2 armed alchemist, logic mandates that donning a shield does not use up any "hands of attack." If it did, the 3 armed alchemist would not get the shield bonus, regardless of how many physical arms it had that were carrying shields.

Think about that for a couple of minutes.

Grand Lodge

N N 959 wrote:


1. Aelry states you only get two "hands" worth of attack. The FAQ confirms that. Despite having three physical hands, the Alchemist only gets the two-handed attack and nothing else. No separate off-hand attack.

2. The Alchemist gets the shield benefit because he has donned the shield. That is the only way to get a shield bonus to AC, it has to be donned.

Except SKR implies that it wasn't supposed to work that way, and he is only willing to let it work because he is unwilling to change a published rule.

In otherwords, RAI it doesn't work. I mean, it is the very definition of RAI, he literally says "We didn't intend that"

Also, you have not said anything new in the last several posts. I understood everything you said the first time you said it. I still disagree with you. Restating it will not change my disagreement with you. Telling me to think about it will not change my disagreeing with you, and implies that I am an idiot who is reading your posts without comprehending them.


1. Regardless off what he "intended" he acknowledges that this is within the rules. So RAI is irrelevant because he acknowledges what is allowed per the rules.

2. What exactly do you think he was referring to as not intended? My interpretation of his responses is that he did not intend for vestigial arms to be used in attacks. I was given the impression that the vestigial arms were not meant to "wield" weapons or be used for attacks. I believe their purpose was to hold things like potions or scrolls or carry items and save some action economy. But regardless, vestigial arms can wield weapons and attack with them.

None of that changes our discussion because in neither interpretation does he suggest that donning a shield prevents an off-hand attack with something else. What he intended as mechanical/functional options for vestigial arms does not speak to what happens to my Off-hand attack when donning a shield.


FLite wrote:
Telling me to think about it will not change my disagreeing with you, and implies that I am an idiot who is reading your posts without comprehending them.

When you make the statement that the vestigial arms posts suggest the exact opposite of what they do, then yes, I don't think you're comprehending what is being written.


FLite wrote:

I think that is the difference between SKR and the current design team.

The current team is willing to take the time to fix this stuff, even if it is just by blogging

Eh, from what he's said on the matter since leaving Paizo it wasn't so much a matter of his policies as Paizo's in general. I mean, he's mentioned more than once that there were lots of rules her personally disliked and wanted changed, but he had to stick by the company line. It's not like a Paizo employee can publicly say "You're right, this particular rule is stupid and ought to be changed."

It's similar to how they almost never issue errata until they've sold out all the books. No company likes acknowledging flaws in its products.


Aelryinth wrote:
-cut-

You're wrong.

The difference is that the buckler is strapped to the forearm while the other shields need to be held with the hand.

Thus the buckler does not need the physical hand to be used but doesn't confer the AC bonus when the associated hand of effort is employed.
The shield instead occupy the physical hand like any item held (not wielded) but not necessarily uses the hand of effort, especially when not bashing.


Anyway crying cheese for TWF-ing while also carrying a shield is an exaggeration.

It's not rocket science doing it already with "intended" options. With a feat I can already bash faces without losing my AC and if I go with the chain I get a +5 secondary weapon for half of the price. Or I have to enchant the spikes of a shield separately and thus not really different than armor spikes.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

FLite wrote:

I think that is the difference between SKR and the current design team.

The current team is willing to take the time to fix this stuff, even if it is just by blogging

If I remember correctly, the new weekly FAQ were the mission of Mark when he came on board after SKR left.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Oh dear god, why?

The silly unwritten rules are completely irrelevant to this.

Did you attack with the shield?

No.

Then you maintain the shield bonus to AC.

Did you attack with a weapon in the hand on the same arm as the Buckler?

No.

Then you maintain the shield bonus to AC.

There is no "exploit" here. That's just an inflammatory, silly, illogical, and useless conclusion.

You know dang well it's just that easy.

I refuse to believe that one could read the rules, and truly believe it is supposed to work, in another, completely contradictory, and needlessly complicated way.


Totally agree with BBT and Nefreet before him. While typically I find Aelryinth a respectable upstanding guy who looks for balance within the rules I think he is way off base on this one.

Aelryinth seems to be stating his opinion as fact without posting rules that back him up. He has claimed repeatedly that rules exist in some phantom posts by Devs that no one remembers seeing. The ones I remember are the ones that Nefreet linked and seem completely contradictory to what he is stating. And as far as the FAQ goes it doesn't reference what is being discussed here at all.

It honestly is as simple as BBT just spelled it out.


I'm (unsurprisingly) with Aelryinth on this, I will concede I'm wrong and apologise if shown a rule that allows it*.
Shield, long sword and boot blade I'd allow albeit ungraciously. But how can wielding a shield not take up a hand of whatever provenance? It makes no sense, having your cake and eating it and all that.

*cue pantomime argument


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

What makes shield, long sword, and boot blade different from... whatever example you'd disallow?


Boot Blade specifically says it takes no "hands" to wield and so works with TWF with a 2H weapon, which is why I say begrudgingly as I think it's just splat book rubbish.


CountofUndolpho wrote:
But how can wielding a shield not take up a hand of whatever provenance? It makes no sense, having your cake and eating it and all that.

Let me ask you this.

1) you say wielding a shield "take[s] up a hand of whatever provenance".
2) Assuming that's true, how can you shield bash with it as you've already used up that hand getting the AC?
3) the hand (of effort) HAS to be free if a bash is still an option. That hand (of effort) therefor is still free and available for any other eligible attack.

On your answer to caps, the entire debate revolves around weapons that don't take a physical hand. Armor spikes, boulder helmets, blade boots, sea knives, beards, unarmed attacks, ect...


You only get AC with a bash by spending a feat.
If a weapon states you can use it to TWF with a 2H then I'd be forced to accept it as taking no hands.


CountofUndolpho wrote:

You only get AC with a bash by spending a feat.

If a weapon states you can use it to TWF with a 2H then I'd be forced to accept it as taking no hands.

You missed the point 100%. If wielding the shield to get your AC uses your hand of effort, then you would never get the opportunity to make said shield bash as the hand would have already been used in wielding the shield. Retaining your AC bonus while bashing is moot. You really can't have it both ways unless you're saying a shield bash used BOTH your hands of effort.

On the other point, I'm not sure how you can reconcile saying one weapon that doesn't require a physical hand requires a hand of effort while another that doesn't require a physical hand does.


CountofUndolpho wrote:
Boot Blade specifically says it takes no "hands" to wield and so works with TWF with a 2H weapon, which is why I say begrudgingly as I think it's just splat book rubbish.

A boot blade can't 2WF with a greatsword. Just because it doesn't use a hand doesn't mean it doesn't use a 'hand' to 2WF with. Using a 2HW makes it so you don't have an off-hand to use with 2WF.


Nefreet wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
I don't have the link handy. Nefreet used to have it on his profile...I am not motivated to find it.
FLite wrote:
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...

Ooh! Thank you! I had forgotten about my Orc Adopted claw Tiefling with vestigial arms and aspect of the beast. i need to write that one down somewhere... Vivisectionist/Slayer here i come!

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Why have only 6 people FAQed this so far?

I played a fighter (brawler) who fought with punching dagger/armor spikes/shield and I had a great time. I'd love to know if it's PFS-legal. ^_^


Kalindlara wrote:

Why have only 6 people FAQed this so far?

I played a fighter (brawler) who fought with punching dagger/armor spikes/shield and I had a great time. I'd love to know if it's PFS-legal. ^_^

Because only 6 people think there is some confusion in the rules? For me, I didn't FAQ it as #1 it seems super clear that it's allowed and #2 I'd rather the team spend it's time answering questions I DO find questionable. You can add a #3 that I don't play PFS so it's legality there is meaningless to me. ;)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I don't see anything about 2H weapons in the Blade Boot description, so I'm not sure I understand why it would be an exception when Armor Spikes, Boulder Helmets, etc. are not... ?

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
graystone wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:

Why have only 6 people FAQed this so far?

I played a fighter (brawler) who fought with punching dagger/armor spikes/shield and I had a great time. I'd love to know if it's PFS-legal. ^_^

Because only 6 people think there is some confusion in the rules? For me, I didn't FAQ it as #1 it seems super clear that it's allowed and #2 I'd rather the team spend it's time answering questions I DO find questionable. You can add a #3 that I don't play PFS so it's legality there is meaningless to me. ;)

I can respect those reasons. ^_^


Kalindlara wrote:

Why have only 6 people FAQed this so far?

I played a fighter (brawler) who fought with punching dagger/armor spikes/shield and I had a great time. I'd love to know if it's PFS-legal. ^_^

I think for most people who really care about the handedness issue it would take more than a FAQ as written in the first post. It should be a lengthy FAQ or blog specifically looking at handedness, action economy, weilding and holding.

Does handedness only apply to attack actions?

Am i wielding a shield as a weapon just by equipping it?

It might just take an impressively large flow chart to sort it out.


caps wrote:
I don't see anything about 2H weapons in the Blade Boot description, so I'm not sure I understand why it would be an exception when Armor Spikes, Boulder Helmets, etc. are not... ?

He's thinking of weapons like the sea knife and Barbazu Beard.

"A barbazu beard can be used as an off-hand weapon that requires no hands to use; thus, a warrior could combine use of a barbazu beard with a two-handed weapon."

"This allows the wielder to use a two-handed weapon, or wield a weapon with one hand and carry a shield, and still make off-hand attacks with the sea-knife."

In essence, it's trying to tell you it doesn't take up/require a physical hand to use. (and that you USED to be able to TWF with a THW and a non-hand weapon). As/is, you could still claim the items give an exception to the unwritten 'hands of effort' rules and get a THW and an off hand attack with these weapons.

Torbyne wrote:
Am i wielding a shield as a weapon just by equipping it?

It's being equipped as a weapon shouldn't have any effect on action economy. A person could have a dozen weapons wielded (and usable for attacks/AoO). Action economy is only impacted from attacking with them.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
caps wrote:
I don't see anything about 2H weapons in the Blade Boot description, so I'm not sure I understand why it would be an exception when Armor Spikes, Boulder Helmets, etc. are not... ?

Probably meant to say "Sea Knife".

EDIT: darn! Ninja'd by 53 seconds.


Torbyne wrote:


Does handedness only apply to attack actions?

it does because the term off-hand and primary hand are only ever referenced in shield bashing and TWFing rules. there is no mention of them anywhere else.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Torbyne wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:

Why have only 6 people FAQed this so far?

I played a fighter (brawler) who fought with punching dagger/armor spikes/shield and I had a great time. I'd love to know if it's PFS-legal. ^_^

I think for most people who really care about the handedness issue it would take more than a FAQ as written in the first post. It should be a lengthy FAQ or blog specifically looking at handedness, action economy, weilding and holding.

Does handedness only apply to attack actions?

Am i wielding a shield as a weapon just by equipping it?

It might just take an impressively large flow chart to sort it out.

Yeah, to be honest I'm not too eager to see this FAQed if it just leads to even more confusion on how all of that works. Not to mention the likely end result will be Paizo further restricting and nerfing martials, since that's how every FAQ goes.


The point i was going for is that there are multiple things the FAQ would need to address to cover as many permutations of this debate as possible. I know where i fall in the debate but then again i have read through several hundred posts about it. Most players/GMs probably dont want to do that.


Torbyne wrote:
The point i was going for is that there are multiple things the FAQ would need to address to cover as many permutations of this debate as possible. I know where i fall in the debate but then again i have read through several hundred posts about it. Most players/GMs probably dont want to do that.

I guess I can understand that. You often don't get the full picture without checking out the threads after the FAQ's are posted in them. But seeing as how much of a train wreck even a simple term like wield is, it'd have to be one doozy of a blog if it tackles everything in "handedness, action economy, weilding and holding".

Sadly, I'd have to agree with Chengar Qordath, that chances are that if we ever DO see one, it wouldn't be a fan of it. After the convoluted and tortured implementation of the non-stacking stat bonus FAQ and the current (seemingly partial to the most restrictive stance) trend of FAQ results, I'm not hopeful.


graystone wrote:

"This allows the wielder to use a two-handed weapon, or wield a weapon with one hand and carry a shield, and still make off-hand attacks with the sea-knife."

I find that description perplexing since it would seem to suggest one could use a THW and make an Off-hand attack in the same around...which a FAQ says you can't. I'm left to conclude that when the text says "use a two-handed" sword, the must mean combine a THW and a sea knife when one is making iterative attacks, but not using TWF.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

graystone wrote:

2) Assuming that's true, how can you shield bash with it as you've already used up that hand getting the AC?

3) the hand (of effort) HAS to be free if a bash is still an option. That hand (of effort) therefor is still free and available for any other eligible attack.

I'm going to avoid the other questions, and speak to these. Your logic doesn't follow.

2) If a Shield does use a hand of effort, A shield bash allows for an attack with that shield currently using the hand of effort.

3) The bash could ride upon the expended hand of effort, so the hand doesn't have to be free.

Notice this is just me disagreeing with your logic here. We likely agree on what can be done. I just don't agree with this as proof.

Grand Lodge

graystone wrote:
Torbyne wrote:
The point i was going for is that there are multiple things the FAQ would need to address to cover as many permutations of this debate as possible. I know where i fall in the debate but then again i have read through several hundred posts about it. Most players/GMs probably dont want to do that.

I guess I can understand that. You often don't get the full picture without checking out the threads after the FAQ's are posted in them. But seeing as how much of a train wreck even a simple term like wield is, it'd have to be one doozy of a blog if it tackles everything in "handedness, action economy, weilding and holding".

Sadly, I'd have to agree with Chengar Qordath, that chances are that if we ever DO see one, it wouldn't be a fan of it. After the convoluted and tortured implementation of the non-stacking stat bonus FAQ and the current (seemingly partial to the most restrictive stance) trend of FAQ results, I'm not hopeful.

Personally, I am advocating for something on the level of the recent Light and Darkness FAQ Blog.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

James Risner wrote:
graystone wrote:

2) Assuming that's true, how can you shield bash with it as you've already used up that hand getting the AC?

3) the hand (of effort) HAS to be free if a bash is still an option. That hand (of effort) therefor is still free and available for any other eligible attack.

I'm going to avoid the other questions, and speak to these. Your logic doesn't follow.

2) If a Shield does use a hand of effort, A shield bash allows for an attack with that shield currently using the hand of effort.

3) The bash could ride upon the expended hand of effort, so the hand doesn't have to be free.

Notice this is just me disagreeing with your logic here. We likely agree on what can be done. I just don't agree with this as proof.

Concur.

he's totally ignoring the fact that a feat can expand the use of the Hand, and takes place constantly.

The buckler is a perfect example of how you switch focus from wielding a weapon back to getting shield AC. The 'hand' argument.
For a normal shield, you switch from AC to Bashing and back, choosing whether you want the shield AC.

So, it is TOTALLY possible to be holding onto a shield and not get any AC from it...because you aren't devoting any effort to it.

If just 'donning' a shield was all it took, then you'd get Buckler/Shield AC even if using them as weapons...the rules would be inconsistent.

Instead, that's being claimed as an 'exception', which makes no sense whatsoever.

kindly note that the 3rd arm does not allow you to get any extra attacks out of it...all it can do is hold stuff. Holding stuff has NEVER granted you AC. Carrying a shield is not getting shield AC. Otherwise, I could sling one over my back, use no hands, and get shield AC. That's the argument being made, taken to logical conclusion.

Since 3rd arm is holding a shield, but doesn't get the option of attacking with it, that shield would be considered unwielded and not contribute any AC. You don't even get the Choice. All its doing is holding onto a shield, the same as if you had it slung on your back.

This 'I get my shield AC when using weapons not in my off-hand argument' relies upon multiple exceptions to how things work that are not printed in the rules ANYWHERE.

Whereas, all the examples that DO exist point very firmly to the fact that you either use a 'hand' to wield the shield for AC, or make a choice and use that 'hand' to wield a weapon.

Ergo, the rules default is, devote a 'hand' to shield AC, or you don't get it. NOT that just holding onto a shield gets you AC, and you only lose it if you make an attack with the 'physical' arm. Because the instant you do that, then all you have to do is find a different limb to attack with, or just carry the shield somewhere else.

And it takes a feat to get around that.

Anything else is pure munchkinism, 'Three-hand Fighting', and a pure rules exploit.

Oh, and BTW...the shield IS a weapon. It's on the weapon tables. There's no difference in how you have to carry the shield between being used as a weapon and a shield...you just make the choice, there's no suddenly 'sheathing' and 'equipping'.

So, anytime you use a shield, you are also able to use it as a weapon.

Thus, it falls under all the 'weapon readiness' rules, and that includes a 'hand'. If you are unable to use the shield as a weapon, then you are unable to make the choice to get AC from it, either.

==Aelryinth


Aelryinth wrote:
James Risner wrote:
graystone wrote:

2) Assuming that's true, how can you shield bash with it as you've already used up that hand getting the AC?

3) the hand (of effort) HAS to be free if a bash is still an option. That hand (of effort) therefor is still free and available for any other eligible attack.

I'm going to avoid the other questions, and speak to these. Your logic doesn't follow.

2) If a Shield does use a hand of effort, A shield bash allows for an attack with that shield currently using the hand of effort.

3) The bash could ride upon the expended hand of effort, so the hand doesn't have to be free.

Notice this is just me disagreeing with your logic here. We likely agree on what can be done. I just don't agree with this as proof.

Concur.

he's totally ignoring the fact that a feat can expand the use of the Hand, and takes place constantly.

The buckler is a perfect example of how you switch focus from wielding a weapon back to getting shield AC. The 'hand' argument.
For a normal shield, you switch from AC to Bashing and back, choosing whether you want the shield AC.

So, it is TOTALLY possible to be holding onto a shield and not get any AC from it...because you aren't devoting any effort to it.

If just 'donning' a shield was all it took, then you'd get Buckler/Shield AC even if using them as weapons...the rules would be inconsistent.

Instead, that's being claimed as an 'exception', which makes no sense whatsoever.

kindly note that the 3rd arm does not allow you to get any extra attacks out of it...all it can do is hold stuff. Holding stuff has NEVER granted you AC. Carrying a shield is not getting shield AC. Otherwise, I could sling one over my back, use no hands, and get shield AC. That's the argument being made, taken to logical conclusion.

Since 3rd arm is holding a shield, but doesn't get the option of attacking with it, that shield would be considered unwielded and not contribute any AC. You don't even get the Choice. All its doing is holding...

If just Donning a shield gave you a shield bonus then the rules are consistent because bucklers and shield bashes are specific overrides to the base that donning a shield is all it takes to get the shield bonus.

EDIT:
Also it's been specifically clarified that an alchemist with vestigial arms does indeed get the shield bonus to AC when using a greatsword to attack.


Aelryinth wrote:


For a normal shield, you switch from AC to Bashing and back, choosing whether you want the shield AC.

None of that is debated. None of that has been debated.

Quote:
So, it is TOTALLY possible to be holding onto a shield and not get any AC from it...because you aren't devoting any effort to it.

False and is not supported by any rule anywhere. A shield (not a buckler) has three modes:

1) Donned - this gives you the AC bonus and allows you to bash with it;

2) Donned and used as a weapon - Per RAW, states that when you use the shield as a weapon, you lose the AC (barring a feat to the contrary). There is no other rule in any of the rulebooks or FAQs that says you lose your shield bonus under any other condition.. Bashing with your shield is the one exception that removes your shield bonus from your AC. There are no other exceptions so you retain your shield bonus in all other situations that you have a "donned" shield;

3) Carried - this means you do not get the AC bonus. It is not entirely clear whether you need to don a shield to bash with it, but I imagine the answer is yes. Otherwise you can carry a shield and then wield it as an improvised weapon.

None of this has any impact on the Primary/Off-hand attack economy. None of it.

A buckler has exceptions to the shield rules.

1) You can't bash with it;

2) You can use that hand to wield weapons, at the expense of your shield bonus;

Once again, there is no statement anywhere in the rules that making an off-hand attack automatically negates your shield bonus. You keep saying this is the rule and it's not stated anywhere in the books or in the FAQs.

Quote:
If just 'donning' a shield was all it took, then you'd get Buckler/Shield AC even if using them as weapons...the rules would be inconsistent.

Your statement is nonsensical. First, you cannot use a buckler as a weapon and the rules literally state that you do not get your shield bonus when you bash with your shield. That's an actual rule in the book. Have you not read it?

Bashing is the ONE AND ONLY THING that takes away your shield bonus of a donned shield. It's written in the rules. You keep claiming that making off-hand attacks takes away your shield bonus, and yet that is not written in the rules.

Quote:
kindly note that the 3rd arm does not allow you to get any extra attacks out of it...all it can do is hold stuff
Quote:
kindly note that the 3rd arm does not allow you to get any extra attacks out of it...all it can do is hold stuff

I've quoted that twice for emphasis. It is precisely that set of rules which mandates that I get my shield bonus as long as I am donning a shield....because the FAQ explicitly states that the 3 armed alchemist (who doesn't get any extra attacks) gets to attack with greatsword and keep her shield bonus. That's because her 3rd arm is simply donning the shield. She can't attack with the shield or any other weapon in that round, but she still gets her shield bonus.

Quote:
Holding stuff has NEVER granted you AC. Carrying a shield is not getting shield AC.

You're right. But "donning" a shield does give you the AC. You have been asked repeatedly to point to a rule which explicitly or even implicitly says you have to do more than don a shield and you haven't provided a single rule, FAQ, or dev post which supports your assertions.

Quote:
Otherwise, I could sling one over my back, use no hands, and get shield AC. That's the argument being made, taken to logical conclusion.

Incorrect. A shield must be donned to provide the AC benefit. "Carrying" a shield does not confer the bonus.

Quote:
Since 3rd arm is holding a shield, but doesn't get the option of attacking with it, that shield would be considered unwielded and not contribute any AC.

Have you not actually read the FAQ?

Quote:
Whereas, all the examples that DO exist point very firmly to the fact that you either use a 'hand' to wield the shield for AC, or make a choice and use that 'hand' to wield a weapon.

At this juncture, it's possible you do not understand what is meant by a 'hand' and a hand.

A 'hand' (in single quotes) is a game construct provided to us by the devs to explain why you cannot use a greatsword and get an off-hand attack in the same round. The devs told us that each two handed creature gets a Primary and Off-hand attack.

In truth, I think the 'hand' concept is really about STR bonus. Your Primary hand gets 1x your STR bonus and your Off-hand gets .5x STR bonus. So greatsword gets 1.5x your STR bonus because it uses both your Primary and Off-hand attacks.

Now, we all thought a physical hand had to be used for each. But then they came out with this FAQ which told us a monk can carry a two-handed load and still make a primary and off-hand attack (Maybe Nefreet has that thread). This meant that regardless of what I was wielding/carrying/donning, I could still make an unarmed strike as either a Primary or Off-hand, or both.

I've explained this multiple times, but you seem to be completely ignoring this explanation and insisting there is a rule which says I must use a 'hand' (note the quotes) to don a shield. Yet, you've never provided such rule, FAQ, or Errata which leads to that conclusion.

Quote:
This 'I get my shield AC when using weapons not in my off-hand argument' relies upon multiple exceptions to how things work that are not printed in the rules ANYWHERE.

I'm not sure how you can have an exception to a rule...when that rule doesn't exist. There are no exception because the rule which you keep referring to, does not exit. If it does, please quote it and link the source.

Quote:

So, anytime you use a shield, you are also able to use it as a weapon.

Thus, it falls under all the 'weapon readiness' rules, and that includes a 'hand'.

None of that affects attack economy. Yet, once again, you incorrectly use 'hand' when you should use hand. This is another data point that you do not understand what is a 'hand' and what is a hand in the context of this discussion. Perhaps someone else can try explaining it for the third or fourth time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

TL;DR;TOOOOOOO THEEEEEE MAAAAAAAX


James Risner wrote:
graystone wrote:

2) Assuming that's true, how can you shield bash with it as you've already used up that hand getting the AC?

3) the hand (of effort) HAS to be free if a bash is still an option. That hand (of effort) therefor is still free and available for any other eligible attack.

I'm going to avoid the other questions, and speak to these. Your logic doesn't follow.

2) If a Shield does use a hand of effort, A shield bash allows for an attack with that shield currently using the hand of effort.

3) The bash could ride upon the expended hand of effort, so the hand doesn't have to be free.

Notice this is just me disagreeing with your logic here. We likely agree on what can be done. I just don't agree with this as proof.

Pretty much what N N 959 said. Neither #2 or #3 are anywhere in the FAQ or the rules (or dev posts to my knowledge). That's because an exception to a non-existent rule doesn't exist.


Lol the denseness about the buckler

Takes an effort to repeatedly ignore that the buckler have specific rules that work differently than the general rules for shields

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Look, replace "Armor Spikes", with Unarmed Strike.

Keep whatever bigotry you have about Armor Spikes aside, and just look at the situation, as if the did not exist.

Longsword + Unarmed Strike. Slash and Kick.

Valid two-weapon fighting combo?

Yes?

So, what about that combo makes your shield bonus to AC, go away?

I don't see it in the RAW, the RAI, and nothing about it is unbalancing.

Even thematically, there is no reason for it to go away.

This is just silly.


graystone wrote:
CountofUndolpho wrote:

You only get AC with a bash by spending a feat.

If a weapon states you can use it to TWF with a 2H then I'd be forced to accept it as taking no hands.

You missed the point 100%. If wielding the shield to get your AC uses your hand of effort, then you would never get the opportunity to make said shield bash as the hand would have already been used in wielding the shield. Retaining your AC bonus while bashing is moot. You really can't have it both ways unless you're saying a shield bash used BOTH your hands of effort.

On the other point, I'm not sure how you can reconcile saying one weapon that doesn't require a physical hand requires a hand of effort while another that doesn't require a physical hand does.

Got the point and disagreed with it.

That's why I don't like those splat book weapons and don't use them or allow them in games I run.


N N 959 wrote:
TLDR

Internet discussions are better in bite sized portions chaps.

We are in a bit of a quandary here as BBT, Graystone et al interpret the RAW and RAI in one way and Aelryinth et al in an opposite way.
We are ending up in pantomime arguments again.

Without a specific ruling we have to go on what seems right to the GM of the game we are in so expect table variance would seem to be the only conclusion we can draw from this.

No point getting heated and equally pointless going down the "it just is!" route.


Chess Pwn wrote:
CountofUndolpho wrote:
Boot Blade specifically says it takes no "hands" to wield and so works with TWF with a 2H weapon, which is why I say begrudgingly as I think it's just splat book rubbish.
A boot blade can't 2WF with a greatsword. Just because it doesn't use a hand doesn't mean it doesn't use a 'hand' to 2WF with. Using a 2HW makes it so you don't have an off-hand to use with 2WF.

You are correct I was thinking of Sea Knife.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

We are not talking about two-handed weapons.

None of the unwritten rules nonsense even comes in to play here.

This is so obviously cut and dry, that you need an agenda of some sort, to even begin to argue against it.

There isn't even a logical reason to do so.

Hell, kicking a guy, whilst holding a shield, isn't even something that those with the most limited of imaginations, or strangely stringent ideas on how people fight in their games, couldn't imagine happening.

If attacking with a Longsword, by itself, and kicking a guy, by itself, doesn't take away your shield bonus to AC, then why the hell would doing both, take it away?


Perhaps a better FAQ question for this instance would be:

"When using the TWF rules to gain additional attacks does that require a character to forgo their shield AC bonus regardless of what limbs are used in the TWF attacks?"

It doesnt clear up the whole issue but seems to be more in line with the original post.


I would agree, Torbyne, that is a much better phrasing for an FAQ.


I've FAQed this. But I agree with Aelryinth. I've always felt like a balancing trade-off was intended, you lose AC to get an additional attack. Yes, you can use your legs to kick, or armor spikes to attack, but the RAI, talked about by SKR is not to let you get everything you want. It's meant to balance. He cites the idea of getting claws (or bite) and adding in manufactured weapon attacks. The point of his post, I believe, was that there's a trade-off. As he says, the INTENT was to prevent someone from getting extra attacks by defining them differently. All you're doing here is defining that your using your other 'hand' to use a different weapon attack. I feel you should lose the AC of your shield. Anything else feels too much of munchkinism.


Torbyne wrote:

Perhaps a better FAQ question for this instance would be:

"When using the TWF rules to gain additional attacks does that require a character to forgo their shield AC bonus regardless of what limbs are used in the TWF attacks?"

It doesnt clear up the whole issue but seems to be more in line with the original post.

At this point it's moving away from "FAQ" and into "errata". To be honest, the whole "Hands of Effort unwritten rule" should be revisited.

101 to 150 of 494 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / TWF w / Weapon and Armor Spikes while wielding a Shield All Messageboards