|
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.
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.
-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.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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... ?
Contributor
|
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. ;)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 can respect those reasons. ^_^
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.
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.
|
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.
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. |
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.
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.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
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.
|
|
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.
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
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.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
TL;DR;TOOOOOOO THEEEEEE MAAAAAAAX
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
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
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.
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.
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.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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?
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.