It seems like you are arguing against the very existence of the FAQ system. The devs seem to disagree with you on its necessity.No I'm arguing against defining in rules form the whole design guidelines of the system. This single thing you think will be simple to devise, would be a lot of words to get the message across correctly. I don't think this would entirely be possible without lots of problems.
Then we will have to agree to disagree, because I don't think it will take as much effort or be as problematic as you think.
|
For fighters alone is it not a far superior option due to the extent which they invest in a single weapon due to Weapon Training/Specialization etc. For everyone else it's simply a significantly superior Strength TWF, and TWF already has the highest DPR in the game past the first few levels. In fact - it would be eliminating virutally all of the disadvantages it has vs THF except for the feat/weapon costs.It's even worse for non-Fighters, because they struggle more to meet all the prereqs to make it a viable option. A Paladin will never be able to effectively pay all the stat and feat costs to maintain all his abilities, and even trying his best it still won't compete with his facility for mounted combat. A Ranger, conceivably, could use his combat feats to make TH + armor spikes viable, but they're about the only ones who can really pull it off competitively.
Even assuming it were viable, it looks flashy, but it is not this "strictly better than TWF or THF" option that people are making it out to be. It (with maybe one notable exception) couldn't be supported through pumping a single stat like standard TWF or THF can, and it's costly on par with TWF shield builds but without as much support and benefit.
A pali would have issues with the stats in all but a rather high point-buy due to wanting a good Cha, but he'd have the feats.
Try a human Barbarian. Level 1 - PA/TWF (Though PA would be somewhat less potent for this build than most barbarians). Level 3- Double Slice. That's all he'd need until he takes ITWF at 7. It's less feat intensive than TWF with a shield - the exact same as any other TWF except that PA is more worth taking. It's better than a double-weapon, and some consider that worth a feat or going half-orc to grab for free.
20 pt buy for human Barbarian aimed at TWF
Str:18
Dex:16
Con:14
Int:9
Wis:10
Cha:7
They could get the Dex up to 17 if they dropped the Int to 7, put in the level 4 stat up there, or just get a magical boost of some sort. Not difficult to get one of those by 7 for ITWF. And frankly - the 16 Dex is a pretty decent idea anyway as it boosts their AC/Initiative.
If you allowed the combo - it (or something very similar) would become the optimizer's default barbarian build - superior to both standard TWF in every way and THF in nearly any circumstance - it doesn't even have the disadvantage when moving that most TWF builds have - especially since he'd eventually have pounce. We can run DPR calculations if you want - but it's really a foregone conclusion.
|
3. It leads to weird vagueness about wielding versus holding.
Generally when the rules reference wielding, they just mean holding a weapon at the ready in hand. But this makes the distinction important, in a dumb way. If I hold a weapon I'm not proficient in, am I wielding it? Am I wielding a weapon if I don't attack with it? Can I choose whether or not I'm wielding a weapon? How often and at what point? If I hold an object, am I wielding an improvised weapon at all times?
When rules use the term "wield" or "wielding" for a weapon they generally mean "actively use".
There are few instances in the rules where that mean "hold". Some author use the term differently, but the norm is that wield mean use.About the base petition, I am in favor of completely redo the armor spikes, but simply because they extremely unrealistic.
If you were wearing an armor with armor spikes outside of arena combat a weapon wielding enemy would be tanking you for that.
Pieces of your armor that guide my weapon toward your body? Many, many thanks.
Picturing armor with armor spikes is a bad habit of fantasy artists that was made into a rule.
3. It leads to weird vagueness about wielding versus holding.
Generally when the rules reference wielding, they just mean holding a weapon at the ready in hand. But this makes the distinction important, in a dumb way. If I hold a weapon I'm not proficient in, am I wielding it? Am I wielding a weapon if I don't attack with it? Can I choose whether or not I'm wielding a weapon? How often and at what point? If I hold an object, am I wielding an improvised weapon at all times?
When rules use the term "wield" or "wielding" for a weapon they generally mean "actively use".
There are few instances in the rules where that mean "hold". Some author use the term differently, but the norm is that wield mean use.About the base petition, I am in favor of completely redo the armor spikes, but simply because they extremely unrealistic.
If you were wearing an armor with armor spikes outside of arena combat a weapon wielding enemy would be tanking you for that.
Pieces of your armor that guide my weapon toward your body? Many, many thanks.Picturing armor with armor spikes is a bad habit of fantasy artists that was made into a rule.
So if I didn't attack with my weapon last turn I'm not wielding it? Does that mean I can't make AOO's with it? What constitutes active use? How long does this state of active use last? When can I decide I'm not actively using a weapon any more?
Why not just remove the term from the FAQ and replace it with something less nebulous?
To all those in love with the FAQ:
So, what if they changed the FAQ, to something without unwritten rules?
Would that be so bad?
What do you think that should look like?
Wouldn't you prefer to not have situations, where unwritten rules need be referenced?
BBT, please show me where in the FAQ it references "unwritten rules".
Bear in mind, I'm 100% aware that game design guidelines (the so-called "unwritten rules") were brought up in the discussion thread, and that you absolutely despise that the designers have design guidelines that you don't know about (though almost all of them can be figured out at least loosely by applying "don't design a feat, piece of gear, spell, magic item, or option that is objectively providing bigger bonuses than other options available at the same level").
But I think you'll be hard-pressed to demonstrate that the FAQ mentions unwritten rules, or even creates them.
Now, the argument about whether armour spikes should use up the off-hand at all is a matter for a different discussion entirely (I'm personally of the opinion that all the weapons that currently don't probably should), but I find the FAQ clear and simple: if you are currently using both "real" hands, you don't have an off-hand available to use.
The entire purpose of the question being asked is "if I am using both hands, can I still make off-hand attacks?" Are you saying that the answer is an unambiguous "yes"? If so, can you explain why it became an FAQ?
And, as I mentioned, I don't want you to point me at designer commentary. I want you, with zero ambiguity, to show me where the game rules and the FAQ say anything about "unwritten rules".
The designers have said that if you are using both hands, you don't have an off-hand available for attacks that need them. Now, if you can provide me with a proof by contradiction (ie somewhere that unambiguously says you can do this in the rules), I'll actually lobby for the FAQ to be struck.
Your entire dislike of "unwritten rules" is tantamount to saying "the designers should not have design guidelines".
Yes, I agree, it's silly that swinging a greatsword means you can't kick someone in the junk. But by closing off that option, the designers actually give themselves more freedom to introduce gear and feats that let you do fun things, because if that was a default option for anyone, they increase the likelihood of some corner case combo breaking things. Erring on the side of least permissibility reduces that chance.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh?
You do know that the option was explicitly allowed in 3.5.
Find the FAQ here.
You know, the system that Pathfinder is backwards compatible with, and designed from.
Wait, the entire two-weapon fighting section of 3.5, is identical, word for word, as Pathfinder.
Did you know that some of those that work with Wizards, went on to work for Paizo?
If it wasn't designed to work the same, why leave it worded the same?
I can't point to unwritten rules, because they are unwritten.
That's the problem!
I only have the Dev comments, which, seem to mean nothing to you.
If so, then you must take the FAQ, at face value, as written, and see it just basically requires a hand to use Armor Spikes. A Real hand. Kicking is just fine.
So, you are arguing that it was ambiguous in 3.5 (since it needed an FAQ), and that because of backwards compatibility the interpretation Paizo use must be the same as the one Wizards used?
"How dare you choose your own design guidelines, Paizo! The d20 rules are sacred, and only Wizards are allowed to decide what they mean!"
Yep, I'm putting words words in your mouth, but this is exactly how your quixotic quest to bad mouth Paizo's Design Team comes across to some people.
Edit: Just so I'm clear, I think the FAQ should be modified to be a general case, and that the rules for the gear should be altered to either let it work or not for something unrelated to "hand use" so that we can get the hell away from this ridiculous "hands of effort" crap.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it was designed to be different, then it could have been worded different.
Disagreeing, and being displeased with a FAQ, is not "badmouthing Paizo Design Team".
That's putting words in my mouth.
I don't disagree with the Design Guidelines, but rather, the execution.
If they wanted a rules change, they could have written a rules change.
Might I suggest, then, with all intent to try to be informative, that you endeavour to take greater care how you phrase your distaste? Because every time I see one of your posts about the "unwritten rules", it reads like a dislike for that, rather than a dislike for how PDT leverage them.
Contributor
|
I just want them to officially clarify "1-H/shield/armor spikes". That, at least, is still gray, and I'd love to play that character in PFS.
I wouldn't mind "2-H/armor spikes" being legal in some form - it's a cool idea, and requires enough investment that it shouldn't take over the universe.
If we're banning options for being so good that nobody ever takes anything else, Greater Beast Totem and Superstition should have drawn the Eye of Sauron long ago. I don't see greatsword-and-spikes being nearly that dominating.
@BBT: If you mean "we shouldn't have to have access to the design guidelines", I agree wholeheartedly. If you mean "design guidelines shouldn't inform rule decisions", then we'll have to agree to disagree.
@Kalindlara: It's been shown enough that 2-h plus armour spikes is not "too good", so I won't try to argue "current game balance" as a reason. I'm pretty sure the reason is future-proofing. The existing rules are a known quantity. If, one day, someone writes an ability that looks great on paper, but that actually means armour spikes (and other off-hand weapons) can be leveraged at first level to allow 3x Str to damage when combined with a two-handed weapon, an otherwise balanced rule might become "broken" from the perspective of the "unwritten rule" that says "don't allow more than 1.5x Str per round at first level". By "banning" the option, they can merrily create a feat that lets you do it at 5th or 6th level with the right prerequisites and actions, without having to worry.
For fighters alone is it not a far superior option due to the extent which they invest in a single weapon due to Weapon Training/Specialization etc. For everyone else it's simply a significantly superior Strength TWF, and TWF already has the highest DPR in the game past the first few levels. In fact - it would be eliminating virutally all of the disadvantages it has vs THF except for the feat/weapon costs.It's even worse for non-Fighters, because they struggle more to meet all the prereqs to make it a viable option. A Paladin will never be able to effectively pay all the stat and feat costs to maintain all his abilities, and even trying his best it still won't compete with his facility for mounted combat. A Ranger, conceivably, could use his combat feats to make TH + armor spikes viable, but they're about the only ones who can really pull it off competitively.
Even assuming it were viable, it looks flashy, but it is not this "strictly better than TWF or THF" option that people are making it out to be. It (with maybe one notable exception) couldn't be supported through pumping a single stat like standard TWF or THF can, and it's costly on par with TWF shield builds but without as much support and benefit.A pali would have issues with the stats in all but a rather high point-buy due to wanting a good Cha, but he'd have the feats.
Try a human Barbarian. Level 1 - PA/TWF (Though PA would be somewhat less potent for this build than most barbarians). Level 3- Double Slice. That's all he'd need until he takes ITWF at 7. It's less feat intensive than TWF with a shield - the exact same as any other TWF except that PA is more worth taking. It's better than a double-weapon, and some consider that worth a feat or going half-orc to grab for free.
20 pt buy for human Barbarian aimed at TWF
Str:18
Dex:16
Con:14
Int:9
Wis:10
Cha:7They could get the Dex up to 17 if they dropped the Int to 7, put in the level 4 stat up there, or...
level 7 has 23.5k WBL to upgrade two weapons to +2 would take 16k out of that, 4K for +1, 10K for +2/+1. 8K for only a single +2 weapon, 4k extra and you get a belt of strength, that turns the weapon into a +3 and can potentially yield an extra 2 damage instead of one since he's THFing. if he does the armor spikes he's pretty much delegating himself to being a one-trick pony.
in fact you can spend the feats from TWF on extra rage power to gain bite a bite attack or other non-claw attacks to gain more "off-hand" attacks that are completely legal.
now i'm curious, would people allow you to use the THW and armor spikes if spending the off-hand made the THW deal only 1x str mod?
3. It leads to weird vagueness about wielding versus holding.
Generally when the rules reference wielding, they just mean holding a weapon at the ready in hand. But this makes the distinction important, in a dumb way. If I hold a weapon I'm not proficient in, am I wielding it? Am I wielding a weapon if I don't attack with it? Can I choose whether or not I'm wielding a weapon? How often and at what point? If I hold an object, am I wielding an improvised weapon at all times?
When rules use the term "wield" or "wielding" for a weapon they generally mean "actively use".
There are few instances in the rules where that mean "hold". Some author use the term differently, but the norm is that wield mean use.About the base petition, I am in favor of completely redo the armor spikes, but simply because they extremely unrealistic.
If you were wearing an armor with armor spikes outside of arena combat a weapon wielding enemy would be tanking you for that.
Pieces of your armor that guide my weapon toward your body? Many, many thanks.Picturing armor with armor spikes is a bad habit of fantasy artists that was made into a rule.
So if I didn't attack with my weapon last turn I'm not wielding it? Does that mean I can't make AOO's with it? What constitutes active use? How long does this state of active use last? When can I decide I'm not actively using a weapon any more?
Why not just remove the term from the FAQ and replace it with something less nebulous?
to be clear changing how your holding weapons is a free action. you can swap main hand and off-hands mid full round action.
|
|
now i'm curious, would people allow you to use the THW and armor spikes if spending the off-hand made the THW deal only 1x str mod?
From a balance perspective it would still be somewhat superior to a double-weapon. On the move it would still deal an additional 2.5 points of damage. (greatsword's 2d6 vs 1d8 - moreso if using a nodachi - but varies too much by other static damage to come up with an exact advantage)
It would also still gain more from Power Attack than normal TWF. If that were also nerfed down to one-handed levels when using TWF then it'd be close. It'd still be marginally advantageous vs a double weapon (1d10 18-20/1d6 x2 vs 1d8 19-20/1d8 19-20) even when using TWF, and the enchanted armor spikes would be handy in grapples etc due to being light. The sole advantage I can think of a double weapon would have is that WF would apply to both ends.
So - between only getting 1x Str damage with the TH weapon & getting just a 1 to 2 ratio on PA when using TWF, it'd only be marginally superior (while not requiring the feat that a double weapon does). However - that leads to lots of extra exceptions to the rules.
Frankly - the current FAQ ruling is probably the less complicated choice.
well, I'd just leave it as is, x1 str when your off-hand is used elsewhere(and does not count as a two-handed weapon for feats and abilities that give advantage to two-handing). it's just not that great of a boost and is thematically weird.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Have you never seen, a single Dev explanation for the FAQ?
All, reference unwritten rules.
The FAQ has no written rules support.
According to you.
I assert that the rules say you have two hands and a two handed weapon uses both and to use an offhand weapon you need to use one hand.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Have you never seen, a single Dev explanation for the FAQ?
All, reference unwritten rules.
The FAQ has no written rules support.
According to you.
I assert that the rules say you have two hands and a two handed weapon uses both and to use an offhand weapon you need to use one hand.
but the boot blade specifically says it doesn't need to use a hand...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Have you never seen, a single Dev explanation for the FAQ?
All, reference unwritten rules.
The FAQ has no written rules support.
According to you.
I assert that the rules say you have two hands and a two handed weapon uses both and to use an offhand weapon you need to use one hand.
If you look at the off hand weapons in question, you'll note that they don't take hands to use. In fact Several of them come out and say as much AND even tell you that means that they can be used in TWF with a two handed weapon. It's pretty clear that the general rule before this FAQ was that off hand weapon that don't take up your actual hand where viable offhand weapons to use along side two handed weapons.
I don't know if the dev's always wanted it the way it is now or had a change of mind, but the current FAQ isn't in line with what's in the book. Just looking at the sea knife in the ARG shows you this.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm actually fine with it working this way.
(although I agree it needs to be spelled out much more clearly)If 2-H + armor spikes were legit, you'd be forced to use them (if you wanted to stay competitive). Making everyone use boot blades, armor spikes, etc to keep up in damage just feels a bit gimmicky and non-iconic to me. It's as much about flavor preservation as power creep, imho.
It has been mathematically proven multiple times in multiple places ont hese boards that a two-handed weapon combined with armor spikes or some similar weapon is inferior to traditional TWF or THF.
Would that depend on how you handle the two-handed weapon (1.5x strength or 1x strength) or was traditional TWF always superior? Could you link me to one of the posts/threads that did the analysis? I'd love to read it. :)
Edit: Just to be clear I'm not trying to make an argument one way or another - this hasn't ever come up in my games, so I don't have any experience on the topic. My initial impression is that it doesn't seem overpowered, but I'd be interested in seeing the math for myself. :)
If you look at the off hand weapons in question, you'll note that they don't take hands to use. In fact Several of them come out and say as much AND even tell you that means that they can be used in TWF with a two handed weapon. It's pretty clear that the general rule before this FAQ was that off hand weapon that don't take up your actual hand where viable offhand weapons to use along side two handed weapons.
I don't know if the dev's always wanted it the way it is now or had a change of mind, but the current FAQ isn't in line with what's in the book. Just looking at the sea knife in the ARG shows you this.
And this is why I support this thread wholeheartedly. FAQs should clear up issues, not make them more confusing.
1. It seems to reference a rule that doesn't exist.
It says that since you are using an off hand to wield a weapon, you can't make off hand attacks. Where does it say this in the rules? In fact, the rules only say you can make off hand attacks with your hands full for IUS. So it's specific to weapons? If the entry is going to introduce a new rule, introduce a new rule. It shouldn't pretend like it's already there, it only leads to confusion as to guessing what the content of this new rule is.
Having witnessed the initial thread's discussion and dev clarifications, I whole-heartedly agree that the current FAQ entry isn't very helpful, in part, because it does refer to an unwritten rationale. What they should do is complete the circle. When a FAQ generates confused discussion in which a dev intervenes to provide rationale, the FAQ needs to be updated to include something about that rationale. The whole need to provide the rationale in the discussion makes the deficiency of the FAQ entry self-evident.
GMs and players might still disagree with the ruling, but at least they'll have an informed basis for including it or rejecting it in their games. Information is a good thing.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
It has been mathematically proven multiple times in multiple places ont hese boards that a two-handed weapon combined with armor spikes or some similar weapon is inferior to traditional TWF or THF.I'm actually fine with it working this way.
(although I agree it needs to be spelled out much more clearly)If 2-H + armor spikes were legit, you'd be forced to use them (if you wanted to stay competitive). Making everyone use boot blades, armor spikes, etc to keep up in damage just feels a bit gimmicky and non-iconic to me. It's as much about flavor preservation as power creep, imho.
So the refrain should actually be "Martials can't have crappy things," and we should thank Paizo for removing this obvious trap option, yes? :)
so many feats and so much money for such a small boost...
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
but the boot blade specifically says it doesn't need to use a hand...
No, it says "You can use a blade boot as an off-hand weapon."
Every manufactured weapon attack uses one or two of these:
Primary hand
Off-hand
Whether or not these use an actual hand isn't specified in the rules. But using a two hand weapon uses one primary hand and one off-hand.
but the boot blade specifically says it doesn't need to use a hand...No, it says "You can use a blade boot as an off-hand weapon."
Every manufactured weapon attack uses one or two of these:
Primary hand
Off-handWhether or not these use an actual hand isn't specified in the rules. But using a two hand weapon uses one primary hand and one off-hand.
sorry it;s the beard weapon i think.
and no, primary and off-hand are terms only mentioned when making a full round attack and you only have off-hand and primary hands during such actions, they do not exist anywhere or anywhen else.
but the boot blade specifically says it doesn't need to use a hand...No, it says "You can use a blade boot as an off-hand weapon."
Every manufactured weapon attack uses one or two of these:
Primary hand
Off-handWhether or not these use an actual hand isn't specified in the rules. But using a two hand weapon uses one primary hand and one off-hand.
"Sea-Knife: A sea-knife is a long-handled weapon with a short blade. It is designed to be strapped to the ankle or foot of the wielder, pointing downward and jutting out beyond the wearer's leg. Donning or removing a sea-knife is a full-round action. The wearer cannot use a leg with a sea-knife strapped to it for walking or running. A sea-knife can be used as a light melee weapon when the wielder is swimming, flying, or prone. 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. Attacks made with a sea-knife take a –2 circumstance penalty on attack rolls in addition to all other attack penalties."
This doesn't seem to agree with what you are saying, as the example given IS "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." Seems like the FAQ is contradicting this text.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
sorry it;s the beard weapon i think.
The Beard weapon says "A barbazu beard can be used as an off-hand weapon that requires no hands to use" which makes it abundantly clear it may be used as a primary weapon or an off-hand weapon but does not require an actual 5 fingered hand.
it was the sea knife... >_>
just can't get it right with all these weird little weapons.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Between the barbazu beard and the gillman sea knife, you kind of get the impression that not all designers and editors are working off the same unwritten rules, don't you?
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
it was the sea knife... >_>
just can't get it right with all these weird little weapons.
The sea knife says exactly the same thing:
"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"This can be parsed:
You may attack with your primary weapon and off-hand weapon while wearing the sea-knife.
You may attack with a primary weapon and use the sea-knife for your off-hand weapon.
It could also be parsed:
You get an extra off-hand because the author was thinking of the 3.5 way this worked. After the Advanced Race Guide came along months later and clarified that you can't THW and Off-hand, the wording of the Sea-Knife no longer matters as much.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Between the barbazu beard and the gillman sea knife, you kind of get the impression that not all designers and editors are working off the same unwritten rules, don't you?
You do. Especially considering 3.5 assumed you could THW and Off-hand in the same round.
The question is should they change their guidelines or change the sea-knife. The beard isn't really in conflict with the FAQ. I suspect they would rather errata the Sea-Knife to make it clear that you don't get a bonus off-hand than they would reverse their guidance.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
sorry it;s the beard weapon i think.The Beard weapon says "A barbazu beard can be used as an off-hand weapon that requires no hands to use" which makes it abundantly clear it may be used as a primary weapon or an off-hand weapon but does not require an actual 5 fingered hand.
Actually, it says:
Barbazu Beard
A barbazu beard is an intimidating helm with a full facemask wrought to look like a snarling barbazu's head. Extending from the chin area of the face guard is a razor-sharp blade much like an actual barbazu's beard, usually 8 inches long but sometimes longer.
Description: 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.
Attacking with a barbazu beard provokes an attack of opportunity. Because it is so close to the wearer's face, using a barbazu beard against creatures harmful to touch (such as fire elementals and acidic oozes) has the same risks as using a natural weapon or unarmed strike against these creatures.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Between the barbazu beard and the gillman sea knife, you kind of get the impression that not all designers and editors are working off the same unwritten rules, don't you?
Yes, this is what's frustrating. It's clear that the FAQ's 'unwritten rule' isn't a universal one used from the start of the game. In fact, it makes it seem it was made out of new cloth when something came up that someone didn't like. It doesn't smell right.
If they want to change and alter the rules, fine. Pretending it was always the 'rule' seems REALLY disingenuous.
|
|
It has been mathematically proven multiple times in multiple places ont hese boards that a two-handed weapon combined with armor spikes or some similar weapon is inferior to traditional TWF or THF.I'm actually fine with it working this way.
(although I agree it needs to be spelled out much more clearly)If 2-H + armor spikes were legit, you'd be forced to use them (if you wanted to stay competitive). Making everyone use boot blades, armor spikes, etc to keep up in damage just feels a bit gimmicky and non-iconic to me. It's as much about flavor preservation as power creep, imho.
Other than the fighter - who focuses so much upon a single weapon - that's simply untrue.
okay so i wasn't wrong on all accounts. shuu
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Fair enough BBT, the link I followed to the description of the Barbazu Beard isn't what is in the book.
But it still follows my previous statement. Barbazu Beard and Sea-Knife were all published before the FAQ on Armor Spikes in July 2013. Both were published when the prevailing understanding of 3.5 rules allowed these type of combos.
Honestly, at this point I'm on board. This should be looked at. But it is more likely to result in the FAQ updating wording for the Barbazu Beard and the Sea-Knife.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
There seems to be a conflict between the rules understanding presented in the Armor Spike with Two Hand Weapon FAQ and these two weapons published before July 2013:
Barbazu Beard - published in Cheliax: Empire of Devils in 2009
Sea-Knife - published in Advanced Race Guide in June 2012
Neither of these weapons are allowed in PFS, which is a good sign something is wrong with the items.
Is the FAQ altering the text of these items or is the FAQ in error and should allow THW with Off-hand attacks such as the Barbazu Beard and Sea-Knife?
Honestly, at this point I'm on board. This should be looked at. But it is more likely to result in the FAQ updating wording for the Barbazu Beard and the Sea-Knife.
hopefully they love us more than that ;-;