Uh, no. Wrong interpretation. You're still seeing the trees - the rules and their apparent silliness - and not the forest, i.e. what the rules are a framework for.
It means that the closest the game simulation can come to a character's options may seem silly, but the character doesn't have 5' long arms; they're dancing their pony sideways, leaning down, and slashing with their dagger, moving within the five-to-ten feet worth of 'space' they take up, attacking something that's within a quick step or so.
And using word wrangling to interpret a relatively clear statement into something very unlikely still doesn't make that interpretation 'The Way It Is.' If that's how you want to try to play it, I wish you luck in trying to trick your hapless GM into accepting that interpretation. (At my table, virtual or otherwise, this discussion would have been over one post after the question was asked, due to Wyrm's Rule #0.) I wish you and your players double luck if you're the GM; semantic sophistry makes for a poor game.
|
Oh, come on now. Veiling insults behind flowery language is beneath you.It is? Funny, veiling insults is the time-tested purpose of flowery language. Diplomacy is all but defined as how to tell someone to go to hell in such a way as for them to look forward to the trip. I haven't insulted you (and won't do so at least until the post after this one), but if you took umbrage, you can have your second call on mine. I recommend Weehawken, NJ - tradition, and all.
I understand the physics. I've lifted long, heavy things before. I get the concept.But that's not what the game says. You can butter it up all you like, talk about how your way is the one, true way to play the game, but the rules exist to allow players to play a fantasy character in a fantasy world, and those rules say I can dual-wield lances, with severe penalties, at 1st level, assuming I am mounted and have sufficient Strength to actually have said lances on my person (carrying capacity).
I'm not arguing that it's a perfect system, but that's the way it is.
Actually, what you're claiming is quite clearly not 'what the game says', or 'the way it is', which is why you're making your semantics-based argument in the first place. I haven't buttered it up, I haven't claimed that my way is the One True Way; anyone who's read the conversation between CampinCarl and I knows this. (Though you are welcome to continue to claim that I am doing so, for as it fringes on an ad hominem attack, and is clearly and demonstrably fallacious, it only weakens your argument.) As I stated previously, your argument hinges on nitpicking the phrasing of the item's specific rule, using alternative meanings and weights of the words in an attempt to establish a semantic correctness for your interpretation.
If you want your players to dual-wield lances, you go right ahead; that's your house ruling, and I'm not gonna break down your door leading the Pathfinder Canon Cops to make you toe...
Except I'm not nitpicking anything. It says you can wield the weapon in one hand. I have two hands. Therefore, I can wield a lance in each hand. The game doesn't care that the Lance is a two-handed weapon at this point. It says I can simply wield a lance in one hand.
If I two-weapon fight with a lance, then it follows all the rules of two-weapon fighting, including how off-hand damage is calculated, including how two-weapon fighting works with a charge (i.e., you can't do it without Pounce or Mounted Skirmisher, and even then only the first attack gets the damage multiplier for charging with a lance).
And yes, when you compare my arguments to:
...a blind man arguing that the elephant is a pillar, rope, tree branch, hand fan, wall, and/or solid pipe; you are in your limited way correct, but you are not right...
You insinuate that you are not blind, and that anyone that argues against you is. Thus, you are right, everyone that does not hold your viewpoint is wrong, however amicable your disagreement may be, and there is a true, right way.
Just to throw in to the pot that the fact that as already discussed the lance remains a two handed weapon with the two handed strength bonus. Even though wielded single handed.
As a result you end up having to make a decision Davof. When double wielding do you use the FAQ strength bonus rules or the two weapon fighting strength bonus rules. The fact that you have to make this decision - both of which strongly contradict each other suggests that it is not clear that 'those are the rules that's how they work".
That said you want to accept that things are clear, everyone else excepts that there is interpretation required. We are now going round in circles.
|
Just to throw in to the pot that the fact that as already discussed the lance remains a two handed weapon with the two handed strength bonus. Even though wielded single handed.
As a result you end up having to make a decision Davof. When double wielding do you use the FAQ strength bonus rules or the two weapon fighting strength bonus rules. The fact that you have to make this decision - both of which strongly contradict each other suggests that it is not clear that 'those are the rules that's how they work".
That said you want to accept that things are clear, everyone else excepts that there is interpretation required. We are now going round in circles.
Due to the huge penalties and that I'd consider the FAQ to be more specific than general off-hand rules, I'd probably give them 1 1/2 strength.
I get Wyrm wants a logical and consistent game, totally understandable. We do play a game in which a pick is unable to break stone with an average strength score though and tons of other silly things like that. Due to that, I tend to like a hard rule for things like this rather than being told it's physically impossible since a LOT of things in pathfinder are physically impossible. Picking and choosing which impossible thing is fair is arbitrary in a lot of situations, and if someone wants to invest the effort into doing this, they're already taking a -4 on both attack rolls at best, why not let them?
Personally I'd like an actual ruling on this, I don't really care which since in my games (in which I like over the top trash), you could do it and throw fireworks onto the end for a bonus to intimidate.
But I'm not going to convince Wyrm and that's not really my aim here, rather just to throw into this argument. For PFS, this might be an issue though, so an actual ruling on it would be nice.
We already discussed that several rules of physics are handwaved when it makes the game impractical. No one wants to recalculate reach based on smaller size as it would require entering squares - so instead we acknowledge that position in a 5 ft square is abstract and forget about it.
This doesn't justify every twisting of grammar in a set of thousands of sets of rules written by dozens of different people. I can accept that this case can be interpreted both ways but physics and common sense to me precludes the original chopstick knight interpretation. Let it drop - we've been over the grammar several times already.
Uh, you are nitpicking, and unfortunately forcing me to go over everyone else's arguments again. Let's go back to what it says:
"While mounted, you can wield a lance with one hand."
You are saying that the above statement is equivalent to this one: "While mounted, a lance is a one-handed weapon." This is a fallacious argument; the two statements are not equivalent. If it was, it would probably say that instead; this can be seen in the example of a certain exotic one-handed melee weapon, the bastard sword:
"(It is) too large to use in one hand without special
training; thus, it is an exotic weapon. A character can use a
bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon."
A bastard sword can be used as a one-handed weapon if you have the special training, i.e. some form of Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Bastard Sword). If you do not have this exotic weapon proficiency, you can still use it as a martial weapon, but it is then a two-handed weapon. The statement regarding the lance provides for a specific situational exception: when you are mounted, you can wield this two-handed weapon with one hand. It doesn't say that when you are mounted, a lance is a one-handed weapon, or otherwise change the fact that it's a two-handed weapon.
Since the clear implication (because it is not, unfortunately, blatantly stated anywhere) of two-weapon fighting is that the weapons you use cannot be two-handed weapons (unless, y'know, you have four or more hands available), you appear to need to use weapons defined as either one-handed or light. As the lance never receives a change in category (unlike the bastard sword, which is a martial two-handed weapon and an exotic one-handed weapon), it remains uneligible for use with two-weapon fighting.
----------------------
Now, either you can accept that logic or you can't; if you can't, then you really shouldn't be arguing at all, but it's the internet, and you can't be failed off it. I find it exceptionally amusing that this sure as hell ain't the first time this has gone 'round, with most people seeming to say 'what are you, a moron?!?' to the person who claims as you are, Davor, so at least you're in ... well, company, anyhow. For your enjoyment:
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Uh, no. Wrong interpretation. You're still seeing the trees - the rules and their apparent silliness - and not the forest, i.e. what the rules are a framework for.
It means that the closest the game simulation can come to a character's options may seem silly, but the character doesn't have 5' long arms; they're dancing their pony sideways, leaning down, and slashing with their dagger, moving within the five-to-ten feet worth of 'space' they take up, attacking something that's within a quick step or so.
And using word wrangling to interpret a relatively clear statement into something very unlikely still doesn't make that interpretation 'The Way It Is.' If that's how you want to try to play it, I wish you luck in trying to trick your hapless GM into accepting that interpretation. (At my table, virtual or otherwise, this discussion would have been over one post after the question was asked, due to Wyrm's Rule #0.) I wish you and your players double luck if you're the GM; semantic sophistry makes for a poor game.
The rules say I can pick a letter more then once. The rules say A is a letter, if I'm on a horse. As I am on a horse, I pick A. The rules does not say you can't pick the specific letter A twice. Therefore I can pick the letter A twice if I want.
There is no twisting, no bending, no creative interpreting.
It does not matter if the result is silly or unreal or anything else - in the "Rule Questions" subforum we should all strive to be LN to the extreme, since the question is not "does it make sense" or "do I play this way" but "what does the rules say".
|
|
In any case:
You can wield two lances, one in each hand. You just can't TWF with them as each attack made by such a lance still consumes both your on-hand and off-hand's worth of effort. This is because it is still a 2-handed weapon, despite being wielded with only one hand... and THIS, in turn, is very clear from the FAQ and what it says about Power Attack damage in this situation.
Were this any other game, I'd argue this. But after armor spikes/reach weapon, this sounds reasonable (given the unreasonable circumstance.
I can agree with this interpretation, seems solid.
In any case:
You can wield two lances, one in each hand. You just can't TWF with them as each attack made by such a lance still consumes both your on-hand and off-hand's worth of effort. This is because it is still a 2-handed weapon, despite being wielded with only one hand... and THIS, in turn, is very clear from the FAQ and what it says about Power Attack damage in this situation.
Were this any other game, I'd argue this. But after armor spikes/reach weapon, this sounds reasonable (given the unreasonable circumstance.
I can agree with this interpretation, seems solid.
Precisely so.
Cost 10 gp
Damage (S) 1d6
Damage (M) 1d8
Critical Multiplier x3
Weight 10 lbs.
Damage Type P
Benefit: A lance deals double damage when used from the back of a charging mount. While mounted, you can wield a lance with one hand.
Weapon Feature(s): reach
Here are the relevant rules - the one for lances and two weapon fighting. We can see that:
A) A lance can be wielded with one hand.
B) If you wield a weapon in your off hand you can two-weapon fight.
Simple.
It does not care how many hands or what type your weapon usually is. It does not care what Str bonus you usually get on your damage. It does not care about one or two handiness at all.
If you can wield it in your off hand, you can two-weapon fight with it.
No.
Likewise, you couldn't use an armored gauntlet to do so, , therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks.
This is the only remotely relevant FAQ in the core book. Are lances wielded in two hands - or one hand as the rules cited in my last post explicitly says?
(I do seem to recall I rather meaty entry about imaginary hands and stuff, but I can't seem to find it ...)
Feel free to approach your GM with that argument, then. Or to declare that statement to your players. In either case, good luck and have fun.
Feel free to approach your GM with that argument, then. Or to declare that statement to your players.
If they asked "what does the rule say?" I would. And I would bring sources too, sources whom easily takes you trough the step-by-step explanation as to why it works.
Because the question is "what does the rule say?" not "what are we going to play with at our table" or "what is a reasonable interpretation". Those questions come later on, since we at our table has the power to decide if we want to follow the rules or not.
Edit:
In either case, good luck and have fun.
Why thank you : )
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I used to be firmly on the side of "martial characters should be somewhat realistic"
I have sense realized that mindset is one of the biggest problems in the Pathfinder system.
A low level martial should be tied to Wyrm's brand of physics based realism. One lance is all you get.
A mid level martial should be able to use two if they want. Sure. It's a little silly, but the guy behind him is throwing lightning, so whatever.
A high level martial should be able to dual wield lances made for Giants while riding their horse on the ceiling. Physics took a backseat a long time ago.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Even if you have extra attacks, such as from having a high enough base attack bonus or from using multiple weapons, you only get to make one attack during a charge."
This is why you can't use a second lance. It doesn't matter how many you carry, only ONE can attack. You don't get to use a weapon in your off hand during a charge. You can carry a shield, but can't bash with it.
Debby
Forget the lance. Drop a house on your enemy and take their slippers. I have seen no rules preventing me from doing so.
|
I did a search for lance in the rules threads.
To my dismay, it seems indeed that you can TWF with lances by RAW.
Though the bonus from a charge only applies to a single attack, even if you have Pounce.
BTW, a FAQ about Power Attack deals only with Power Attack, not TWF, just as a FAQ about Armor Spikes does not deal with Lances.
It was a FAQ about lances getting the benefits of being two handed weapons and therefore applies to lances, two-handed weapons and by logical extension two-weapon fighting with lances.
If it was an FAQ about armour spikes then I agree it would probably not have much relevancy to lances.
Ride a pouncing wemic centaur who also has a lance in each hand for quadruple lance action, plus rake damage. Give them the overrun, charge feat combo and have unlimited quadruple lance attacks. Whoop whoop.
It was a FAQ about lances getting the benefits of being two handed weapons and therefore applies to lances, two-handed weapons and by logical extension two-weapon fighting with lances.
If it was an FAQ about armour spikes then I agree it would probably not have much relevancy to lances.
Ride a pouncing wemic centaur who also has a lance in each hand for quadruple lance action, plus rake damage. Give them the overrun, charge feat combo and have unlimited quadruple lance attacks. Whoop whoop.
Check the rules for Two-Weapon Fighting. There are nothing in them that prevents anyone from Two-Weapon Fight with a Two Handed Weapon, provided it can be wielded in one hand.
And lances can be wielded in one hand.
Forget the lance. Drop a house on your enemy and take their slippers. I have seen no rules preventing me from doing so.
Do you see a rule allowing it?
For the Two-Weapon Fighting rules say you can Two-Weapon Fight if you wield one weapon and then another in your off hand. The Lance rules say you can wield it in one hand.
There is (to my knowledge, but I might be wrong) no rule on the handiness of houses.
The rules for lances being a two handed weapon used as 1 handed weapon do not say they can be used as an off hand weapon as well. Some people have inferred that if you can use a two handed weapon in one hand you use it as an off hand weapon as well in order to wield two lances. Cool, you can make that logical extensions and convince your DM. I and lot of other people don't agree with that interpretation. You are assuming that is what the writer intended as it certainly isn't spelt out. Neither does it say you can't in fairness. When in doubt I look to common sense and the practicality of what the player/Gm is trying to achieve fo help me decide.
You can continue this conversation as log as you like, but it isn't clear and I can't believe it is so high up the FAQ list, when the manoeuvre is clearly fairly pointless because of the charge rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Did I miss something? What has charging got to do with me sitting on a horse and two-weapon-fighting?
|
|
Uh, you are nitpicking, and unfortunately forcing me to go over everyone else's arguments again. Let's go back to what it says:
"While mounted, you can wield a lance with one hand."
You are saying that the above statement is equivalent to this one: "While mounted, a lance is a one-handed weapon." This is a fallacious argument; the two statements are not equivalent. If it was, it would probably say that instead; this can be seen in the example of a certain exotic one-handed melee weapon, the bastard sword:
"(It is) too large to use in one hand without special
training; thus, it is an exotic weapon. A character can use a
bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon."A bastard sword can be used as a one-handed weapon if you have the special training, i.e. some form of Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Bastard Sword). If you do not have this exotic weapon proficiency, you can still use it as a martial weapon, but it is then a two-handed weapon. The statement regarding the lance provides for a specific situational exception: when you are mounted, you can wield this two-handed weapon with one hand. It doesn't say that when you are mounted, a lance is a one-handed weapon, or otherwise change the fact that it's a two-handed weapon.
Since the clear implication (because it is not, unfortunately, blatantly stated anywhere) of two-weapon fighting is that the weapons you use cannot be two-handed weapons (unless, y'know, you have four or more hands available), you appear to need to use weapons defined as either one-handed or light. As the lance never receives a change in category (unlike the bastard sword, which is a martial two-handed weapon and an exotic one-handed weapon), it remains uneligible for use with two-weapon fighting.
----------------------
Now, either you can accept that logic or you can't; if you can't, then you really shouldn't be arguing at all, but it's the internet, and you can't be failed off it. I find it exceptionally amusing that this sure as hell ain't the first time...
Except I never stated that the weapon changes category, and fully understand that it doesn't. However, it only requires one hand, which means I have whole other hand with which to do stuff. Would you argue that wielding a lance means I can't have a heavy shield equipped? A heavy shield requires one of your hands which makes 3 "hands" worth of effort just to have equipped, let alone used as a weapon. In fact, following this train of thought, you'd only be able to equip a buckler while wielding a single lance, and even then you'd lose the buckler's AC bonus whenever you attacked with it.
All of which is ridiculous, because the fact that a lance is a two-handed weapon which has no bearing on what my other hand wields while mounted.
Now, to everyone saying that low level characters shouldn't be able to do this...
They can't. They literally can't, at least not well enough to be considered feasible, or overpowered, or even cheesy. In order to do something like this, on a charge, a character would need: 1) A decent ride score, 2) Minimum of 15 Dexterity, 3) The Two-Weapon Fighting feat (S) in ADDITION to all of the other Mounted Combat feats, oh and of course, 4) Mounted Skirmisher, which is, in and of itself, a feat a long time coming. If a character does all of these things then, at high levels, he gets a -4 to his most potent attack (the initial lance charge), as well as on all subsequent attacks, just to have a chance to push out a little bit more damage with an off-hand weapon (which also eats that -4 penalty). Oh, and, if at any point in his mounted career, the rider does not have two-weapon fighting those penalties go to -6/-10, which sound pretty much exactly like the kind of penalties one would expect.
So it's not overpowered, it's not cheesy, and it makes perfect sense to allow a person to use a weapon that allows use in one hand to be used in each hand. And this is why I don't have to back down. I'm fighting for someone's character concept. I'm not fighting for cheese, or powergaming. I'm fighting for little Billy out there, who just want's to play his dual-lance wielding halfling wolfrider.
|
|
The rules for lances being a two handed weapon used as 1 handed weapon do not say they can be used as an off hand weapon as well. Some people have inferred that if you can use a two handed weapon in one hand you use it as an off hand weapon as well in order to wield two lances. Cool, you can make that logical extensions and convince your DM. I and lot of other people don't agree with that interpretation. You are assuming that is what the writer intended as it certainly isn't spelt out. Neither does it say you can't in fairness. When in doubt I look to common sense and the practicality of what the player/Gm is trying to achieve fo help me decide.
You can continue this conversation as log as you like, but it isn't clear and I can't believe it is so high up the FAQ list, when the manoeuvre is clearly fairly pointless because of the charge rules.
There's no such thing as an off-hand weapon until you start two-weapon fighting, at which point the designation is given by the combatant. There is also no rule in the game that says longswords, kukri, or daggers can be used as off-hand weapons, because that distinction does not exist until you have a weapon in each hand and use both as part of a full-attack.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
There's no such thing as an off-hand weapon until you start two-weapon fighting, at which point the designation is given by the combatant. There is also no rule in the game that says longswords, kukri, or daggers can be used as off-hand weapons, because that distinction does not exist until you have a weapon in each hand and use both as part of a full-attack.The rules for lances being a two handed weapon used as 1 handed weapon do not say they can be used as an off hand weapon as well. Some people have inferred that if you can use a two handed weapon in one hand you use it as an off hand weapon as well in order to wield two lances. Cool, you can make that logical extensions and convince your DM. I and lot of other people don't agree with that interpretation. You are assuming that is what the writer intended as it certainly isn't spelt out. Neither does it say you can't in fairness. When in doubt I look to common sense and the practicality of what the player/Gm is trying to achieve fo help me decide.
You can continue this conversation as log as you like, but it isn't clear and I can't believe it is so high up the FAQ list, when the manoeuvre is clearly fairly pointless because of the charge rules.
Actually there is a rule that says that:
One-Handed: A one-handed weapon can be used in either the primary hand or the off hand. Add the wielder's Strength modifier to damage rolls for melee attacks with a one-handed weapon if it's used in the primary hand, or half his Strength modifier if it's used in the off hand. If a one-handed weapon is wielded with two hands during melee combat, add 1-1/2 times the character's Strength modifier to damage rolls made with that weapon.
Compare and contrast with the rule for Two-handed weapons:
Two-Handed: Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively. Apply 1-1/2 times the character's Strength modifier to damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon.
From the FAQ :
Power Attack: If I am using a two-handed weapon with one hand (such as a lance while mounted), do still I get the +50% damage for using a two-handed weapon?
Yes.—Pathfinder Design Team, 05/24/13
This means that the lance rule is a modified version of the two-handed weapon rule and it looks like:
Two-Handed (Lance): A Lance may be used in one hand while mounted. Apply 1-1/2 times the character's Strength modifier to damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon.
A lance is NOT a one handed weapon therefore it cannot be used as an offhand as per the one-handed weapon rule.
|
|
There's no such thing as an off-hand weapon until you start two-weapon fighting, at which point the designation is given by the combatant. There is also no rule in the game that says longswords, kukri, or daggers can be used as off-hand weapons, because that distinction does not exist until you have a weapon in each hand and use both as part of a full-attack.The rules for lances being a two handed weapon used as 1 handed weapon do not say they can be used as an off hand weapon as well. Some people have inferred that if you can use a two handed weapon in one hand you use it as an off hand weapon as well in order to wield two lances. Cool, you can make that logical extensions and convince your DM. I and lot of other people don't agree with that interpretation. You are assuming that is what the writer intended as it certainly isn't spelt out. Neither does it say you can't in fairness. When in doubt I look to common sense and the practicality of what the player/Gm is trying to achieve fo help me decide.
You can continue this conversation as log as you like, but it isn't clear and I can't believe it is so high up the FAQ list, when the manoeuvre is clearly fairly pointless because of the charge rules.
Actually there is a rule that says that:
One-Handed: A one-handed weapon can be used in either the primary hand or the off hand. Add the wielder's Strength modifier to damage rolls for melee attacks with a one-handed weapon if it's used in the primary hand, or half his Strength modifier if it's used in the off hand. If a one-handed weapon is wielded with two hands during melee combat, add 1-1/2 times the character's Strength modifier to damage rolls made with that weapon.
Compare and contrast with the rule for Two-handed weapons:
Two-Handed: Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively. Apply 1-1/2 times the character's Strength modifier to damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon....
Okay. That's fair.
@Davor however,
Given the RAW for lances i think you can use them for TWF as long as you are mounted and using the lance as your primary weapon.
|
|
@Davor however,
Given the RAW for lances i think you can use them for TWF as long as you are mounted and using the lance as your primary weapon.
True, but then you run into reach issues. I'd probably still houserule that the language of using 1 hand counts as one-handed for the purpose of dual-wielding (it makes sense to me), but rules are rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aaarrrrggggggghhhhhhhnnhhhh
True, but then you run into reach issues. I'd probably still houserule that the language of using 1 hand counts as one-handed for the purpose of dual-wielding (it makes sense to me), but rules are rules.@Davor however,
Given the RAW for lances i think you can use them for TWF as long as you are mounted and using the lance as your primary weapon.
Yeah the reach thing is still an issue, you can either house rule it or play a dwarf with the chain flail master feat and a dorn dergar in the offhand, now both your weapons have reach haha
EDIT: actually now im picturing a mounted dwarf with the lance hitting someone cross body and the offhand arm with the chain also hitting someone cross body and it reminds me of the boondock saints and THIS IDEA IS MINE YOU CANT HAVE IT
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This just reminds me of one of the lovely issues I have with how Pathfinder's rules work. Half the time the PDT says we shouldn't interpret the text legalistically, and the other half we're told that a weapon "used in one hand" is different from "a one handed weapon," which is also different from "a weapon wielded in one hand."
Sigh.
This just reminds me of one of the lovely issues I have with how Pathfinder's rules work. Half the time the PDT says we shouldn't interpret the text legalistically, and the other half we're told that a weapon "used in one hand" is different from "a one handed weapon," which is also different from "a weapon wielded in one hand."
Sigh.
Eh, it seems pretty straightforward to me:
The wording "this two-handed weapon may be wielded in one hand" (which AFAIK is ONLY found on the lance and is not applicable to any other weapon) implies that you are taking the "useable in one hand" clause from the One-handed weapon rule and overriding the "requires two-hands to wield properly" clause in the two-handed rule, but the rest of the two-handed rule still applies while none of the rest of the one-handed rule applies.
The wording "wield this two-handed weapon as a one-handed weapon" means that you are taking the entire one-handed rule and inserting it under the two-handed rule in the hierarchy, therefore overriding every part of the two-handed rule with the "more specific" one-handed rule
And this, children, is why semantic arguments such as this (hinging on the interpretation of 'a' and debating whether or not 'in one hand' means 'as a one-handed weapon') is sophistry and deserving of a phone book to the head. See once more Wyrm's Rule of Gaming #0, which really can be boiled down to 'If it makes you go 'how the hell would you do that???', it's probably a bad interpretation.'
And this, children, is why semantic arguments such as this (hinging on the interpretation of 'a' and debating whether or not 'in one hand' means 'as a one-handed weapon') is sophistry and deserving of a phone book to the head. See once more Wyrm's Rule of Gaming #0, which really can be boiled down to 'If it makes you go 'how the hell would you do that???', it's probably a bad interpretation.'
i'd agree with you if this hadn't been answered by the devs, when it gets answered by the devs its not sophistry anymore, now its a physical law of the pathfinder universe lol
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And this, children, is why semantic arguments such as this (hinging on the interpretation of 'a' and debating whether or not 'in one hand' means 'as a one-handed weapon') is sophistry and deserving of a phone book to the head. See once more Wyrm's Rule of Gaming #0, which really can be boiled down to 'If it makes you go 'how the hell would you do that???', it's probably a bad interpretation.'
Yeah, I don't subscribe to "Wyrm's rule of gaming #0", I like things that challenge my concept of how things can work, and generally as long as something's not completely destroying the curve of what's expected, I allow it. You keep bringing up your own rule, but it's just that, your own rule, and it's not really one that others place much stock in.
Really, I subscribe to N.'s rule of gaming #0: As long as it doesn't actively hurt the game, it's worth considering. TWF with lances while mounting is easily in that category.
Also as an aside, referring to everyone else here as children is condescending as hell.
|
|
And this, children, is why semantic arguments such as this (hinging on the interpretation of 'a' and debating whether or not 'in one hand' means 'as a one-handed weapon') is sophistry and deserving of a phone book to the head. See once more Wyrm's Rule of Gaming #0, which really can be boiled down to 'If it makes you go 'how the hell would you do that???', it's probably a bad interpretation.'Yeah, I don't subscribe to "Wyrm's rule of gaming #0", I like things that challenge my concept of how things can work, and generally as long as something's not completely destroying the curve of what's expected, I allow it. You keep bringing up your own rule, but it's just that, your own rule, and it's not really one that others place much stock in.
Really, I subscribe to N.'s rule of gaming #0: As long as it doesn't actively hurt the game, it's worth considering. TWF with lances while mounting is easily in that category.
Also as an aside, referring to everyone else here as children is condescending as hell.
Whoa whoa whoa. Wyrm being condescending? NOOOOOOOO.
/sarcasm
Seriously, though. It turns out that, in a discussion of the rules, in a rules forum, there was a rules answer for the problem that in no way relied on house-ruling or making up our own rules and pretending they're part of the game. WHO KNEW?
|
'Smash From The Air' might be one such feat - something for Fafhrd or Conan or someone similarly high-level to be able to do. As well, what sort of feat is it - extraordinary, supernatural? Feats are defined like that for a reason - an extraordinary feat is one that redefines the boundaries of what's physically possible, while a supernatural feat simply ignores that benchmark entirely. One should always be aware of that point ...
Its a feat, all feats are extraordinary abilities unless specified differently, in this case, it is extraordinary. So you probably want to rephrase what you just said because you have just invalidated yourself
Access for this feat requires bab 9, im not sure if that qualifies "high" for many gm standards
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I reject the idea that emulating physics is necessarily desirable. If the party's barbarian is strong enough to lift a warship over his head, I'm not going to stop him just because pressure should make him punch through the bottom.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And this, children, is why semantic arguments such as this (hinging on the interpretation of 'a' and debating whether or not 'in one hand' means 'as a one-handed weapon') is sophistry and deserving of a phone book to the head. See once more Wyrm's Rule of Gaming #0, which really can be boiled down to 'If it makes you go 'how the hell would you do that???', it's probably a bad interpretation.'
So like.. So like half the Ex and every single Su and Sp ability in the game... Cool pretentiously named rule ya got there brah.
... what are you on about?
If you say so.
Just to chime in with my two copper, outside of PFS why does it even matter if it isn't allowed by the RAW? Even if it were allowed by GM Fiat it's not very good at it's best (since two-weapon fighting while mounted precludes charging, the main strength of a lance) so why would people so ardently deny others the ability to build their super-special-awesome snowflake character?
A. It does touch on other issues, that do have further reaching effects. This is another 'figurative hands' argument in a different package.
B. The purpose of this forum is to discuss the meaning and interpretation of the rules as presented, as modified by dev commentary/FAQs/errata/etc. It serves as a shared baseline for discussion.Bringing up the 'houserule' and 'gm fiat' issue isn't really constructive around here. It is always an option. So much so that actually bringing it up adds little to nothing. You can't rely upon GM fiats when you go to different tables. You can possibly rely upon the baseline rules and FAQs, since you can just point at them when arguing with a new GM. He might still go against that...but at least there is room for discussion there. Better than "Well, my old GM did this, and he did that..." (since the obvious response is "Why didn't you stick with your old GM if you like how he ran things better?"
As far as shared discussion goes, having the baseline is important, since you can never know how someone else runs their tables. The baseline rules allow you to have a shared frame of reference. It is the foudnation for most of the discussion in this area of the forum.
C. We are people that hang around on the rules section of a forum for an RPG. We already have a tendency towards being passionate about the rules. So of course many of us are irked by how twisted this whole mess is. Go to the houserule section if you are looking for people that are cool with rule of cool. That, combined with how unsightly this would be both in image and in build means that we are going to react with disgust.
The unwritten rule: PCs cannot benefit from the advantages of two-handed-weapon fighting and the advantages of two-weapon-fighting simultaneously.