FAQ: Does the word 'hand' equate to a weapon slot in game mechanics?


Rules Questions


4 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

There have been a large number of threads that have turned heated over the discussion of whether a normal general character can threaten with a two-handed weapon and a non-handed weapon simultaneously. This appears to be used most often to threaten adjacent and reach squares simultaneously.

There is text to support both sides of the argument. The argument against highlights

PRD Combat section wrote:
Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon

which highlights kicks and head butts as unarmed strikes that do not use hands and also highlights the High BAB/Multiple weapons FAQ as being able to use different weapons simultaneously without incurring two-weapon fighting penalties as long as the character is not gaining extra attacks.

This leads to the scenario where a dwarven fighter could wield a longspear and wear a boulder helmet to threaten adjacent and reach opponents simultaneously, or any character with improved unarmed strike could wield a longspear and threaten to kick simultaneously.

The argument for refers to

Core Rulebook FAQ wrote:

Armor Spikes: Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?

No.
Likewise, you couldn't use an armored gauntlet to do so, as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks.

and the Paizo developer/designer comments that preceded that FAQ such as

Mark Moreland wrote:
Armor spikes are treated as light weapons for the purpose of threatening adjacent squares. Light weapons require the use of limbs, so you would only be able to make attacks with them if you have a free hand. Thus, wielding a two-handed reach weapon would negate your ability to "wield" (and thus threaten with) armor spikes. This isn't necessarily clear in the rules, but I just discussed it with Jason, and we're both on the same page about the intent.

and

Jason Bulmahn wrote:
We are currently looking into the whole armor spike/misc non-hand weapons and how they threaten. This was a slightly bigger issue than I first thought when I gave an off the cuff opinion.

which indicate that the intent was to clarify that generally a character cannot threaten with a non-handed weapon at the same time as a two-handed weapon.

However, the Armor Spikes FAQ explicitly mentions two-weapon fighting and those against the idea of a limited number of weapon slots argue that the ruling does not apply unless the character is trying to gain an extra attack, using the High BAB/multiple weapons FAQ as evidence.

A clarification from the design team on whether characters can simultaneously threaten with more weapons than available hand slots would be welcomed.


well, currently it's a yes. You threaten with any weapon you can make an attack with. And since you don't need to switch hands or anything you're able to make attacks with both.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's the classic debate of hands versus 'hands'. Between that FAQ and various developer comments (and certain extra limb rules like those on Vestigial Arm), there is now this idea that there is an 'unwritten rule' about weapons/attacks requiring metaphysical hands of effort separately from physical hands. Generally it is accepted that the FAQ means armor spikes require a 'hand' even though they don't need a physical hand.

There is another way to read the FAQ, though. It could mean that armor spikes do require a free physical hand (like an armored gauntlet, which the FAQ mentions), in which case you couldn't threaten with both at the same time. While it is a free action to take a hand off of the two-handed weapon, you can only take free actions on your turn or while performing an action. If you don't take your hand off the two-handed weapon before the end of your turn, you don't threaten with the armor spikes, but if you do take your hand off then you wouldn't threaten with the weapon.

Most people are in agreement about armor spikes needing a 'hand' instead of a physical hand though, or they don't even know about the FAQ, so the answer is going to be "yes" at almost every table. Which means this question isn't likely to be answered, even though a lot of people wish the whole 'hands' thing would be either clarified or gotten rid of.


In the Core Rulebook FAQ, it refers to an 'offhand'. As such, it's talking about two weapon combat since that's the only time you have an offhand. As such, it has nothing to do with AoO as they take place outside of normal combat.

That leaves only off the cuff thread posts as saying you can't use spiked armor with a reach weapon for AoO. Since thread posts aren't official, there is nothing stopping you being able to use both for AoO. The reason is right there in your post. "We cannot ask our judges to be familiar with every ruling or thought from every messageboard post, even if it comes from a staff member."

As to 'slots' you have hands and 'hands' Hands are what you can physically hold and 'hands' are the effort used. Both are 2 hands worth. Neither has any impact on AoO though.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / FAQ: Does the word 'hand' equate to a weapon slot in game mechanics? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.