Can anyone kick?


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 108 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here is the ruling you are looking for Hugo.

SKR wrote:

Finally, does this have any effect on threatening and attacks of opportunity, e.g. when I used a longspear to attack in a round, can I still threaten with unarmed strikes and make attacks into adjacent fields?

I don't think this ruling has any effect on that; AOOs are outside the normal sequence of actions you can perform on your turn.


Hands of effort is only referring to the rules for two weapon fighting, because when using those rules, you have a "main hand" and an "off hand". So, if your main hand and off hand are both being used on the same weapon, then you don't have a second "off hand" to use for two weapon fighting. This only applies to combat options that use the "main hand" and "off hand" terminology. AoO never references "hands" and so aren't affected.


Melkiador wrote:
Hands of effort is only referring to the rules for two weapon fighting, because when using those rules, you have a "main hand" and an "off hand". So, if your main hand and off hand are both being used on the same weapon, then you don't have a second "off hand" to use for two weapon fighting. This only applies to combat options that use the "main hand" and "off hand" terminology. AoO never references "hands" and so aren't affected.

Maybe we can get this "hands of effort" unwritten rules, written down and codified?

This would help end these debates.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Because the game has an unwritten rule which essentially states the following:

• A 1st-level standard-race PC can either make one melee attack without TWF or you can make two melee attacks with TWF.
• The most damage you can do without TWF is using a 1H or 2H weapon in two hands for x1.5 Str damage, and the most damage you can do with TWF is x1 in the main hand and x.5 in the off-hand (for a total of x1.5 Str added to your weapons), so optimally you're getting no more that x1.5 Str no matter which attack mode you choose.

• While the game doesn't explicitly limit your attacks to "hands," that's the basic assumption, and you shouldn't be able to pile on additional attacks per round just because you can think up additional or alternative body parts to attack with.

• Because if one character uses 2H weapon and is NOT allowed to make an additional attack with armor spikes or a metal gauntlet because his hands are occupied by his 2H weapon, and a different character uses a 2H weapon and IS allowed to make an additional attack with a metal boot because he's not using his hand, that second character is gaining a game mechanics advantage simply by changing the flavorful description of his extra attack's origin from, and that is not good game design.

There is a hard (but not-explicity-stated-in-the-rules) limit to what a standard-race PC should be able to do in one round of combat. Even though it's not stated in the rules, it is a real limit (in the same way that there's no printed rule that says "don't make a first-tier feat that gives more than +3 to one skill for a 1st-level character," or "don't make a first-tier feat that gives more than a +1 to attack rolls with one type of weapon," but it's still a rule we follow), and you shouldn't be allowed to break that limit.

This is the gist of it written down for you.


Anyone can kick as an unarmed strike. It doesn't matter what you're holding at the time. The line for Monks being able to attack with their hands full refers to attack economy; a Monk could attack with a 2-h weapon but still use TWF to get extra attacks with unarmed strikes. Normally, this would be a non-issue as the same is achieved through FoB, but some archetypes forego FoB and, if they want to TWF, they must rely on the normal feats. Or maybe your Monk wants to TWF with non-monk weapons. So if, for whatever reason, your Monk is using the TWF feats rather than FoB, he can make his additional attacks using Unarmed Strikes even if those additional attacks would ordinarily have been subsumed in the use of a 2-h weapon and, furthermore, since these unarmed strikes are adjudicated as if they were main-hand weapons, they'd get full Str to damage as well as full Power Attack bonus. This actually gives them a significant advantage when fighting with, say, a Longspear. And they say Monks can't have nice things.


Sorry I don’t have access to a PC at present so urls are too hard to do efficiently. The free action citation is an extension of the 2 FAQs concerning the longspear threatening at 5' and 10' through grip change and the releasing and regripping of a two-handed weapon. Both are free actions. So if holding or wearing more weapons than hands then it would be a free action to change which ones are being effectively wielded.

Thanks Talonhawke for the SKR reference it seems from that that a PC can simultaneously wield more weapons than hands but can't attack with them on his turn. That line of thinking also invalidates the armor spikes faq as a PC could attack with a longspear, release their grip, attack with an unarmed strike or armor spikes now they have a free hand and then regrip the longspear knowing that both weapons are being wielded at the same time.

Maybe it's about time this whole subject was clarified


No it doesn't allow that once you attack with the longspear your attack routine is locked into one set of attacks. Now if you have a +6 or higher BaB then you can use the second attack for a different weapon such as your gauntlets at no issue. You just can't TWF with a 2hw and something else barring an ability that lets you do so.


Hugo Rune wrote:

Sorry I don’t have access to a PC at present so urls are too hard to do efficiently. The free action citation is an extension of the 2 FAQs concerning the longspear threatening at 5' and 10' through grip change and the releasing and regripping of a two-handed weapon. Both are free actions. So if holding or wearing more weapons than hands then it would be a free action to change which ones are being effectively wielded.

Thanks Talonhawke for the SKR reference it seems from that that a PC can simultaneously wield more weapons than hands but can't attack with them on his turn. That line of thinking also invalidates the armor spikes faq as a PC could attack with a longspear, release their grip, attack with an unarmed strike or armor spikes now they have a free hand and then regrip the longspear knowing that both weapons are being wielded at the same time.

Maybe it's about time this whole subject was clarified

Well, according to that if you are standard race (the main 7: Human, 1/2 orc, 1/2 Elf, elves, dwarf, Gnome, Halfing).

This doesn't limit unstandard races or exotic like multi-arms ones.


CampinCarl9127 wrote:
I remember when I played an arm-less monk with "Weapon Focus (forehead)". Good times.

That would be kind of stinky since a Monk's Unarmed Strike ability explicitly only works with "fist, elbows, knees, and feet." Flurry of Blows would still work, at least, but the reduced damage would get rather noticeable rather quickly.


Talonhawke wrote:
No it doesn't allow that once you attack with the longspear your attack routine is locked into one set of attacks. Now if you have a +6 or higher BaB then you can use the second attack for a different weapon such as your gauntlets at no issue. You just can't TWF with a 2hw and something else barring an ability that lets you do so.

That depends on how one interprets the intent. From a gameplay perspective it makes sense to apply penalties to twf because the player is gaining an extra attack. Without the extra attack a player can use different weapons.

I believe that there are also restrictions on 2h weapons to make them less of an obviously better choice and this is what lead to the metaphysical hands unwritten rule. A reach weapon cannot threaten adjacent squares, this restriction is cheapened if armor spikes or ius simultaneously covers the adjacent squares. Most 2h weapons do more damage but 2 1h weapons offer more versatility. Allowing 2h and 0h allows both damage and versatility simultaneously.

With the exception of the SKR reference above where he *thinks* AoO is unaffected I haven't seen anything that broke the general framework and I am pretty sure I have seen other SKR posts where he talked about 'commitment' to wielding a 2h weapon which ruled out the ability to wield other weapons simultaneously.


Hugo Rune wrote:
An AoO can only be made if the square is being threatened. A normal Pc can only threaten with one two-handed or up to two one or none handed weapons. The choice of weapons to threaten with is made on the player's turn as a free action.

You keep asking for citations when you really need to be giving them. The above isn't a rule, and it doesn't logically drop out of any rules, written or unwritten, that I know of.

Threatened Squares

You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity.

On round 1 HighKickingSpear, Shoanti fighter with a spear and improved unarmed strike, Can

Kick next to him
Kick Kick next to him at -2/-2
Spear 10 feet away

On round 2 HKS can

Kick next to him
Kick Kick next to him at -2/-2
Spear 10 feet away

... and it doesn't matter one whit what he did the previous round. In between the two rounds he threatens at both 5 and 10 feet because he can make a melee attack into either.

Likewise someone threatening with the above sword and mace CAN make an aoo with either weapon, it doesn't take two hands of effort to threaten an attack, it only takes 2 hands of effort to DO the attack.

Quote:
A PC wielding a two-handed reach weapon can threaten squares 10' away. They cannot simultaneously threaten with armor spikes or a kick (assuming IUS) because that is 3 hands of effort.

A greatsword wielding fighter uses how many hands of effort when they attack once in a round and then make an attack of opportunity? 3. 1.5 to make the swing and 1.5 to make the AoO.

Quote:
A monk or brawler has a specific exception as their class feature of unarmed strike specifically allows them to use unarmed strikes when their hands are full

They have a specific exception to a rule that, not only does not exist, but is explicitly called out as not being the case.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Hugo Rune wrote:
An AoO can only be made if the square is being threatened. A normal Pc can only threaten with one two-handed or up to two one or none handed weapons. The choice of weapons to threaten with is made on the player's turn as a free action.

You keep asking for citations when you really need to be giving them. The above isn't a rule, and it doesn't logically drop out of any rules, written or unwritten, that I know of.

Threatened Squares

You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity.

On round 1 HighKickingSpear, Shoanti fighter with a spear and improved unarmed strike, Can

Kick next to him
Kick Kick next to him at -2/-2
Spear 10 feet away

On round 2 HKS can

Kick next to him
Kick Kick next to him at -2/-2
Spear 10 feet away

... and it doesn't matter one whit what he did the previous round. In between the two rounds he threatens at both 5 and 10 feet because he can make a melee attack into either.

Likewise someone threatening with the above sword and mace CAN make an aoo with either weapon, it doesn't take two hands of effort to threaten an attack, it only takes 2 hands of effort to DO the attack.

Quote:
A PC wielding a two-handed reach weapon can threaten squares 10' away. They cannot simultaneously threaten with armor spikes or a kick (assuming IUS) because that is 3 hands of effort.

A greatsword wielding fighter uses how many hands of effort when they attack once in a round and then make an attack of opportunity? 3. 1.5 to make the swing and 1.5 to make the AoO.

Quote:
A monk or brawler has a specific exception as their class feature of unarmed strike specifically allows
...

Just a note to add. If HighKickingSpear is high enough level to get iterative attacks he can also use his 1st iterative to spear at 10' and his 2nd iterative to kick at 5' or vice versa. Attacking with the two handed weapon doesn't affect his ability to use unarmed attacks or armor spikes other than he can't TWF with them.


Talonhawke wrote:

Here is the ruling you are looking for Hugo.

SKR wrote:

Finally, does this have any effect on threatening and attacks of opportunity, e.g. when I used a longspear to attack in a round, can I still threaten with unarmed strikes and make attacks into adjacent fields?

I don't think this ruling has any effect on that; AOOs are outside the normal sequence of actions you can perform on your turn.

Thanks TalonHawke, having read through SKR's post that you linked and the ones around it; there appears to be some contradiction between the framework ruling and the specific examples he gives.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Because the game has an unwritten rule which essentially states the following:

• A 1st-level standard-race PC can either make one melee attack without TWF or you can make two melee attacks with TWF.
• The most damage you can do without TWF is using a 1H or 2H weapon in two hands for x1.5 Str damage, and the most damage you can do with TWF is x1 in the main hand and x.5 in the off-hand (for a total of x1.5 Str added to your weapons), so optimally you're getting no more that x1.5 Str no matter which attack mode you choose.

• While the game doesn't explicitly limit your attacks to "hands," that's the basic assumption, and you shouldn't be able to pile on additional attacks per round just because you can think up additional or alternative body parts to attack with.

• Because if one character uses 2H weapon and is NOT allowed to make an additional attack with armor spikes or a metal gauntlet because his hands are occupied by his 2H weapon, and a different character uses a 2H weapon and IS allowed to make an additional attack with a metal boot because he's not using his hand, that second character is gaining a game mechanics advantage simply by changing the flavorful description of his extra attack's origin from, and that is not good game design.

In his examples he states

SKR wrote:
once your character gets an iterative attack, the "attack once with a 2H weapon, attack again with my iterative attack using armor spikes or whatever" technique is perfectly valid under the rules.

This example does work if the level 6 fighter releases and regrips the longspear between the iterations. So assuming he starts his turn wielding the longspear with both hands. He can attack an opponent 10 feet away and then release the grip as a free action. He then has a free hand that allows the armour spikes attack. He can then choose to regrip the longspear and threaten with it outside of his turn. This is as per the release and regrip FAQ. Alternatively, he could change grip and use the shaft of the longspear as an improvised weapon to attack an adjacent foe between iterations. This is explicitly allowed in the Using a Longspear FAQ.

The AoO example quoted at the top, where SKR thinks that a longspear and an unarmed strike can both be used to threaten in an AoO contradicts his second and in particular the third bullet. A normal character can't threaten with a longspear and a dagger simultaneously because they don't have enough hands, so shouldn't be able to threaten with a longspear and a kick/armour spikes simultaneously either.

Perhaps the fact it was after midnight when SKR wrote that post, had something to do with the contradictory example.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Any supposed contradiction in any of the above clears right up if you read the whole "metaphorical hands" thing to mean that you can't attack with "three hands of effort" at the same time.

Iterative attacks with a two-handed weapon and then armor spikes? First the one attack, then the other, no problem.

AoO with a two-handed weapon and then AoO with unarmed strike? First the one attack, then the other, no problem. Even if grip doesn't change it works, because "metaphorical hands" involve attacks, not holding something.

TWF with a two-handed weapon and kicks? Doesn't work, simply because three "hands" are being used simultaneously.

The whole "metaphorical hands of effort" thing is about the actual effort of making attacks, not simply holding something.


BadBird wrote:

Any supposed contradiction in any of the above clears right up if you read the whole "metaphorical hands" thing to mean that you can't attack with "three hands of effort" at the same time.

Iterative attacks with a two-handed weapon and then armor spikes? First the one attack, then the other, no problem.

AoO with a two-handed weapon and then AoO with unarmed strike? First the one attack, then the other, no problem. Even if grip doesn't change it works, because "metaphorical hands" involve attacks, not holding something.

TWF with a two-handed weapon and kicks? Doesn't work, simply because three "hands" are being used simultaneously.

The whole "metaphorical hands of effort" thing is about the actual effort of making attacks, not simply holding something.

Combat PRD, Attack of Opportunity Section wrote:
You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn.

EDIT: Simplified and restated as a question

How do you simultaneously threaten with a 2h reach weapon and an IUS without using three hands of effort?


Hugo Rune wrote:

If you are using both hands to threaten with a longspear you have 0 hands available to threaten with an IUS kick.

Threatening isn't the same thing as making an attack, and doesn't involve "hands". SKR's whole post about "hands" is talking about attack sequence TWF hijinks. If you let go of the idea that "metaphorical hands" matter for anything other than an actual attack sequence, the whole "contradictions" problem with AoO's clears right up.

The entire point of "metaphorical hands of effort" is about preventing things like a two-handed weapon and armor spikes being used simultaneously for two-weapon fighting. It has nothing to do with rewriting the whole system to stop things like kicking at something that tries to grab you from behind while you're holding a polearm.


Hugo Rune wrote:


How do you simultaneously threaten with a 2h reach weapon and an IUS without using three hands of effort?

The exact same way you only need one hand of effort to threaten with a mace and a long sword. Note that holding them both imposes no penalty at all. The fighter using the sword/mace combo in the faq is only using one hand of effort or he'd be accruing TWF penalties.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Hugo Rune wrote:


How do you simultaneously threaten with a 2h reach weapon and an IUS without using three hands of effort?
The exact same way you only need one hand of effort to threaten with a mace and a long sword. Note that holding them both imposes no penalty at all. The fighter using the sword/mace combo in the faq is only using one hand of effort or he'd be accruing TWF penalties.

Erm, that's not right at all and is so inaccurate I'm not sure if you're deliberately trolling. You need one hand to threaten with the longsword and you need one hand to threaten with the mace. You can choose not to attack with either but you are still threatening. Otherwise, by your logic, you would be able to threaten with a greatsword and a greatclub and only use 2 hands of effort. I also suggeast you actually read the FAQ you're claiming to quote from. You may be surprised to discover that the reason you do not suffer TWF penalties is because you are not gaining an extra attack. Using one hand of effort isn't mentioned at all.

@BadBird - I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Your hand-free interpretation is not consistent with the regrabbing FAQ

Two-Handed Weapons: What kind of action is it to remove your hand from a two-handed weapon or re-grab it with both hands? wrote:
Both are free actions. For example, a wizard wielding a quarterstaff can let go of the weapon with one hand as a free action, cast a spell as a standard action, and grasp the weapon again with that hand as a free action; this means the wizard is still able to make attacks of opportunity with the weapon (which requires using two hands).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

pssst! Hugo, thats kind of the point...
Hands of effort only apply when gaining extra attacks.
You can threaten with (e.g.) IUS and a 2 handed weapon, because you are not invoking the 'hands of effort' 2 weapon fighting rules.


If you read SKR's third bullet, you will find that hands of effort is used to prevent flavour from providing a game mechanics advantage. Extra attacks is one possible advantage, extra damage is a second and threatening adjacently and at reach simultaneously is a third.


Did you read that linked post? because you are taking this further than intended.
Neither the FAQ nor SKR himself in that linked post say this either does or should affect AoOs.

SKR wrote:
Sangalor wrote: wrote:


Finally, does this have any effect on threatening and attacks of opportunity, e.g. when I used a longspear to attack in a round, can I still threaten with unarmed strikes and make attacks into adjacent fields?
I don't think this ruling has any effect on that; AOOs are outside the normal sequence of actions you can perform on your turn.

The 'hands of effort' unwritten rule only applies to gaining extra attacks on your turn.

Them's the rules.


Hugo Rune wrote:

EDIT: Simplified and restated as a question

How do you simultaneously threaten with a 2h reach weapon and an IUS without using three hands of effort?

The same way that you can make your first iterative with a 2-h reach weapon and the second with an unarmed strike.

Though, I prefer to call it attack economy rather than "metaphorical hands", which is a pejorative term. Everyone makes it out to be this incredibly difficult matter to understand, but, unless one is being willfully ignorant in the face of all the very simple, straight-forward, and reasonable ways that it has been explained, and trying to fight the concept on the sole grounds that they feel that something has been "taken" from them, it is an incredibly easy-to-understand notion. As has been said before, the game is already weighted in favor of the players. People are just doing nothing but spinning their wheels by getting so disproportionately upset over the desire to be able to TWF with a Greatsword and Kicks. Seriously, do people really have nothing better to do with their time?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kazaan wrote:
Hugo Rune wrote:

EDIT: Simplified and restated as a question

How do you simultaneously threaten with a 2h reach weapon and an IUS without using three hands of effort?

The same way that you can make your first iterative with a 2-h reach weapon and the second with an unarmed strike.

Though, I prefer to call it attack economy rather than "metaphorical hands", which is a pejorative term. Everyone makes it out to be this incredibly difficult matter to understand, but, unless one is being willfully ignorant in the face of all the very simple, straight-forward, and reasonable ways that it has been explained, and trying to fight the concept on the sole grounds that they feel that something has been "taken" from them, it is an incredibly easy-to-understand notion. As has been said before, the game is already weighted in favor of the players. People are just doing nothing but spinning their wheels by getting so disproportionately upset over the desire to be able to TWF with a Greatsword and Kicks. Seriously, do people really have nothing better to do with their time?

Can you pretty please tell us what the "attack economy" rules are that answer all these questions definitively, and (this is important) give rules citations, FAQs or developer quotes as evidence that your rules are actually the "unwritten" game rules?

Because if you can't, then that means that we don't actually know how the rules work, and that's pretty stupid. If you can, and it takes a ridiculous amount of jumping around digging for years old developer quotes, then that is also pretty stupid, because it shouldn't require intense research to figure out if one can threaten with both unarmed strikes and a longspear.


The rules are pretty simple.

Outside of a full-attack action, you are wielding(for certain values of wielding but that's a different issue) all the weapons you have appropriately equipped and threaten with those weapons capable of threatening.

In a basic full-attack, "hands" don't come in to play and you can make each attack with whatever weapon you want.

If you are utilizing two weapon fighting, whenever you make a two-handed weapon attack you lose an off-hand attack, and if you make an off-hand attack you lose the ability to make an two-handed weapon attack (the same scenario forward and backwards since order of attacks can vary)


Calth wrote:

The rules are pretty simple.

Outside of a full-attack action, you are wielding(for certain values of wielding but that's a different issue) all the weapons you have appropriately equipped and threaten with those weapons capable of threatening.

In a basic full-attack, "hands" don't come in to play and you can make each attack with whatever weapon you want.

If you are utilizing two weapon fighting, whenever you make a two-handed weapon attack you lose an off-hand attack, and if you make an off-hand attack you lose the ability to make an two-handed weapon attack (the same scenario forward and backwards since order of attacks can vary)

Do you have any evidence that this interpretation is the correct interpretation?

Because I guarantee you that there are plenty of people on this forum (and in this very thread, in fact) who will dispute that your interpretation is the correct one. You will need evidence to prove them wrong.

If you can't, then we go back to "we don't know how the rules work", because without rules text and/or developer quotes to back them up your post is just a houserule.


Snowblind wrote:
Calth wrote:

The rules are pretty simple.

Outside of a full-attack action, you are wielding(for certain values of wielding but that's a different issue) all the weapons you have appropriately equipped and threaten with those weapons capable of threatening.

In a basic full-attack, "hands" don't come in to play and you can make each attack with whatever weapon you want.

If you are utilizing two weapon fighting, whenever you make a two-handed weapon attack you lose an off-hand attack, and if you make an off-hand attack you lose the ability to make an two-handed weapon attack (the same scenario forward and backwards since order of attacks can vary)

Do you have any evidence that this interpretation is the correct interpretation?

Because I guarantee you that there are plenty of people on this forum (and in this very thread, in fact) who will dispute that your interpretation is the correct one. You will need evidence to prove them wrong.

If you can't, then we go back to "we don't know how the rules work", because without rules text and/or developer quotes to back them up your post is just a houserule.

Read the posts from SKR in the relevant thread? Most of which have already been posted in this one.

Its honestly not that hard.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I had no idea took the hands of effort thing so seriously. It's a bad ruling, like a really really bad ruling. To top it off it's not even explained well. As far as I am aware it's not official in any sense (FAQ or errata), and I hope it stays that way. It's bad enough that a monk can't FoB a two handed weapon effectively because questionable math.


I do like the idea that a character can simultaneously threaten with a longspear, greatsword, armour spikes, a metal boot, three different kinds of greataxe and a kitchen sink because there are no hand limits for AoO. I just don't think it is as intended


Hugo Rune wrote:


Erm, that's not right at all and is so inaccurate I'm not sure if you're deliberately trolling.

No. I'm a long time poster, I lack the social skills required to troll, and more importantly EVERYONE is telling you that you're wrong here. EVERYONE. This many geeks could not agree on a legal name for a halfling rogue without it devolving into badly misapplied logical fallacy claims, ad homs and thrown dice, but we're all telling you that you're wrong. Take it as a sign.

By your math someone cannot threaten with a greatsword because that would be three hands of effort to attack

Your argument doesn't have a sound basis and gets some really weird results.

Quote:
You need one hand to threaten with the longsword and you need one hand to threaten with the mace. You can choose not to attack with either but you are still threatening. Otherwise, by your logic, you would be able to threaten with a greatsword and a greatclub and only use 2 hands of effort.

If someone had 4 actual hands they could. But you're stuck with the less of either actual hands or metaphorical hands. If you are holding a greatsword or greatclub in one hand you don't threaten anywhere because you can't make attacks with it, and you can't shift two a two handed grip because you can't take most free actions when its not your turn.

Quote:
I also suggeast you actually read the FAQ you're claiming to quote from. You may be surprised to discover that the reason you do not suffer TWF penalties is because you are not gaining an extra attack. Using one hand of effort isn't mentioned at all.

Which is exactly my point. Someone is not gaining an "extra" attack by getting to make an attack of opportunity.

Hands of effort are completely irrelevant to aoos. I have an unchained rogue that would need 9 hands to cover all the attacks and AOO's he can make with an elven branched spear.

Two-Handed Weapons: What kind of action is it to remove your hand from a two-handed weapon or re-grab it with both hands? wrote:
Both are free actions. For example, a wizard wielding a quarterstaff can let go of the weapon with one hand as a free action, cast a spell as a standard action, and grasp the weapon again with that hand as a free action; this means the wizard is still able to make attacks of opportunity with the weapon (which requires using two hands).

Thats hands to wield, not hands to use. HUGE difference.


Hugo Rune wrote:
I do like the idea that a character can simultaneously threaten with a longspear, greatsword, armour spikes, a metal boot, three different kinds of greataxe and a kitchen sink because there are no hand limits for AoO. I just don't think it is as intended

You would need to be the human centipad to do that.


Hugo Rune wrote:
I do like the idea that a character can simultaneously threaten with a longspear, greatsword, armour spikes, a metal boot, three different kinds of greataxe and a kitchen sink because there are no hand limits for AoO. I just don't think it is as intended

Great, continue to think up these pithy reductive absurdities to contribute with. Natural weapon rules completely shatter SKR's thoughts on the matter here, unless you feel biting while holding a longspear holds some verisimilitude.

You can't let go of the spear to punch when attacking with a longspear, but you can attack and then 5ft step and kick. You can also threaten with other weapons you are currently wielding, and that includes unarmed strikes so long as you have IUS.


hiiamtom wrote:
I had no idea took the hands of effort thing so seriously. It's a bad ruling, like a really really bad ruling. To top it off it's not even explained well. As far as I am aware it's not official in any sense (FAQ or errata), and I hope it stays that way. It's bad enough that a monk can't FoB a two handed weapon effectively because questionable math.

It is official, though. The entire basis behind that FAQ is hands of effort.

Why do you say a monk can't FoB with a two-handed weapon effectively?


hiiamtom wrote:
Hugo Rune wrote:
I do like the idea that a character can simultaneously threaten with a longspear, greatsword, armour spikes, a metal boot, three different kinds of greataxe and a kitchen sink because there are no hand limits for AoO. I just don't think it is as intended

Great, continue to think up these pithy reductive absurdities to contribute with. Natural weapon rules completely shatter SKR's thoughts on the matter here, unless you feel biting while holding a longspear holds some verisimilitude.

You can't let go of the spear to punch when attacking with a longspear, but you can attack and then 5ft step and kick. You can also threaten with other weapons you are currently wielding, and that includes unarmed strikes so long as you have IUS.

If you can attack with a longspear, 5' step, then kick, you can attack with a longspear, change grip, then punch with your now free hand (assuming you are not TWF in either case but making the second attack with an iterative).

Natural weapons are adjudicated differently than manufactured weapons, so there's really no reason to discuss them here. There's no reason a creature can't bite and attack with a longspear in the same round, so long as the creature can make a full attack.


This game is really dumb sometimes. Two handing a weapon and making off-hand attacks is mechanically identical to using natural weapons, and you can have a lot more natural weapons so long as you're not one of those lesser classes. The idea that in many ways real life fighters are more capable than the fantasy one just really makes me question that decision. I mean, European greatsword combat uses both the gaunlets and kicks in addition to the sword because they are effective - not to mention the hilt itself is designed for combat. And now that I'm in this rabbit hole the concept that reach weapons can't be used in some capacity at 5ft range is bizarre too.

Same for a monk with FoB. Giving one class the ability to deal 1.5xSTR during a flurry of attacks doesn't break the game or realistically deal that much damage to the point that they removed the restriction with the unchained version.

This is still true, however:

hiiamtom wrote:
You can't let go of the spear to punch when attacking with a longspear, but you can attack and then 5ft step and kick. You can also threaten with other weapons you are currently wielding, and that includes unarmed strikes so long as you have IUS.

You just can't TWF with unarmed strikes and a greatsword. Hell, there's even this FAQ.

EDIT

didn't refresh

fretgod99 wrote:
Natural weapons are adjudicated differently than manufactured weapons, so there's really no reason to discuss them here. There's no reason a creature can't bite and attack with a longspear in the same round, so long as the creature can make a full attack.

That's missing the point. Natural weapons are identical to unarmed strikes in practice - in fact a half orc bite is less effective than a punch or a kick (again in practice). So to rule that natural weapons can do one thing with no investment but two weapon fighting can't makes no sense when it's not game mechanics the ruling is based on. The amount of penalties to hit and ability score and feat taxes needed to make this work is through the roof already.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
fretgod99 wrote:

The entire basis behind that FAQ is hands of effort.

Or that you use armor spikes with your arm. Either one is a possible interpretation.


fretgod99 wrote:
hiiamtom wrote:
I had no idea took the hands of effort thing so seriously. It's a bad ruling, like a really really bad ruling. To top it off it's not even explained well. As far as I am aware it's not official in any sense (FAQ or errata), and I hope it stays that way. It's bad enough that a monk can't FoB a two handed weapon effectively because questionable math.

It is official, though. The entire basis behind that FAQ is hands of effort.

Why do you say a monk can't FoB with a two-handed weapon effectively?

Please point out where the term "hands of effort" is referenced anywhere in that FAQ. Doesn't happen.

It simply says that while TWF you can't use a two-handed weapon. The reasoning is given in the FAQ. When you attack with a two-handed weapon you are employing both of your physical hands so your actual physical "off-hand" has technically already made an attack. No need for the clunky concept of "hands of effort" required.

It also doesn't affect any situation other than TWF. I can wield a two-handed weapon and make iterative attacks with both the two-handed weapon and armor spikes or an unarmed attack and not need to release or change grips on the weapon. I can also threaten with both a two-handed reach weapon and armor spikes or unarmed strikes without needing to release or change grips. The only time the "off-hand" matters is for two-weapon fighting.


hiiamtom wrote:
This game is really dumb sometimes. Two handing a weapon and making off-hand attacks is mechanically identical to using natural weapons, and you can have a lot more natural weapons so long as you're not one of those lesser classes. The idea that in many ways real life fighters are more capable than the fantasy one just really makes me question that decision. I mean, European greatsword combat uses both the gaunlets and kicks in addition to the sword because they are effective - not to mention the hilt itself is designed for combat. And now that I'm in this rabbit hole the concept that reach weapons can't be used in some capacity at 5ft range is bizarre too.

You can't make a claw attack if you've used that limb to wield a weapon. Sure you can make a bite, but as you later note, it's typically objectively worse than being able to TWF with a THW. So why is that relevant to whether you can TWF with a THW? It's not mechanically identical at all because natural weapons are defined to work differently mechanically than natural weapons. If you're after verisimilitude that's fine, but there are any number of things that are particularly realistic within PF's rule set. This isn't a real world simulation game. It is a fantasy RPG. Sure, there are arbitrary rules from time to time that could just as easily have had their line drawn somewhere else in the sand. But the point is a line had to be drawn somewhere and no matter where it was drawn, the "it's not realistic" comment would still be valid. So ultimately, I'm not sure what the point of the critique it.

hiiamtom wrote:
Same for a monk with FoB. Giving one class the ability to deal 1.5xSTR during a flurry of attacks doesn't break the game or realistically deal that much damage to the point that they removed the restriction with the unchained version.

Core monks can FoB with two-handed weapons, they just get 1.0 STR with both attacks (which is still better than standard TWF). Not only that, they do qualify for 1.5 x PA bonus. Regardless, that it wouldn't be game-breaking to allow it doesn't really mean much. It wasn't game-breaking to not allow it, either.

hiiamtom wrote:

This is still true, however:

hiiamtom wrote:
You can't let go of the spear to punch when attacking with a longspear, but you can attack and then 5ft step and kick. You can also threaten with other weapons you are currently wielding, and that includes unarmed strikes so long as you have IUS.
You just can't TWF with unarmed strikes and a greatsword. Hell, there's even this FAQ.

There's no dispute here. You can't TWF with a longspear and a kick any more than you can TWF with a longspear and a punch. You can make both attacks using iteratives, however, which is what I said. You cannot TWF. But if you can normally make two attacks without TWF, then you can make those attacks with whatever weapons you want. I'm not sure why that is particularly problematic here.

hiiamtom wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
Natural weapons are adjudicated differently than manufactured weapons, so there's really no reason to discuss them here. There's no reason a creature can't bite and attack with a longspear in the same round, so long as the creature can make a full attack.
That's missing the point. Natural weapons are identical to unarmed strikes in practice - in fact a half orc bite is less effective than a punch or a kick (again in practice). So to rule that natural weapons can do one thing with no investment but two weapon fighting can't makes no sense when it's not game mechanics the ruling is based on. The amount of penalties to hit and ability score and feat taxes needed to make this work is through the roof already

As mentioned briefly above, they're not identical. And ultimately, a rule had to be crafted and this was the rule that was crafted. They're operating within the framework of the rules they were given and adopted. Everybody recognizes that half of the effectiveness of fighting with a spear was striking opponents with the haft at close range. Everybody also recognizes that not all armor is effective against all types of weapons. Everybody recognizes that strikes, kicks, and other techniques were a necessary component of effective sword combat in the middle ages. Everybody also recognizes that you can't really fire 8 arrows in six seconds accurately or effectively. That's not particularly relevant to PF, though. PF isn't designed to be an absolutely simulation of the real world.


OldSkoolRPG wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
hiiamtom wrote:
I had no idea took the hands of effort thing so seriously. It's a bad ruling, like a really really bad ruling. To top it off it's not even explained well. As far as I am aware it's not official in any sense (FAQ or errata), and I hope it stays that way. It's bad enough that a monk can't FoB a two handed weapon effectively because questionable math.

It is official, though. The entire basis behind that FAQ is hands of effort.

Why do you say a monk can't FoB with a two-handed weapon effectively?

Please point out where the term "hands of effort" is referenced anywhere in that FAQ. Doesn't happen.

It simply says that while TWF you can't use a two-handed weapon. The reasoning is given in the FAQ. When you attack with a two-handed weapon you are employing both of your physical hands so your actual physical "off-hand" has technically already made an attack. No need for the clunky concept of "hands of effort" required.

It also doesn't affect any situation other than TWF. I can wield a two-handed weapon and make iterative attacks with both the two-handed weapon and armor spikes or an unarmed attack and not need to release or change grips on the weapon. I can also threaten with both a two-handed reach weapon and armor spikes or unarmed strikes without needing to release or change grips. The only time the "off-hand" matters is for two-weapon fighting.

It doesn't mention hands of effort. That's why I said the concept is the basis behind the FAQ. And the developer commentary after the release of the FAQ backs that position up.

As for any situation other than TWF, no disagreement. I never said this FAQ restricted anything but TWF. Threatening with a reach weapon and an ordinary weapon is perfectly acceptable. One need not regrip a longspear to make an UAS. I specifically mentioned regripping to punch because that was the example I was responding to.


fretgod99 wrote:


As for any situation other than TWF, no disagreement. I never said this FAQ restricted anything but TWF. Threatening with a reach weapon and an ordinary weapon is perfectly acceptable. One need not regrip a longspear to make an UAS. I specifically mentioned regripping to punch because that was the example I was responding to.

I'm sorry, I confused your post with that of another user above who was arguing otherwise. My mistake.


Snowblind wrote:

Can you pretty please tell us what the "attack economy" rules are that answer all these questions definitively, and (this is important) give rules citations, FAQs or developer quotes as evidence that your rules are actually the "unwritten" game rules?

Because if you can't, then that means that we don't actually know how the rules work, and that's pretty stupid. If you can, and it takes a ridiculous amount of jumping around digging for years old developer quotes, then that is also pretty stupid, because it shouldn't require intense research to figure out if one can threaten with both unarmed strikes and a longspear.

I can, but the question I have is, "would it matter?" Because it has been explained. It has been explained to death, the rules citations, FAQs, developer quotes, everything has already been discussed to death. And yet, we still have people who refuse to accept any of it and insist on making gross hyperbole, equivocations, opinionated drivel, and self-serving system abuse. Those who get it already get it. Those who don't get it, don't want to get it. So why waste the time repeating what has been said time and time again to people caught in an echo chamber? It's not going to convince them no matter how compelling the information is because they have already decided that they aren't going to be moved from their position by anything anyone says.


OldSkoolRPG wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:


As for any situation other than TWF, no disagreement. I never said this FAQ restricted anything but TWF. Threatening with a reach weapon and an ordinary weapon is perfectly acceptable. One need not regrip a longspear to make an UAS. I specifically mentioned regripping to punch because that was the example I was responding to.
I'm sorry, I confused your post with that of another user above who was arguing otherwise. My mistake.

No worries. Been there! :)


@BigNorseWolf - I was going to call you an outright liar because I have never stated that a greatsword would require 3 hands. But I have realised that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of hands of effort. You are adding up all the hands of effort used in a round and counting that as hands of effort, but all that matters is the hands of effort being used at the same time . Think parallel, not series. You also have a habit of misquoting rules which doesn't help your arguments.

To all the others who disagree. The hands of effort rule principles are there for game design balance not versimiltude. Look at SKR's third bullet:

SKR wrote:
Because if one character uses 2H weapon and is NOT allowed to make an additional attack with armor spikes or a metal gauntlet because his hands are occupied by his 2H weapon, and a different character uses a 2H weapon and IS allowed to make an additional attack with a metal boot because he's not using his hand, that second character is gaining a game mechanics advantage simply by changing the flavorful description of his extra attack's origin from, and that is not good game design.

IUS, armour spikes, boulder helmets, metal gauntlets are all light weapons and in general should be handled in the same way as a dagger, i.e. they require a hand. Otherwise the flavourful description is changing the game mechanic. In the case of an AoO that game mechanic advantage is allowing multiple threat areas to be covered simultaneously. All reach weapons that threaten are 2 handed. To threaten with a dagger at the same time would require a 3rd hand and so to threaten with any other light weapon also requires a third hand.

Saying hands do not apply outside of attacks leads directly to the absurd situation I outlined previously where a character can claim they are threatening with/wielding multiple weapons and then chooses the best for any particular AoO. It is also inconsistent with the grip changing FAQ highlighted previously which explicitly hands are required.

If you still decide not to work through the logic of the above, that is your call; I'm done.


@fretgod: The point is that there is no actual balance issue and no verisimilitude issue with TWF with a 2H weapon, just like with natural attacks. The cost in ability scores, feats, etc. to TWF like that at all is already the balance - and TWF is considered to be not worth the effort at all for what you get already. So to make a convoluted ruling like that doesn't make a lot of sense when simply choosing a different race or class means you can effectively do it anyways with natural attacks (for example an Alchemist getting 2H weapon, bite, claw, claw, tentacle, rake, etc.). That's why it doesn't make a lot of sense.

@Hugo: That ruling stands for TWF, but it doesn't apply to AoO - nor should it when you iterative attacks can be made with any combination of weapons you can hold. You can (with sufficient BAB) attack with unarmed strikes, a 2H reach weapon, and armor spikes in the same full attack. That has already been FAQed and posted in this thread.

I also want to mention that I can't find another system with this kind of restriction: I can't find a 3.5 ruling, I know 2e and 5e don't have the restriction, and as far as other systems go their TWF rules are for any weapon equipped. It's not surprising to find people disagreeing with the decision - especially with SKR having a bit of an attitude about it.


Hugo Rune wrote:


@BigNorseWolf - I was going to call you an outright liar because I have never stated that a greatsword would require 3 hands. But I have realised that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of hands of effort.

It is in fact possible to have a conversation without implicitly or explicitly calling people liars.

Quote:
You also have a habit of misquoting rules which doesn't help your arguments.

Example or apologize.

Quote:
You are adding up all the hands of effort used in a round and counting that as hands of effort, but all that matters is the hands of effort being used at the same time. Think parallel, not series.

This is exactly what I've been trying to get you to do.

Someone with a sword and mace uses 2 physical hands, 1 hand of effort to attack, one hand of effort to threaten with both weapons. Note the fundamental disconnect between the three.

AoO's are not in the math for hands of effort.

POTENTIAL AoOs are not in the math for hands of effort.

You cannot exceed your physical hands.

Quote:
IUS, armour spikes, boulder helmets, metal gauntlets are all light weapons and in general should be handled in the same way as a dagger, i.e. they require a hand. Otherwise the flavourful description is changing the game mechanic. In the case of an AoO that game mechanic advantage is allowing multiple threat areas to be covered simultaneously.

Improved unarmed strikes take a feat or class ability to use. Boulder helmets are an exotic weapon. Spiked boots screw up your movement speed. These items all have a cost and thats deliberate. The ability to threaten in melee with your hands full is an advantage, one thats available but you have to pay for it.

Quote:
All reach weapons that threaten are 2 handed.

A lance from the back of a mount and the phalanx fighter with a polearm are two exceptions to that that i know of off the top of my head. I think there's a magus archtype that can do it with the Bladed scarf as well.

Quote:

If you still decide not to work through the logic of the above, that is your call; I'm done.

Your alleged logic does not follow, at all. You are applying rules specifically stated to work during a round to work in between them and it simply doesn't work.


For examples try your previous posts in this thread for starters. As for the rest, if you starting position is that wielding two one-handed weapons at the same time only requires one hand of effort.....well there's not much point continuing as your reality is unique to you


Hugo Rune wrote:
For examples try your previous posts in this thread for starters.

Disagreeing with you is not evidence of misquoting rules.

Hugo Rune wrote:
if you starting position is that wielding two one-handed weapons at the same time only requires one hand of effort...

The term wield is ambiguous, but otherwise that is exactly the position explicitly laid out by the sword/mace faq and is agreed on by everyone here but you. You do not have two weapon fighting penalties just from holding a mace and sword. You do not even take two weapon fighting penalties if you use iterative attacks. Why would you take two weapon fighting penalties if you used an AOO? You wouldn't because you're not attacking with two weapons at the same time, you merely pick which weapon you're attacking with when you make the attack. You are attacking with one weapon and then the other, the exact same thing you'd do with an aoo.

The next time someone points out where and why you're wrong, backs up what they're saying with rules citation AND direct confirmation from the developer who's opinion you're relying on that you've got the wrong idea, try to listen to them instead of throwing out as many vague accusations as you can. You might learn something.

Rutabaga


Hugo Rune wrote:
For examples try your previous posts in this thread for starters. As for the rest, if you starting position is that wielding two one-handed weapons at the same time only requires one hand of effort.....well there's not much point continuing as your reality is unique to you

Your fundamental mistake is that you are equating wielding with attacking. They are NOT the same. Having multiple weapons ready to attack with isn't the same thing as two weapon fighting.

AoO can be made with any weapon you have ready into all squares into which you can make a melee attack. This happens outside normal combat. If you have 5 weapons ready, and you can make 5 AoO, you could use each one in turn as they are discrete events.


Hugo Rune wrote:
To all the others who disagree. The hands of effort rule principles are there for game design balance not versimiltude. Look at SKR's third bullet

First, the quoted discussion dealt with TWF only. It has no bearing on what you may or may not do outside of TWF. The FAQ resulting from the thread could have been worded broadly as to encompass any use of a two-handed weapon and armor spikes, IUS, etc... but it did not. The FAQ addressed only TWF.

Second, all talk about "hands of effort" was used by non-dev team posters. Neither SKR nor any other dev team member ever subscribes to the term or the concept. Your claim that SKR's post embraced those principles is nothing but question begging on your part.

Third, in his very next post SKR says the following:

SKR wrote:
Well, it might invalidate it for a few levels, but once your character gets an iterative attack, the "attack once with a 2H weapon, attack again with my iterative attack using armor spikes or whatever" technique is perfectly valid under the rules.
Hugo Rune wrote:

IUS, armour spikes, boulder helmets, metal gauntlets are all light weapons and in general should be handled in the same way as a dagger, i.e. they require a hand. Otherwise the flavourful description is changing the game mechanic. In the case of an AoO that game mechanic advantage is allowing multiple threat areas to be covered simultaneously. All reach weapons that threaten are 2 handed. To threaten with a dagger at the same time would require a 3rd hand and so to threaten with any other light weapon also requires a third hand.

Saying hands do not apply outside of attacks leads directly to the absurd situation I outlined previously where a character can claim they are threatening with/wielding multiple weapons and then chooses the best for any particular AoO. It is also inconsistent with the grip changing FAQ highlighted previously which explicitly hands are required.

If you still decide not to work through the logic of the above, that is your call; I'm done.

I will request of you what I have requested of others here, please refrain from using the word logic in your future posts because you wouldn't know it if it bit you on the ass.

Your claim that IUS, armor spikes, etc... should just be treated as a dagger is simply question begging. You claim that is true because it must for your conclusion to be true but you have no support for that premise.

You then use the conclusion of your question begging to argue a false analogy. That attacking with a reach weapon which requires two physical hands and a dagger which requires one physical hand is the same as attacking with a reach weapon that requires two physical hands and a kick which requires no physcial hands.

You also state that it is absurd that you can threaten with multiple weapons at multiple areas whichever is best for an AoO. Again question begging. Your argument is that this is not allowed and so you simply declare it absurd.

Three logical fallacies in quick succession and then you have the unmitigated gall to say if someone can't follow your "logic" then you are done.

Please be true to your word and be done and don't further taint the discussion with your pitiful attempts at rational thought.


A big part of the problem is that the virtual hands don't drop out of any printed rules. in 3.5 with the exact same language you explicitly could two handed sword and armor spike someone. In pathfinder you can't.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

A big part of the problem is that the virtual hands don't drop out of any printed rules. in 3.5 with the exact same language you explicitly could two handed sword and armor spike someone. In pathfinder you can't.

Yep, they added an FAQ to 3.5 that allowed two handed weapons and non-hand weapon use in two weapon fighting. Pathfinder adding the idea of 'hands' without actually making a rule for it just throws a monkey wrench in everything. They really where begging for debates like this.

51 to 100 of 108 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Can anyone kick? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.