Can anyone kick?


Rules Questions

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

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hugo Rune wrote:
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.

I fail to see the problem here. This is how the rules work. You cannot grip switch outside of your turn. So if you end your turn holding your two-handed reach weapon in one hand while holding your longsword in the other, you don't threaten with your reach weapon and cannot attack with it because you aren't wielding it.

But yes, if you have a longsword, a hand axe, a boot blade, a barbazu beard, and a bite attack, you can simultaneously threaten with all of them and then decide, at the time an AoO is provoked, which of those you want to attack with.

The same thing is true if, instead of a longsword and hand axe, you are holding a longspear. You threaten at range, so you can make AoO if one is provoked there. You also threaten adjacent with your other weapons, so you can make AoO if one is provoked there. Obviously, you are still limited to the same number of AoO that you would ordinarily be.

There isn't a problem with any of this. It isn't in the slightest absurd. So long as the weapon is being wielded at the end of your turn, you can make an AoO with it outside of your turn.


graystone wrote:
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.

That makes sense, this sounded like one of those classic Paizo rulings (complete with SKR acting superior to most other game designers). I'll probably keep the 3.5 ruling, I honestly thought this hands of effort thing was never FAQed and that the "exchange any weapon in iterative attacks" FAQ covered it.


hiiamtom wrote:
That makes sense, this sounded like one of those classic Paizo rulings (complete with SKR acting superior to most other game designers). I'll probably keep the 3.5 ruling, I honestly thought this hands of effort thing was never FAQed and that the "exchange any weapon in iterative attacks" FAQ covered it.

You're going to get some funky results and a house rule/interpretation either way, I'd use caution before throwing it out. Pathfinders slew of non hand occupying weapons at least have been released with the idea that you can't Glaive guisarm armored spike boot blade dwarven helmet and barbazu beard all together.

You could say that there's no given attack routine for that many hands, but there isn't anything against it either.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
hiiamtom wrote:
That makes sense, this sounded like one of those classic Paizo rulings (complete with SKR acting superior to most other game designers). I'll probably keep the 3.5 ruling, I honestly thought this hands of effort thing was never FAQed and that the "exchange any weapon in iterative attacks" FAQ covered it.

You're going to get some funky results and a house rule/interpretation either way, I'd use caution before throwing it out. Pathfinders slew of non hand occupying weapons at least have been released with the idea that you can't Glaive guisarm armored spike boot blade dwarven helmet and barbazu beard all together.

You could say that there's no given attack routine for that many hands, but there isn't anything against it either.

There's a reason no one does this already though, it's a huge investment in limited resources. Really a fighter is the only one capable of burning that many feats and they won't have the Dexterity investment.

Maybe, maybe if there is a true Dexterity modifier to damage feat to act (like a 3rd level unchained rogue) there could be abusive fighter build with Estoc/ECB two handed fighting with an "offhand" weapon requiring no hands, but all of those weapons have steep disadvantages and to keep them enchanted is a heavy price.


hiiamtom wrote:


Maybe, maybe if there is a true Dexterity modifier to damage feat to act (like a 3rd level unchained rogue) there could be abusive fighter build with Estoc/ECB two handed fighting with an "offhand" weapon requiring no hands, but all of those weapons have steep disadvantages and to keep them enchanted is a heavy price.

Don't imagine a fighter with all that then, imagine a rogue backstabbing with all of it or a paladin smiting for all of it or a ranger getting favored enemy. For a dwarf it would only take the one feat for the barbazu beard and one for the two weapon fighting (hey, the title is just fluff right?) or they couldjust suck up the -4 penalty.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
hiiamtom wrote:
That makes sense, this sounded like one of those classic Paizo rulings (complete with SKR acting superior to most other game designers). I'll probably keep the 3.5 ruling, I honestly thought this hands of effort thing was never FAQed and that the "exchange any weapon in iterative attacks" FAQ covered it.

You're going to get some funky results and a house rule/interpretation either way, I'd use caution before throwing it out. Pathfinders slew of non hand occupying weapons at least have been released with the idea that you can't Glaive guisarm armored spike boot blade dwarven helmet and barbazu beard all together.

You could say that there's no given attack routine for that many hands, but there isn't anything against it either.

For my money, that issue would have been better fended off by saying that TWF allows one extra attack (subject to more advanced TWF feats) as long as the character has some appropriate weapon in play - be it a barbazu beard, a spiked helmet, boot spike, armor spikes, or an unarmed strike. Then you wouldn't have to go through the BS invocation of unwritten, undiscoverable rules like "hands of effort".


Bill Dunn wrote:
For my money, that issue would have been better fended off by saying that TWF allows one extra attack (subject to more advanced TWF feats) as long as the character has some appropriate weapon in play - be it a barbazu beard, a spiked helmet, boot spike, armor spikes, or an unarmed strike. Then you wouldn't have to go through the BS invocation of unwritten, undiscoverable rules like "hands of effort".

I don't think that would work for what Paizo was trying to do. My understanding is that the unwritten rule was really about limiting the STR damage bonus one got as a 1st level character. If we go your route, then I could use Quick Draw and pull out a dagger after attacking with a greatsword. This gives me 1.5 STR bonus from the greatsword and .5 STR bonus from the dagger for total of 2 x the STR modifier. Paizo seemed to want to cap STR bonus at 1st level 1.5x and the best way to do this, in their eyes, was to describe the situation in terms of hands of effort. Attacking with two hands on a weapon used up all the hands of effort (really the STR multiplier), regardless of available weapons and/or physical hands. At least that's how I've come to understand it.


N N 959 wrote:


I don't think that would work for what Paizo was trying to do. My understanding is that the unwritten rule was really about limiting the STR damage bonus one got as a 1st level character. If we go your route, then I could use Quick Draw and pull out a dagger after attacking with a greatsword. This gives me 1.5 STR bonus from the greatsword and .5 STR bonus from the dagger for total of 2 x the STR modifier. Paizo seemed to want to cap STR bonus at 1st level 1.5x and the best way to do this, in their eyes, was to describe the situation in terms of hands of effort. Attacking with two hands on a weapon used up all the hands of effort (really the STR multiplier), regardless of available weapons and/or physical hands. At least that's how I've come to understand it.

Paizo has never described anything in "hands of effort". That is how some board members have erroneously interpreted the posts and FAQs from Paizo. There is no such thing as "hands of effort". Such a concept is completely unnecessary for understanding how two-weapon fighting works or does not work with any given combination of weaponry.

101 to 108 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.