|
Thank you, John.
Wraith, the character can use the weapon in one hand, that is what the feats are for. The disagreement is when another, second, Two Handed weapon is trying to be wielded in the Off Hand. The Two Handed designation has no rule for it's use in the Off Hand while the other two (Light and One Handed) do.
The clarification just introduced has a better edited version of the feat and makes it clearer that the feat is for "Thunder" and "Fang."
I did a breakdown of the rules on page 141 of the CRB earlier in the page, though I think it is not telling anyone anything they didn't already know.
The main point is, however you wield it, even when it is altered from the size differential between, the weapon is still what it is, a Two Handed Weapon. The feats in question allow an additional caveat to what can be done with it, but it never actually changes it.
Thank you all for this, but I am going to lay off this issue for now. I know it has been a back and forth, but I do get a bit overwrought with this particular being repeated here and there. The OP does have his answer, in the first page I believe, and I have run my course on this.
thaX,
Since you did your big long post in an effort to communicate I'm responding to you. I really REALLY would like you to "reply" to this post and answer only this question in the post that you're "replying" to this one with. This is a very important question because it will help everyone know WHAT it is we disagree on.Is there a difference between wielding a two-handed weapon in one hand and wielding a two handed weapon as a one-handed weapon?
Any help on pointing out where the updated version is?You'll find it in the Pathfinder Player Companion section under the "Varisia: Birthplace of Legends" entry.
Page 10—Change the Benefit text of the Thunder and Fang feat to the following. "You may wield an earth breaker and a klar at the same time. When you do so, you may treat the earth breaker as though it were a one-handed weapon. When using an earth breaker as if it were a one-handed weapon with a klar in your off hand, you retain the shield bonus your klar grants to your Armor Class even when you use it to attack. Treat your klar as a light weapon for the purposes of determining your two weapon-fighting penalty."The key change is in the second sentence, which now begins with "When you do so," denoting the feat's effects only apply when wielding the earth breaker and kalr simultaneously.
Oh, my question was where to find the updated version. When I saw your post I re-downloaded the document and it was still the original, not updated. But I found it by following the link on the additional resources to read it online.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Guys here's what thaX is saying so far.
thaX says that a two-handed weapon always needs to be in your main-hand, even though there's no rules for this. He says there are many FAQs that say this, so it should be obvious, but I'm aware of 0 FAQs that say such. But because a two-handed weapon must be in the main hand you can't ever off hand it.
Being larger or smaller than the intended wielder of the weapon is the ONLY way to change the weapon's category. This is why he keeps bringing up the size alteration and saying that you'd need to change the damage die to make it one-handed.
I still don't know if thaX thinks that wielding a two-handed weapon in one hand is the same as wielding a two-handed weapon as a one-handed weapon. If he says there's no difference then we can see the start of why he thinks it's a special case. If he knows they are different than I'm still completely lost as to why he thinks the way he does. But he maybe seems to think that wielding a one-handed weapon in two hands makes it a two-handed weapon? It's very hard cause he doesn't actually answer questions nor come right out and say what he's thinking.
I also am unsure exactly why thaX thinks it's okay to wield one as teh main hand while 2wf but not a second one, nor having it be in the off hand. So if you are doing the Earthbreaker and the Klar you cannot have the klar be the main hand, the Earthbreaker must be the main hand. Because when you try to wield it it's still a two-handed weapon, so you see if you can wield one and you can't since you don't have two hands left to wield it, but that it's somehow gets around this if it is the main hand with this feat. Still not sure why.
Also, I'm fairly certain that thaX has a RAI version in his head and is basing all his rules discussion off of that and not off of what the feat currently says. So it makes this hard since most are going off of the simplest and straightforward reading of the feat, while he's going off of what the feat should have been.
the character can use the weapon in one hand, that is what the feats are for. The disagreement is when another, second, Two Handed weapon is trying to be wielded in the Off Hand. The Two Handed designation has no rule for it's use in the Off Hand while the other two (Light and One Handed) do.
So how about he uses his first in his one off hand? The feat lets me use it as a one-handed weapon, and a one-handed weapon can be used in your off hand. I am using a Klar in my primary hand and the earthbreaker in my off hand. Is this allowed in your version? Why or why not?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, does this mean thrax doesn't think I can wield a small greatsword as a one-handed weapon in my off hand? How is wielding something in your off-hand not 'as a one-handed weapon'? Hell, even the rules use the same language as the feat: "For example, a Small creature would wield a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon"
Wait wait, how does any of thrax's argument make sense? I seems to boil down to:
"You can wield it as a one handed weapon except not in these arbitrary circumstances"
*edit*
A more thorough reading of the thread makes me think that Thrax has invested so much into the argument that he isn't willing to back down. Instead he throws out the same already refuted arguments and quotes sections of rules that actually reinforce the opposite viewpoint.
I think it's important just to say to everyone that sometimes when arguing with people who are too invested, the real objective changes from convincing them to convincing onlookers that the invested person is no longer being reasonable. I reckon the thread has managed that pretty well by this point, so don't feel too frustrated Chess/fret and others!
|
|
thaX,
Since you did your big long post in an effort to communicate I'm responding to you. I really REALLY would like you to "reply" to this post and answer only this question in the post that you're "replying" to this one with. This is a very important question because it will help everyone know WHAT it is we disagree on.Is there a difference between wielding a two-handed weapon in one hand and wielding a two handed weapon as a one-handed weapon?
It is the same thing, the latter is shorthand for the former. This is what I have been trying to get across.
Blakmane...
As an inappropriately sized weapon, the weapon designation changes for the character according to the size discrepancy. This is denoted in the sections quoted above.
The problem presented here is that Thunder and Fang and feats like it, where one wields a Two Handed weapon, specific or general, in one hand, this scale is not used in that particular instance.
In both cases, the weapon itself is still it's original designation, but the character can wield it differently because of the size difference, or because of the ability the feat confers.
For your example, the small Greatsword is considered a One Handed weapon for the medium creature, even though it is still a Two Handed weapon otherwise.
The measure of effort for the feats, though, do not use that rule, but supersedes it. It allows for a Two Handed weapon to be wielded in One Hand, just as a character can wield a light weapon in one hand, or a One Handed weapon in Two.
Thank you, John.
Wraith, the character can use the weapon in one hand, that is what the feats are for. The disagreement is when another, second, Two Handed weapon is trying to be wielded in the Off Hand.
I get that, but my point is that whether a weapon is one-handed or two-handed depend on the creature using it. If the game says you treat it as a one-handed weapon it refers to how easily you can use it. That is why a creature that is huge can hold a greatsword in each hand. Certain abilities specifically says how you treat the weapon.
That is why I asked you did you think a huge creature can hold a greatsword(sized for a medium creature) in it's off hand and use TWF'ing.
This was actually the more important of the two questions I addressed to you, and it is the one I hope to see you answer.
|
|
Well, yes.
For a medium creature, those greatswords are Two Handed Weapon, but for the huge creature they are considered Light weapons, as you indicate.
The situation is not the same, the size rules are not being used for the feats in question, they are being skipped completely. The hypothetical I introduced several posts up was added about the same phrase to the end of the Two Handed entry in the section as what the One Handed weapon has, indicating that the feat is allowing the Two Handed weapon to be used One Handed, thus getting str modifier bonus to damage, +2 damage for every -1 to hit for power attack and all that.
The weapon, though, still has the Two Handed designation when being wielded in this way, doing the same weapon damage as it did before (2D6 for the Earth Breaker).
It is a distinction that conforms to the rules and keeps it consistent, the weapon's designation being used as a baseline on how to use it and what can be done with it. The feats changes the character, not the weapon.
that the feat is allowing the Two Handed weapon to be used One Handed, thus getting str modifier bonus to damage, +2 damage for every -1 to hit for power attack and all that.
That is the normal bonus for power attack and one handed weapons.
For two-handed weapons it is +3 damage for every -1 to hit for power attack. So the feat is allowing the weapon to be treated as one-handed weapon for every purpose. I certainly don't see anything saying "it is treated as a oned-handed weapon except for ___".
The weapon, though, still has the Two Handed designation when being wielded in this way, doing the same weapon damage as it did before (2D6 for the Earth Breaker).
I am sure that it still does 2d6 when being weilded by the huge creature also. Yes, it has the two handed designator because the CRB assumes you are using for someone it is sized for, and no special circumstances are in play. When you get circumstances such as a feat telling you how something is used you have to adjust your nomal thinking.
It is a distinction that conforms to the rules and keeps it consistent, the weapon's designation being used as a baseline on how to use it and what can be done with it. The feats changes the character, not the weapon.
The weapon's usage depends on the user and his/her abilities as much as the original intent. If I have the ability to weild weapons one size larger than I normally could without "special ability X" then I will not have the same restrictions as everyone else.
It seems you have made you mind up so I only have one more question, just to be sure I am understanding you 100%.
Do you think if the PDT made a ruling today they would say you can not use that weapon in your off-hand?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you thaX SO MUCH for actually directly answering a question.
Titan Mauler shows the example wording of a weapon in one hand
"wield a two-handed melee weapon in one hand... it is treated as one-handed when determining the effect of Power Attack, Strength bonus to damage, and the like."
So here's the real issue between the two sides
Side "Everyone but thaX":
Wielding a two-handed weapon in one hand IS DIFFERENT from wielding a two-handed weapon as a one-handed weapon. We see wield in one hand as mechanically different from wielding as a one-handed weapon. We see the language of "as a one-handed weapon" and feel that it means wield the same as a longsword, if you could do it with any other one-handed weapon it can be done with this weapon.
Side "thaX":
They are the same, so titan mauler gives the actual text that should be there when it says, "as a one-handed weapon".
So the next question is, thaX,
How would they say or do what we are saying? To have the normally two handed weapon be able to be used/wielded in all ways as a one-handed weapon but obviously not physically change so that it has all the same stats as normal. What language would it need to say to be wielded in all ways the same as a longsword?
Also thaX, as an aside, that you can freely ignore to answer my real question. From the Titan mauler, he being able to wield greatswords in one hand, does that let him 2WF with greatswords?
So the next question is, thaX,
How would they say or do what we are saying? To have the normally two handed weapon be able to be used/wielded in all ways as a one-handed weapon but obviously not physically change so that it has all the same stats as normal. What language would it need to say to be wielded in all ways the same as a longsword?
I can't believe I forgot to ask this question. Good catch. :)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
thaX says that a two-handed weapon always needs to be in your main-hand, even though there's no rules for this.
Not just no rules, but clear cases to the contrary;
The Upasunda Asura uses a longsword in its primary hand (hence iterative attacks) and a spear in two off-hands (hence 1.5x strength bonus to damage).
Similarly, the Xill uses two longbows at the same time - requiring one of them to be in two off-hands.
So no, there is no requirement that the primary hand be one of the two used for a two-handed weapon.
Thank you John.
For folks just tuning in (run, save yourselves) we are now only debating the Dorn Dergar Master feat I think, since most of the other feats that have been brought up now have clarifications or wording that excludes them.
|
|
For folks just tuning in (run, save yourselves) we are now only debating the Dorn Dergar Master feat I think, since most of the other feats that have been brought up now have clarifications or wording that excludes them.
Actually, Thunder and Fang isn't completely excluded (even setting aside that the ruling technically only applies to PFS)... you'd just need three or more arms to wield a Klar and two Earth Breakers.
Beyond that and Dorn Dergar Master, Jotungrip is still in play... and I'd also include Exotic Weapon Proficiency for the Bastard Sword, Dwarven Waraxe, and Great Terbutje.
All of those feats/abilities allow you to use a weapon which otherwise requires two hands as a one-handed weapon.
I just meant that DD Master was one of the two that started the whole thing (i was excluding jotun grip because of the appropriate size restriction but i guess the core issue is still there yeah).
No I'm still debating the current wording of Thunder and Fang. PFS rulings are for PFS, and since they altering the wording of the feat it's now a new feat for them and not a clarification of what the feat in the current wording means.
|
|
Yes, he can double wield them because the altered size differential has them as Light weapons. They still are, for a medium creature, Two Handed Weapons. He is also getting a -4 to hit with each of them (they are not sized to him)
The Titan Mauler has more editing space to have a better explanation than the feats that are being discussed. I have mentioned this before.
So the next question is, thaX,
How would they say or do what we are saying? To have the normally two handed weapon be able to be used/wielded in all ways as a one-handed weapon but obviously not physically change so that it has all the same stats as normal. What language would it need to say to be wielded in all ways the same as a longsword?
The current phrasing it just fine, it is the correlation to the rules that I am trying to clarify. There is never an instance where one would wield a weapon the same as a longsword, unless it is actually a longsword. The question really is "How can I double wield (these specific) Two Handed Weapons?" You can't.
Both the Xill and Upasunda Asura have Multiweapon Mastery. Monsters are often written without the restrictions incurred by the PC. The Kasatha in particular has a PC feat that allows for the double wielding of bows. (Most likely shooting them off in tandem) Looking at that race, to get the spelling, I came across this...
Multi-Armed (Ex) A kasatha has four arms. One hand is considered its primary hand; all others are considered off hands. It can use any of its hands for other purposes that require free hands.
This is inline with the PC with Two Hands having a Main/Primary hand and an Off hand.
Edit add on... Three hands would allow one EB and two Klars. Or a Klar and another one handed/light weapon.
|
|
Both the Xill and Upasunda Asura have Multiweapon Mastery.
Which simply removes attack roll penalties... it has no impact whatsoever on which hands can wield which weapons.
Monsters are often written without the restrictions incurred by the PC.
Yes, they often have abilities PCs don't. However, neither of those examples has any ability which changes what weapons can be wielded in what hands. Ergo, their use of two-handed weapons in two off-hands complies with normal rules. Otherwise, they'd have some ability explaining the exception.
|
|
So the fact that the first three attacks are listed means he is using the main hand for those attacks, even though all the attacks are at the same attack bonus. He has one Two Handed weapon.
You can use your off hand for your iterives, it does not need to be the Primary hand.
The Xill is using two bows, though, and even though Ranged Weapons are not using the Melee weapons designations, it still considered to be using two hands for each. I am guessing the Multiweapon Mastery was the basis for the writer to allow for it, though it likely is beyond the scope of normal wielding otherwise. (Kasatha needs a Feat to do it)
The current phrasing it just fine, it is the correlation to the rules that I am trying to clarify. There is never an instance where one would wield a weapon the same as a longsword, unless it is actually a longsword. The question really is "How can I double wield (these specific) Two Handed Weapons?" You can't.So the next question is, thaX,
How would they say or do what we are saying? To have the normally two handed weapon be able to be used/wielded in all ways as a one-handed weapon but obviously not physically change so that it has all the same stats as normal. What language would it need to say to be wielded in all ways the same as a longsword?
No thaX. The question IS NOT "How can I double wield (these specific) Two Handed Weapons?" Please don't answer a different question that no one is asking or go off talking about stuff we're not asking. Please.
The question is, "How would they say or do what we are saying?"
Meaning, If they were to create an ability that let you wield an earthbreaker in all ways as a one-handed weapon. AKA anytime you could use a one-handed weapon for something, like 2wf or the like, you could use an earthbreaker too. How would they write that ability to clarify that you're using it "in all ways" as a one-handed weapon.
What's the point of debating to the nth degree a rule that by definition is open to house ruling (as the PFS question had been answered)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Something to do with large amounts of free time?
Knowing that the Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild benefits from clear rules that rely little on table variation, the Pathfinder Society created the Campaign Clarifications document earlier this year. The document provides clarifications and corrections for character options published outside the hardcover RPG line (e.g. Player Companions, Campaign Setting, and the Adventure Paths) that are binding in the organized play campaign. Of course, those playing in any other format can choose to take or leave these clarifications; they are not official errata. You can read more in the blog published earlier this year.
That's a long introduction to my saying we provided a clarification on the Thunder and Fang feat last Friday. Consider taking a look to see if that affects this discussion.
This follows what I think a lot of people assumed was RAI, even if RAW unfortunately left some ambiguity. Nice to have some clarity for PFS.
So the fact that the first three attacks are listed means he is using the main hand for those attacks, even though all the attacks are at the same attack bonus. He has one Two Handed weapon.
You can use your off hand for your iterives, it does not need to be the Primary hand.
This is incorrect. Your iteratives apply to your primary attack. You can only make iteratives with your off-hand if you take the chain feats that allow it. And then they technically aren't iteratives; they're extra bonus attacks that have the same bonuses as your iteratives.
There's a FAQ that walks through your attack options when TWF.
|
|
The current phrasing it just fine, it is the correlation to the rules that I am trying to clarify. There is never an instance where one would wield a weapon the same as a longsword, unless it is actually a longsword. The question really is "How can I double wield (these specific) Two Handed Weapons?" You can't.So the next question is, thaX,
How would they say or do what we are saying? To have the normally two handed weapon be able to be used/wielded in all ways as a one-handed weapon but obviously not physically change so that it has all the same stats as normal. What language would it need to say to be wielded in all ways the same as a longsword?No thaX. The question IS NOT "How can I double wield (these specific) Two Handed Weapons?" Please don't answer a different question that no one is asking or go off talking about stuff we're not asking. Please.
The question is, "How would they say or do what we are saying?"
Meaning, If they were to create an ability that let you wield an earthbreaker in all ways as a one-handed weapon. AKA anytime you could use a one-handed weapon for something, like 2wf or the like, you could use an earthbreaker too. How would they write that ability to clarify that you're using it "in all ways" as a one-handed weapon.
"...as if the weapon was one size smaller." I believe that would be about the only way in that respect. Wielding it in one hand and being one size smaller is not the same thing.
|
|
So the fact that the first three attacks are listed means he is using the main hand for those attacks, even though all the attacks are at the same attack bonus. He has one Two Handed weapon.
You can use your off hand for your iterives, it does not need to be the Primary hand.
This is incorrect. Your iteratives apply to your primary attack. You can only make iteratives with your off-hand if you take the chain feats that allow it. And then they technically aren't iteratives; they're extra bonus attacks that have the same bonuses as your iteratives.
There's a FAQ that walks through your attack options when TWF.
The monster is not TWF, he is attacking with all his weapons and not getting an extra attack. The FAQ about this here looks at weapons in each hand and what can be done with them. Since there is no penalties and the monster is only getting one attack from the other weapons, no particular weapon is the offhand. (The Main Primary hand is likely the one wielding the Two Handed weapon) This would not be the case if he was using TWF or more likely MWF, but since he is not getting any penalties anyway, why take the feats for just one extra attack. (the monster is already getting to slams in addition to the others)
After posting this, I realized that we are pointing to the same FAQ. Is there something in there I am not seeing here?
So would that include the penalties for an inappropriately sized weapon?
Wouldn't that change the damage?
Would they need to specify that all those things don't change when you're treating the weapon as one size smaller?
|
|
So would that include the penalties for an inappropriately sized weapon?
Wouldn't that change the damage?
Would they need to specify that all those things don't change when you're treating the weapon as one size smaller?
It would not change the damage as it would still be using the same weapon, but the character would treat it as a size smaller for whatever reason. There would likely be some sort of indication that the penalty for wielding an Inappropriately sized weapon would be waived, perhaps if the weapon itself was sized to the character originally.
It isn't likely that a phrasing of that sort will be used, as the Double Wielding of Two Handed weapons isn't a priority. One can already double wield weapons, One Handed and Light, so changing or adjusting the rules to allow for Two Handed weapons to be double wielded really is not a viable alternative.
What the current phrasing of the feats in question does is make it clear (I know, ha ha) that while one handing this weapon (in whatever designation one thinks it is), the character is doing One Handed damage (with the Two Handed weapon die damage being the exception) and effects while doing so. That was the point of the change of phrasing of the Thunder and Fang feat, from being a combined Double Weapon (like a quarterstaff) to them being wielded as a One Handed and Light weapon.
Well we are know clear on many things.
According to thaX
inappropriate sized is the only way to change the effort needed to wield things, so something would need to change the effective size to do what we feel "wield as one-handed" does.
"wield as a one-handed weapon" and "wield in one hand, applying str and damage as if one-handed" means the same thing.
So this explains why thaX was randomly talking about the size of the weapon/wielder.
Now thaX, one last question if you would please.
Why can you 2WF with a weapon used as a one-handed weapon if you use that weapon as your main-hand, but you can't use it in your off-hand?
Like why can I do a weapon attack sequence of earthbreaker, earthbreaker, klar and not klar, klar, earthbreaker?
And if you say because of FAQ(s) please quote or link the FAQ(s) that you feel support it.
|
|
The very basic reason why is the inability to wield a Two Handed weapon in a single Off Hand.
Discounted as it is, it is the very simplest way to explain it.
Another is basic physics. Rules put aside for a moment, a post above stated about the sillyness of a dwarf wielding two 10 foot long chains.
The overall written rules for each designation does not fit with the weapon itself being "changed" to a one handed weapon from the effects of these feats. Instead, it is a Two Handed weapon wielded in One Hand, using all the effects and static damage of a One Handed Weapon. The weapon in the other hand, the Off Hand, needs to be a One Handed or Light weapon.
I did the breakdown up above, and I have edited the one part to just say "One handed or Light weapon" instead of considered as, a miss step on my part, in the notepad entry I have on the computer here.
If you want, I can repost that breakdown in a new thread, and it can be discussed there. (linking to it from both the other threads)
|
|
The monster is not TWF, he is attacking with all his weapons and not getting an extra attack.
The Upasunda has a BAB of 12. That grants three attacks.
12 BAB + 6 Str + 1 Mwk = +19 attack, with iteratives at +14 & +9.
We then look at the combat line for the creature;
"Melee mwk longsword +19/+14/+9 (1d8+6/19–20), mwk spear +19 (1d8+9/x3), mwk kukri +19 (1d4+6/18–20), 2 slams +13 (1d4+3)"
Longsword +19/+14/+9... that's our three iterative attacks right there. The single attacks with spear and kukri are thus extra off-hand weapon attacks per Multiweapon Fighting and the two slams are natural weapon attacks.
Since there is no penalties and the monster is only getting one attack from the other weapons, no particular weapon is the offhand. (The Main Primary hand is likely the one wielding the Two Handed weapon
With both Two-Weapon Fighting and Multiweapon Fighting you get one attack with each off-hand weapon (barring feats for additional attacks). Ergo, the spear and kukri are off-hand weapons.
"MUltiweapon Fighting ...
(It has one primary hand, and all the others are off hands.) See Two-Weapon Fighting in the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook."
"Two-Weapon Fighting
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon."
Three attacks with longsword = primary hand, one attack with spear = 2 off hands, one attack with kukri = 1 off hand, 2 slams = remaining two arms as natural attacks.
So WHY is it allowed to be used while 2WF at all?
Because there's an inability to wield a two-handed weapon and any other weapon, because a two-handed weapon uses both the main-hand and the off-hand to use.
So even though you're using it in one hand it should still be using your off-hand, right? since it's still a 2HW and as a 2HW it uses up both hands of effort to wield.
What is letting you use it during 2wf?
|
|
Because the feat is allowing you to use that weapon in One Hand. It is the purpose of the feat and how the Klar can be used in the other hand specifically. It is superseding the size rules and allowing the character to wield it in a specific way.
CB - all the off hand attacks are single attacks, he gets them automatically, and the slam attacks are natural attacks, hence why it is still at a lower to hit than the rest. (taking another -2 for some reason)
So the fact that the first three attacks are listed means he is using the main hand for those attacks, even though all the attacks are at the same attack bonus. He has one Two Handed weapon.
You can use your off hand for your iterives, it does not need to be the Primary hand.
This is incorrect. Your iteratives apply to your primary attack. You can only make iteratives with your off-hand if you take the chain feats that allow it. And then they technically aren't iteratives; they're extra bonus attacks that have the same bonuses as your iteratives.
There's a FAQ that walks through your attack options when TWF.
The monster is not TWF, he is attacking with all his weapons and not getting an extra attack. The FAQ about this here looks at weapons in each hand and what can be done with them. Since there is no penalties and the monster is only getting one attack from the other weapons, no particular weapon is the offhand. (The Main Primary hand is likely the one wielding the Two Handed weapon) This would not be the case if he was using TWF or more likely MWF, but since he is not getting any penalties anyway, why take the feats for just one extra attack. (the monster is already getting to slams in addition to the others)
After posting this, I realized that we are pointing to the same FAQ. Is there something in there I am not seeing here?
Are you talking about the Upasunda Asura?
BAB is +12. So it gets three attacks, the main attack and two iteratives at BAB -5 and -10 respectively.
It's a six-armed creature and its full attack block is: mwk longsword +19/+14/+9 (1d8+6/19–20), mwk spear +19 (1d8+9/x3), mwk kukri +19 (1d4+6/18–20), 2 slams +13 (1d4+3).
By BAB and iteratives, it gets three attacks. Those three are taken up by the Longsword. The Spear gets another attack (TWF) using two hands (and benefits from 1.5 STR to damage). Then it gets another attack with the Kukri. Two hands remain, so it makes to Slam attacks.
It is undoubtedly statted out making use of its Multiweapon Mastery special attack. Multiweapon Mastery is a more specialized and specific form of TWF, but it basically functions the same way. The creature is not making iteratives with secondary weapons; it is making iteratives with its main weapon (the Longsword) and then getting extra attacks via MWM with its other weapons.
If it wasn't getting "extra attacks" with MWM (again, this functions just like TWF), it would only get the Longsword attacks. Those are the only iteratives it gets.
EDIT: Stupid ninjas ...
CB - all the off hand attacks are single attacks, he gets them automatically, and the slam attacks are natural attacks, hence why it is still at a lower to hit than the rest. (taking another -2 for some reason)
You don't get to automatically attack with all your weapons. All of the off hand attacks are single attacks because those are the extra attacks you get via TWF/MWF/MWM. Those are attacks above and beyond what you get via iteratives, thus they are, unquestionably and definitively, extra. The creature gets these attacks automatically when using MWM, which is a method of getting extra attacks beyond your iteratives.
The slam attacks are secondary, so they are made at -5, since they are combined with manufactured weapons. 12 BAB - 5 + 6 (STR) = 13, which is the attack bonus listed. The rest of the weapons are masterwork, which is why their attack bonuses are +19 (12 + 6 + 1).
Because the feat is allowing you to use that weapon in One Hand. It is the purpose of the feat and how the Klar can be used in the other hand specifically. It is superseding the size rules and allowing the character to wield it in a specific way.
Right, you can use it in one hand, but since it's still a two-handed weapon you still need to check it's wielding effort to see if you can use it. And if you had a Klar in one hand then you don't have enough hands left to pick up the earthbreaker right?
You cease using it as a One Handed Weapon when it is sheathed or put away, or when it is on the ground or in a weapon rack and similar situation. The state of being a Two Handed weapon is "checked" each time the character attempts to wield it.
Two-Handed: Two hands are required to use a Two-Handed melee weapon effectively.This denotes that a Two-Handed weapon needs both hands to use.
So if you are holding a klar or any one-handed or light weapon and go to wield the earthbreaker you'd check to see if you can, and you'd fail that check cause you'd need two hands to wield and you don't have two hands to wield. Right? Isn't this how you're saying it should work out?
|
|
When you check to see if you can wield the second weapon, you see what you can do. When your primary had is already wielding a weapon, no matter it's own designation, then the only other hand available is the Off Hand, which can not wield the second Two Handed Weapon. It is assumed you are already wielding the EB when you pick up and wield the Klar, which can be wielded in the off hand. (One Handed)
|
|
In the other thread about Multi-fighting, it was discovered that you have an attack for each hand. The extra attack would be the 7th attack. You only have six (and two iteraves) in the stat block. (Or six slams) He is not taking penalties for fighting with more than one hand because of the ability.
You may be right about the particular with getting those attacks and the primary hand, something that the ability may cover, or just a goof on the writer's part. (it would have been more adventitious to use the higher damage from the Two Handed weapon, but may have been written to lessen the impact of damage overall)
As I said before, monsters don't always follow the PC rules/abilities as they are written.
In the other thread about Multi-fighting, it was discovered that you have an attack for each hand. The extra attack would be the 7th attack. You only have six (and two iteraves) in the stat block. (Or six slams) He is not taking penalties for fighting with more than one hand because of the ability.
You may be right about the particular with getting those attacks and the primary hand, something that the ability may cover, or just a goof on the writer's part. (it would have been more adventitious to use the higher damage from the Two Handed weapon, but may have been written to lessen the impact of damage overall)
As I said before, monsters don't always follow the PC rules/abilities as they are written.
No. Any other thread about MWF said you have an attack for each hand when Multiweapon Fighting. They are still extra attacks perfectly analogous to the extra attack received from TWF.
The alleged PC/Monster difference is irrelevant for what we're talking about here. All that is being addressed is your statement that off-hands can be used for iteratives. This is incorrect because off-hand attacks are only relevant for TWF/MWF and if you're TWF/MWF, you are locked into which attacks can be made with which weapon (specifically, your main weapon makes all of your iterative attacks). This particular monster we're discussing perfectly complies with that restriction, just like any PC would.
When you check to see if you can wield the second weapon, you see what you can do. When your primary had is already wielding a weapon, no matter it's own designation, then the only other hand available is the Off Hand, which can not wield the second Two Handed Weapon. It is assumed you are already wielding the EB when you pick up and wield the Klar, which can be wielded in the off hand. (One Handed)
So if you wield the Klar first then you can't wield the EB?
Like if you set the EB down or sheathe it but keep your klar equipped then when you go to wield the EB you can't cause you don't have enough hands. Is this correct?|
|
My assumption is that the EB is wielded first at any rate, to get it set to wield One Handed before getting the other weapons (if any) wielded in the Off Hand.
But this is getting into nit picking. It is already known you can wield both the weapons with that particular feat, that is what it does. The question is can I wield this Two Handed weapon if I have another weapon already in my hand.
How I see it. Okay? As I look at it and see it.
When you have another weapon in a hand, it would go to whichever hand it needs to be to effect the wielding of the second. The Klar would be in the off hand, and used to pick up the EB to wield it as the Feat dictates, one handed, in the main primary hand.
I know this is unsatisfactory for some, it is what it is. The rules here, being some of the first to be written crossing with a newer feat being wedged into it, are not perfect. It isn't pointed out in one particular phrase in the book saying "you can not do this" specifically, but the rules are there and are consistent, if a little nuanced sometimes because of a turn of a phrase.
|
|
In the other thread about Multi-fighting, it was discovered that you have an attack for each hand. The extra attack would be the 7th attack. You only have six (and two iteraves) in the stat block. (Or six slams) He is not taking penalties for fighting with more than one hand because of the ability.
You may be right about the particular with getting those attacks and the primary hand, something that the ability may cover, or just a goof on the writer's part. (it would have been more adventitious to use the higher damage from the Two Handed weapon, but may have been written to lessen the impact of damage overall)
As I said before, monsters don't always follow the PC rules/abilities as they are written.
No. Any other thread about MWF said you have an attack for each hand when Multiweapon Fighting. They are still extra attacks perfectly analogous to the extra attack received from TWF.
The alleged PC/Monster difference is irrelevant for what we're talking about here. All that is being addressed is your statement that off-hands can be used for iteratives. This is incorrect because off-hand attacks are only relevant for TWF/MWF and if you're TWF/MWF, you are locked into which attacks can be made with which weapon (specifically, your main weapon makes all of your iterative attacks). This particular monster we're discussing perfectly complies with that restriction, just like any PC would.
I shall have to concede that. The monster does do something beyond the scope of the PC, regarding the Two Handed weapon, if the main hand is indeed the one wielding the sword. This is two monsters with the same ability doing something beyond a normal pc's ability to do, something that may have more to do with that ability or poor editing than a purposeful omission. I don't know.
It really should not have any bearing on the discussion, entries in the bestiary do go beyond parameters for whatever reason from time to time.
I believe another poster on a former thread has said about the same thing. The Redcap keeps getting mentioned every once and a while, wielding a larger weapon because of an ability.
Do you think if the PDT made a ruling today they would say you can not use that weapon in your off-hand?
|
|
Do you think if the PDT made a ruling today they would say you can not use that weapon in your off-hand?
I didn't know what you meant by PDT for a while there. (Paizo Development Team)
I am not sure if they would use that, as it comes close to an "Unwritten rule" that got them so much grief about this very thing concerning Armor Spikes. (I believe?) The off hand is an omission from the Two Weapon designation, on whether if it can or can not be wielded or if it is wielded by any at all. (It assumes Primary and Off Hand because both hands are used)
I do think that they would rule in such a way that double wielding of two Two Handed weapons would not be possible, whether it is unable to wield a second weapon that is Two Handed in an Off Hand, or something else that clarifies the situation.
I believe the reason (Thunder and Fang for PFS aside) they have not made a clarification is that the rule itself covers to much of a wide area that it could have some unforeseen ambiguities down the road. Like what was just poffered by Chess Pwn above.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unless they ruled that "as a one-handed weapon" means "as if the weapon was one size smaller." and we're interpreting the text correctly. Then there's no ambiguities. Can you do this with any one-handed weapon? then you can do it with this since you use this weapon as a one-handed cause you're special.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the feat says "as a one handed weapon" that means you can treat it as if it is a one handed weapon to include holding it in your off-hand. It would take a lot of linguistical gymnastics to interpret "as a one-handed weapon" to mean anything more than that.
This FAQ also backs up everyone saying it can be weilded in the off-hand.
Weapons, Two-Handed in One Hand: When a feat or other special ability says to treat a weapon that is normally wielded in two hands as a one handed weapon, does it get treated as one or two handed weapon for the purposes of how to apply the Strength modifier or the Power Attack feat?
If you're wielding it in one hand (even if it is normally a two-handed weapon), treat it as a one-handed weapon for the purpose of how much Strength to apply, the Power Attack damage bonus, and so on.
Do you need for the text("so on") to specifically say "for everything a one-handed weapon counts for" instead? <----I am not being sarcastic/snarky/other negative term. This is a serious question.
edit: for clarification
|
|
Well, the circle begins again. At this point, I must bid you ado.
I had posted that I had said my piece two pages ago. I believe we understand each other and know what our positions are here.
Just for Wraith, yes, that is what that FAQ is saying.
Thank you, Chess Pwn and Fretgod99 for listening to me.