| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is my opinion that Literally is never the wrong way to read the rules, it is the only correct way to read game rules.That is quite literally the only way no one should read the rules.
Would you read them in a box? Would you read them to a fox...
If such is an "official ruling" then I see no good reason why it shouldn't be posted to the FAQ in a clear and concise manner. Players should be able to find such information without wading through page after page of troll droppings, or having to interpret the intent of people they've never met.
There is actually a very good reason not to put it in a FAQ. It isn't worth the time to clarify one piece of the rules on a point that the PDT has already clarified, that every regular that has posted on this thread so far agrees on (many of whom I'd consider experts in the rules, even if I disagree with them on other topics at times) - AND when there are dozens, if not hundreds, of other questions we'd like clearer answers to where there is an actual division of opinion by a large number of people, and not just a single person saying "me, me, me" :) (some of your more recent posts suggest you aren't actually like that, but can be a reasonable and well thought individual - but the "I won't accept anything but a formalized ruling" does leave a taste of that impression - chances are very very very low your getting your answer in that format).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the root of the problem here is that the unwritten hands of effort rules are still unwritten. You have to read between the lines and tilt your head to find them in the rules, and mostly exist in FAQs, which we are explicitly told to interpret as narrowly as possible.
Unless I'm wrong, and they finally got around to actually explicitly and broadly establish the hand of efforts concept in official rules somewhere?
I think the root of the problem here is that the unwritten hands of effort rules are still unwritten. You have to read between the lines and tilt your head to find them in the rules, and mostly exist in FAQs, which we are explicitly told to interpret as narrowly as possible.
Unless I'm wrong, and they finally got around to actually explicitly and broadly establish the hand of efforts concept in official rules somewhere?
They have not yet done so isofar as I am aware.
Having a well written entry on the concept of "Shifting Weapon Grip" included in the combat chapter (under Free Actions) would eliminate many of these kind of arguments amongst future generations of Pathfinder players.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The main problem your looking at is that the rules for the "Hands of Effort" is spread out into three or four different parts of the book. It is something that is not expressly denoted, but instead is referenced in it's explanation. (being the clearest in the TWF feat)
It is this overall misinterpretation that some use to try and double wield Two Handed Weapons when an Ability or Feat allows for the One Handed use of those weapons. The same rules quoted above has off hand rules for Light and One Handed weapons but none are provided for Two Handed weapons at all. Some look to this omission as something that isn't forbidden, but it is more likely that it is not expressly enabled for the character to do instead.
"It doesn't say that I can't" is not a true measure of rules interpretation.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't forget about a certain gunslinger archetype which can (last time I checked anyway) load and fire a muzzle-loading musket in 1.2 seconds.
Not remotely the same thing.
getting your full allotment of attacks per round with a musket strains credibility. Guns being guns, it pushes the optimization ceiling kinda high. But there's no ambiguity in the raw, and for better or worse gunslingers are meant to do that.
Benefit: This shield is designed for throwing and has specially designed straps allowing you to unclasp and throw it as a free action. Tower shields cannot be throwing shields. Neither a shield’s enhancement bonus to AC nor its shield spikes apply on your attack or damage rolls.
So, you get ant haul cast on you carry a stack of these the size of a house, and just toss them as a free action. 750 attacks a round if you buy diminutive ones, not an exaggeration. If you read it literally. That's passed strained credibility sling shotted around wuxia and passed "kung pow enter the fist" levels of silly at speeds that make it go to plaid.
That's not musket master level annoying, it's game destroying.
As to it's credibility as an argument... see my reply to Shinigami02, but replace the phrase "29 page thread" with "16 page thread". But again, thank you for pointing me to it.
Your argument doesn't need or require the developers to descend from the heavens and carve something into stone saying that you're wrong. For starters they already DID that and you're ignoring what they said anyway because you're so sure your interpretation is right that NOTHING can move you. When you say that you are reading the rules literally what you really mean is that you're reading the rules the right way, and everyone else is reading them the wrong way and that's simply not the case. The rules are written by and for bilaterally symmetrical beings in plain english to be understood and interpreted in plain english with common sense. Moving away from that assumptions is reading the rules as they were not intended to be read: ie, the wrong way. There are problems with how you're reading it that you're glossing over and not addressing that make it far from the objective true meaning of the written words that you're presenting them as. The idea that you can do two things, therefore you can always do them both at the same time, is simply not the case.
Your arguments that the rules say what you think they do are not perfect. They do not require all that much disproof. They have had far more disproof than they need. Have the humility to see that and move on to something else, but for the love of all that's polyhedral, don't make one convoluted argument that you're right and insist that nothing can change your mind.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"It doesn't say that I can't" is not a true measure of rules interpretation.
nor is "It doesn't say that you can" as the ruleset isn't strictly permissive either. this part, however, i definitely agree is.
It seems to me that the problem is that you can't use two weapon fighting because you can't wield both weapons simultaneously in the case where you have a two handed weapon and a light weapon (armor spikes). So while you can, via a free action, change your grip, to free up your hand, you can't gain the benefit of two weapon fighting because you are still only wielding one weapon, not two. Your full round attack has to be based on BAB and not on two weapon fighting, and as such no extra attack is gained. I see no contradiction with the FAQ as stated.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is the exact FAQ I am seeking clarification regarding, because two other FAQs state that I may free my off-hand as a Free Action, and the core rulebook specifically states that I my take free actions during other actions without listing any exceptions.
Also did you even read my post before replying? I said "conditions under which a character may not use their off-hand to make an attack with if it is free?"
I am aware that my off-hand is not free while making an attack with a Greatsword, the issue is that I can free my off-hand as a Free Action.
I don't understand what clarification you could possibly want that is more clear than that single word sentence in the FAQ saying "No" when the exact question you are asking is being asked.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For example: The class features of Monks and Brawlers grant them the ability to make unarmed strikes with any portion of their anatomy, otherwise they also always require a hand, even if you possess the Unarmed Strike Feat.
This is an incorrect point that I see repeated here over and over. They can NOT attack with "any portion of their anatomy". They can explicitly use fist, elbows, knees, and feet.
A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full.
This is interesting in that it explicitly denies them from being able to use their Monk Unarmed Strike class ability with headbutts, which are allowed under regular (non-Monk class ability) unarmed strike rules.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having a well written entry on the concept of "Shifting Weapon Grip" included in the combat chapter
Considering that concept isn't in dispute in this thread, everyone here agrees 100% on shifting weapon grip is entirely possible.
That doesn't lead to the conclusion you thing, as it is entirely irrelevant.
You can not use your off-hand twice in the same round (once for a two handed weapon and again for armor spikes.)
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The dev logic is really quite simple... they don't want it to be possible to get extra attacks by wearing specific types of equipment.
If that WERE possible then every melee type would need to have armor spikes, boot blades, a boulder helmet, a barbazu beard, etc... or be at a disadvantage against opponents who did.
Ergo, while you can make attacks with those various kinds of equipment, they all require the equivalent of either a 'main hand' or 'off hand' attack to do so. If you are already using all your hands for other attacks (e.g. TWF or 2HW), then you can't also use any of these special weapons that turn.
Isn't all this unneeded? Two-Weapon Fighting doesn't allow for two-handed weapons unless they are double weapons. The great sword/spiked armor combo is impossible.
thank you, Kazaan. how did we not start using the phrase "attack economy" sooner?
Because the concept of "virtual hands" as a system of action economy is not clearly defined anywhere in the PRD, or the FAQ (that I was able to find). As such I had always been under the impression the rules for weapons referred to literal hands. So it seemed reasonable to assume that if you can clear the hand, you should be able to use it.
Regardless, I fail to see how it is unreasonable to expect to find every official ruling in the location where the official rules are supposed to be found. If the forum post written by Jason is indeed the official ruling on virtual hands being a pseudo-consumable resource, then it should have been moved to where official rules go three years ago, not left to gather dust in the middle of a long forum thread.
iirc Jason explains somewhere in that thread why they don't make the virtual hands unwritten rule a written one, but you'll have to read the rest of the thread yourself. many of us have and that's why you're met with such frustration. the forums have already had this entire conversation... several times.
A) A previously published FAQ had created a new type of free action which cleared your hand specifically to perform other actions with it.
That your hand can perform some other actions does not mean that the hand can perform all other actions, in this case attack actions. This is an error in your logic, not the faq.
Because the concept of "virtual hands" as a system of action economy is not clearly defined anywhere in the PRD, or the FAQ (that I was able to find). As such I had always been under the impression the rules for weapons referred to literal hands. So it seemed reasonable to assume that if you can clear the hand, you should be able to use it.
It's mostly common sense, which the game relies on to be usable. The vast majority of gamers get the idea and abide by the rule without it having to be spelled out
No means no. Literally. Turning a no into a "technically " means youre pouring tea down someone's throat. Stop that.
Can a magus use a great sword to attack and then cast with spell combat?
magi busting the virtual hands rule was one of the big sources of confusion for getting the (ultimately correct) magusflurry interpretation out of the wonky interaction between spell strike and spell combat.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No means no. Literally. Turning a no into a "technically " means youre pouring tea down someone's throat. Stop that.
Kudos for the reference. I love that video.
I feel that my intention has yet to actually be understood, and I may just have to accept that.
Having just read this whole thread with a fresh set of eyes, you are being understood. You're not understanding what others are telling you. Plus, there is an FAQ specific to the situation you're asking about. The answer is no. Just because one FAQ comes after another doesn't mean it invalidates other ones. FAQs that do that say so and relevant entries are updated.
If you want to talk about feelings, I feel that you're trying eke out an edge case that doesn't have support. I feel now you feel cornered and you're trying to double down, and use "logic" as a weapon. The fact of the matter is, the design team has considered this exact scenario and the answer is no. The explanation with respect to handedness after the "no" is entirely secondary. The answer is still plainly no. Plus, I think you're mixing some fluff text with rules text. It is a common mistake, but not one I think you can readily admit. You're too invested in the argument.
If only a dev can sate your desire, I think you'll be disappointed. They are capricious gods. :) And, threads pounding for their input often end up locked.
There is acceptable excuse for refusing to make such a fundamental rule written. If they cannot do so in errata due to pagination constraints that does not stop them from FAQing. They have FAQed in contradiction to the printed rules before.iirc Jason explains somewhere in that thread why they don't make the virtual hands unwritten rule a written one, but you'll have to read the rest of the thread yourself. many of us have and that's why you're met with such frustration. the forums have already had this entire conversation... several times.Because the concept of "virtual hands" as a system of action economy is not clearly defined anywhere in the PRD, or the FAQ (that I was able to find). As such I had always been under the impression the rules for weapons referred to literal hands. So it seemed reasonable to assume that if you can clear the hand, you should be able to use it.
Regardless, I fail to see how it is unreasonable to expect to find every official ruling in the location where the official rules are supposed to be found. If the forum post written by Jason is indeed the official ruling on virtual hands being a pseudo-consumable resource, then it should have been moved to where official rules go three years ago, not left to gather dust in the middle of a long forum thread.
i make no argument as to whether or not their excuses are acceptable, but if that's the conversation you're trying to have, good luck.
There is acceptable excuse for refusing to make such a fundamental rule written. If they cannot do so in errata due to pagination constraints that does not stop them from FAQing. They have FAQed in contradiction to the printed rules before.iirc Jason explains somewhere in that thread why they don't make the virtual hands unwritten rule a written one, but you'll have to read the rest of the thread yourself. many of us have and that's why you're met with such frustration. the forums have already had this entire conversation... several times.Because the concept of "virtual hands" as a system of action economy is not clearly defined anywhere in the PRD, or the FAQ (that I was able to find). As such I had always been under the impression the rules for weapons referred to literal hands. So it seemed reasonable to assume that if you can clear the hand, you should be able to use it.
Regardless, I fail to see how it is unreasonable to expect to find every official ruling in the location where the official rules are supposed to be found. If the forum post written by Jason is indeed the official ruling on virtual hands being a pseudo-consumable resource, then it should have been moved to where official rules go three years ago, not left to gather dust in the middle of a long forum thread.
I agree totally which is why I don't recognize it specifically as a rule.
That said, for the OP's original question, the FAQ that he/she brought up initially very explicitly said that you can not do what the OP is asking to do without using the "metaphysical hands"/"hands of effort" "rule".
