No. If you are using a weapon in each hand and not using two weapon fighting, but instead ordinary iteratives, then neither hand is considered "off-hand". "Off-hand" only exists when two weapon fighting. Pathfinder doesn't have "handedness" rules, like 3.0 did.
No. If you are using a weapon in each hand and not using two weapon fighting, but instead ordinary iteratives, then neither hand is considered "off-hand". "Off-hand" only exists when two weapon fighting. Pathfinder doesn't have "handedness" rules, like 3.0 did.
I don't think this is true. For example, the Spellblade archetype specifies that the Athame ability creates a dagger of force in the off hand. If the magus is wielding no other weapon and summons the athame it is still, according to the text, an off hand weapon and only gets 1/2 str to damage. If off hand didn't exist outside of TWF then the magus would not be able to even summon the dagger unless he was wielding a second weapon because there would be no off hand to create it in. Isn't that right or am I misreading something?
That ability specified the "off hand", which doesn't have a set meaning in game, like "off-hand" does. It is pretty clearly alluding to a "free hand". The term, "off-hand", is used in the flavor text, but isn't invalid. Note that the athame is never specified to be "off-hand" only, but rather "can be" used in the off-hand.
Further the ability says, "The magus can use the athame as if he were fighting with two weapons". Meaning that the intention of the athame was for two-weapon fighting.
That ability specified the "off hand", which doesn't have a set meaning in game, like "off-hand" does. It is pretty clearly alluding to a "free hand". "Off-hand" is used in the flavor text, but isn't invalid. Note that the athame is never specified to be "off-hand" only, but rather "can be" used in the off-hand.
Further the ability says, "The magus can use the athame as if he were fighting with two weapons". Meaning that the intention of the athame was for two-weapon fighting.
The actual text: Force Athame (Sp): At 2nd level, a spellblade magus can sacrifice a prepared magus spell of 1st level or higher as a swift action to create a dagger of force in his off hand.
That isn't flavor text.
I apologize if I am misunderstanding what you are saying here but it seems to me that you are trying to make the same point about the athame that others are making about the beard thing. The presence of the words "off hand" in the beard doesn't demand that TWF. The intent seems to be that it is alluding, as you say here, to the hand being free so that you can wield it at the same time as a two-handed weapon.
"Further the ability says, "The magus can use the athame as if he were fighting with two weapons". Meaning that the intention of the athame was for two-weapon fighting.
Can but doesn't have to. The athame can be used by itself to just take iterative attacks. If your position were true the athame could not be used on its own this way. You would be required to suffer the twf penalties even if using no other weapons or spells because the offhand wouldn't exist unless you used TWF.
The "off hand" is not the "off-hand'. It would be logical to consider that "off hand" is meant to be a free hand.
Note that they correctly used the term "off-hand" in the flavor text and its use didn't conflict with my interpretation.
The "off hand" is not the "off-hand'. It would be logical to consider that "off hand" is mean to be a free hand.
Which is exactly what others are saying about the beard and if the term "off hand" is just meant to be free hand there then it doesn't support your argument that the beard must be talking about twf.
No, the beard uses the term "off-hand", which is only used in relation to two weapon fighting. Your athame is cast to an "off hand".
No, the beard uses the term "off-hand", which is only used in relation to two weapon fighting.
Ok, I'm confused. Again, sorry if I am misunderstanding but are you actually saying the presence of the hyphen changes the meaning?
Off-Hand Weapon: When you deal damage with a weapon in your off hand, you add only 1/2 your Strength bonus. If you have a Strength penalty, the entire penalty applies.
off-hand and off hand are used interchangeably.
|
The term "off-hand" is always and only in relation to two weapon fighting. To say otherwise is being disingenuous.
Thats fine, when you use two weapon fighting with either a primary weapon and an open off hand, or a primary weapon and a weapon in your off hand, you can use the bazu beard as an off hand weapon. I think everyone agrees so far.
However, while the item description says you can use the barbazu beard with a two handed weapon, it does not say you can use "Two Weapon Fighting" with a two handed weapon. Two say simply because it lists the beard as an off-hand weapon, and it says that you can fight with the barbazu beard while fighting with a two handed weapon means that you can combine the two and use two weapon fighting with a two handed weapon is making a huge assumption.
The barbazu Beard is an off-handed weapon that does not require a hand to wield, therefore it can be used to attack with even when wielding/using a two handed weapon.
The item does NOT say it can be used to two weapon fight when using a two handed weapon! If you can show where it says "the barbazu beard can be used to achieve two weapon fighting while wielding a two handed weapon".
Additionally, and maybe more importantly, a Barbazu Beard is an off-hand weapon. It is NEVER identified as a light weapon. By default if a weapon is not identified as being a light weapon, it is not a light weapon. To use two weapon fighting with the Barbazu Beard would mean all your attacks are occuring with a -4 penalty to hit (assuming you have the two weapon fighting feat). Not exactly the ideal option to be able to make one additional attack that will provoke an attack of opportunity. It is much more suitable to add the attack as an iterative, or as an option to threaten squares that are otherwise inside your reach.
No, the beard uses the term "off-hand", which is only used in relation to two weapon fighting.Ok, I'm confused. Again, sorry if I am misunderstanding but are you actually saying the presence of the hyphen changes the meaning?
Yes. Note that in that archetype it is used both with and without the hyphen. There is both an "off-hand" and an "off hand" mentioned. Because in one place it is telling you that the intention is to use the athame as an off-hand for two weapon fighting. And in the ability it is telling you that the weapon goes in a free hand.
The term "off-hand" is always and only in relation to two weapon fighting. To say otherwise is being disingenuous.Thats fine, when you use two weapon fighting with either a primary weapon and an open off hand, or a primary weapon and a weapon in your off hand, you can use the bazu beard as an off hand weapon. I think everyone agrees so far.
However, while the item description says you can use the barbazu beard with a two handed weapon, it does not say you can use "Two Weapon Fighting" with a two handed weapon. Two say simply because it lists the beard as an off-hand weapon, and it says that you can fight with the barbazu beard while fighting with a two handed weapon means that you can combine the two and use two weapon fighting with a two handed weapon is making a huge assumption.
The barbazu Beard is an off-handed weapon that does not require a hand to wield, therefore it can be used to attack with even when wielding/using a two handed weapon.
The item does NOT say it can be used to two weapon fight when using a two handed weapon! If you can show where it says "the barbazu beard can be used to achieve two weapon fighting while wielding a two handed weapon".
Additionally, and maybe more importantly, a Barbazu Beard is an off-hand weapon. It is NEVER identified as a light weapon. By default if a weapon is not identified as being a light weapon, it is not a light weapon. To use two weapon fighting with the Barbazu Beard would mean all your attacks are occuring with a -4 penalty to hit (assuming you have the two weapon fighting feat). Not exactly the ideal option to be able to make one additional attack that will provoke an attack of opportunity. It is much more suitable to add the attack as an iterative, or as an option to threaten squares that are otherwise inside your reach.
Good explanation, that is the way I understand it.
Off-Hand Weapon: When you deal damage with a weapon in your off hand, you add only 1/2 your Strength bonus. If you have a Strength penalty, the entire penalty applies.off-hand and off hand are used interchangeably.
No. Read that closer. The "off-hand" refers to the use of the weapon, while the "off hand" refers to the hand itself.
The hand can be an "off hand".
The weapon can be used as an "off-hand".
The definition is indeed different.
Off-Hand Weapon: When you deal damage with a weapon in your off hand, you add only 1/2 your Strength bonus. If you have a Strength penalty, the entire penalty applies.off-hand and off hand are used interchangeably.No. Read that closer. The "off-hand" refers to the use of the weapon, while the "off hand" refers to the hand itself.
The hand can be an "off hand".
The weapon can be used as an "off-hand".The definition is indeed different.
I honestly believe that you are reading way more into that than is actually there.
Dude, no.'off-hand' is used as an adjective.
'off hand' is used as a noun.
That's the only difference.
That's a huge difference though. It completely changes the meaning. It's like the difference between, "Let's eat, Grandma", and "Let's eat Grandma".
I honestly believe that you are reading way more into that than is actually there.Off-Hand Weapon: When you deal damage with a weapon in your off hand, you add only 1/2 your Strength bonus. If you have a Strength penalty, the entire penalty applies.off-hand and off hand are used interchangeably.No. Read that closer. The "off-hand" refers to the use of the weapon, while the "off hand" refers to the hand itself.
The hand can be an "off hand".
The weapon can be used as an "off-hand".The definition is indeed different.
Then find me a place where "off-hand" is referring to a hand instead of the way you are using a weapon. Or a place where "off hand" is referring to anything other than a kind of hand.
|
|
Then find me a place where "off-hand" is referring to a hand instead of the way you are using a weapon. Or a place where "off hand" is referring to anything other than a kind of hand.I honestly believe that you are reading way more into that than is actually there.Off-Hand Weapon: When you deal damage with a weapon in your off hand, you add only 1/2 your Strength bonus. If you have a Strength penalty, the entire penalty applies.off-hand and off hand are used interchangeably.No. Read that closer. The "off-hand" refers to the use of the weapon, while the "off hand" refers to the hand itself.
The hand can be an "off hand".
The weapon can be used as an "off-hand".The definition is indeed different.
And the fact that an item CAN BE used as an off-hand weapon when two weapon fighting, and that the same item CAN BE used with a two handed weapon, does not automatically confirm that the item can be used in order to achieve two weapon fighting while wielding a two handed weapon.
You are taking A=B and C=D and trying to say it proves that A=D. It doesn't work that way!
You claim that 'off-hand' is only for TWF, whereas 'off hand' isn't, yet 'off hand' is spelled out 3 times in the TWF feat, whereas 'off-hand' is mentioned only once. What does that mean? Nothing, just like your strange focus on some supposed rules connotation between adjectives and nouns.
Try looking at how "off-hand" is used in the combat chapter.
But I'm not really sure what you are trying to argue. It's like you're trying to say their is no difference between an adjective and a noun, which is just mind boggling. They are by definition very different things.
Then find me a place where "off-hand" is referring to a hand instead of the way you are using a weapon. Or a place where "off hand" is referring to anything other than a kind of hand.I honestly believe that you are reading way more into that than is actually there.Off-Hand Weapon: When you deal damage with a weapon in your off hand, you add only 1/2 your Strength bonus. If you have a Strength penalty, the entire penalty applies.off-hand and off hand are used interchangeably.No. Read that closer. The "off-hand" refers to the use of the weapon, while the "off hand" refers to the hand itself.
The hand can be an "off hand".
The weapon can be used as an "off-hand".The definition is indeed different.
You are the one saying that it being used this way in the first place. That is something I disagree with. You are asking me to prove your statement false instead of you proving it is true.
And the fact that an item CAN BE used as an off-hand weapon when two weapon fighting, and that the same item CAN BE used with a two handed weapon, does not automatically confirm that the item CAN BE used in order to achieve two weapon fighting while wielding a two handed weapon.
You are taking A=B and C=D and trying to say it proves that A=D. It doesn't work that way!
There's more than that though. We also have a "thus", which is a very important word.
A barbazu beard can be used as an off-hand weapon that requires no hands to use; thus, a warrior could combine use of a barbazu beard with a two-handed weapon.
"used as an off-hand weapon" = used when two weapon fighting
"thus" = the next sentence flows from the previous sentence
"combine use [] with a two-handed weapon" = to be used in the previous mentioned way with a two-handed weapon
You are the one saying that it being used this way in the first place. That is something I disagree with. You are asking me to prove your statement false instead of you proving it is true.
My proof is in all of the rules we've quoted so far, including your athame ability.
Or rather, answer this question, why use the hyphen ever, if it doesn't change the meaning?
An off-hand weapon is used in the off hand. A weapon in your off hand is an off-hand weapon. That's all there is to it.
You admit that one is an adjective for a weapon, and the other is a hand. Yet you don't think there is any difference between those two? It's like you are being purposefully obtuse.
An off-hand weapon == a weapon in your off hand.A weapon in your off hand == an off-hand weapon.
You have no off-hand without two weapon fighting. Pathfinder purposefully got rid of handedness rules. And an off hand is still an off hand whether it has a weapon in it or not.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So it seems everyone is in agreement except Melkiador?
The beard is an off hand weapon that doesn't use a hand, but does use a metaphorical hand. It can be used with iterative attacks with a two handed weapon, but can not now be used with TWF with a two handed weapon due to a more recent FAQ?
Given the text that you cite, as well as the fact that we have repeatedly been told that FAQ's only apply to the specific situations that they address (in this case armor spikes and gauntlets) I agree that your interpretation is currently the correct one.
FAQ's being very specific may have been the case at one point in the past, but does not seem to be the case always, as explained by Mark here.
This is also shown from several FAQs that use phrases such as "In general.." or other similar wording.
I've never seen the actual dev quote that states FAQs should only be applied to the specific things they address, but I'd hazard a guess (and I might very well be wrong in this guess), is that in context what was being said was don't do things like try to apply a FAQ on melee attacks to also apply to ranged attacks. Or something on SU's as having effect on SLA's. My guess is people were trying to apply a given FAQ to broadly. e.g, if a new "belly button spike" weapon is created, the FAQ on boot blade and armor spikes would still apply to such a weapon, even though it is not specifically mentioned. The FAQ would not apply as a rule to dual wielding longbows with a 4 armed creature though - that is simply a different category of rules workings all-together.
Of course, does that apply to the barbazu beard? Who can say for certain.
And of course the FAQ above would've been much clearer if it had been "No, because there are no rules for two-weapon fighting with a two-handed weapon, only light and one-handed weapons."
This is the part I always see when people try to find a loophole. There are no rules stating what happens (what penalties you take) when you TWF with one of them being a THW.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So it seems everyone is in agreement except Melkiador?
The beard is an off hand weapon that doesn't use a hand, but does use a metaphorical hand. It can be used with iterative attacks with a two handed weapon, but can not now be used with TWF with a two handed weapon due to a more recent FAQ?
Who knows? The FAQ offers no guidance - nor does the rationale behind the two hands off effort unwritten ruling particularly because the barbazu beard specifically says it requires no hands to use and that was written before anybody knew about the hands of effort thing. Had it been written after that became public, we might be able to infer it as an exception.
Running this at home, I throw out the hands of effort unwritten rule and allow TWF with two-handed weapons. Were I running in PFS, I'd still allow the barbazu beard despite the unwritten rule because the written rule for the item would make it an exception. That and written has to override unwritten.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That and written has to override unwritten
Written always override unwritten. In this case, the written doesn't because:
- It doesn't cover TWF with a THW.
- It was written in a time where 3.5 FAQ allowed it.
- A new FAQ forbids it and while only talking about Armor Spikes, no one should believe it's limited to armor spikes.
- A Two Hand weapon uses a main hand and an off hand, so that weapon making itself an off hand still works.
- Since it is not a light weapon, you'd not getting -2 to hit so your DPR is less.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I've never seen the actual dev quote that states FAQs should only be applied to the specific things they address
I'm pretty sure this came from the Eagle Shaman FAQ
This ruling only applies to the eagle shaman, not any other kind of animal shaman archetype.
That caused a lot of bickering in threads, some FAQ threads hoping to expand that ruling to other shaman.
I'd bet this is the source of the "only applies to one thing".
That kind of thinking lead us to the Gang Up FAQ which said you can't ranged flank and hundreds of threads (thousands of posts) stating the Gang Up FAQ didn't apply. Turns out it did, as we finally got a FAQ reply in the ranged flanking that simply said "Answered in FAQ see Gang Up FAQ".
So it seems everyone is in agreement except Melkiador?
The beard is an off hand weapon that doesn't use a hand, but does use a metaphorical hand. It can be used with iterative attacks with a two handed weapon, but can not now be used with TWF with a two handed weapon due to a more recent FAQ?
No
The barbazu beatd makes a specific exception to the general rule.
Lacking errata to remove that specific exception, the barbazu beard permits two-weapon fighting while wielding a two-handed weapon.
So it seems everyone is in agreement except Melkiador?
The beard is an off hand weapon that doesn't use a hand, but does use a metaphorical hand. It can be used with iterative attacks with a two handed weapon, but can not now be used with TWF with a two handed weapon due to a more recent FAQ?
No
The barbazu beatd makes a specific exception to the general rule.
Lacking errata to remove that specific exception, the barbazu beard permits two-weapon fighting while wielding a two-handed weapon.
Except there wasn't a general rule at the time of the beard being written.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except there wasn't a general rule at the time of the beard being written.So it seems everyone is in agreement except Melkiador?
The beard is an off hand weapon that doesn't use a hand, but does use a metaphorical hand. It can be used with iterative attacks with a two handed weapon, but can not now be used with TWF with a two handed weapon due to a more recent FAQ?
No
The barbazu beatd makes a specific exception to the general rule.
Lacking errata to remove that specific exception, the barbazu beard permits two-weapon fighting while wielding a two-handed weapon.
Irrelevant.
The general rule that exists now is overridden by specific rules text on the item.
Except there wasn't a general rule at the time of the beard being written.So it seems everyone is in agreement except Melkiador?
The beard is an off hand weapon that doesn't use a hand, but does use a metaphorical hand. It can be used with iterative attacks with a two handed weapon, but can not now be used with TWF with a two handed weapon due to a more recent FAQ?
No
The barbazu beatd makes a specific exception to the general rule.
Lacking errata to remove that specific exception, the barbazu beard permits two-weapon fighting while wielding a two-handed weapon.
Irrelevant.
The general rule that exists now is overridden by specific rules text on the item.
The specific rules text of the beard doesn't say anything about two weapon fighting. It only says that because it doesn't occupy a hand its use can be combined with a two handed weapon. In other words even though you don't have a free hand you can make still iterative attacks with the beard while wielding a two handed weapon, no TWF required. So it doesn't override anything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The specific rules text of the beard doesn't say anything about two weapon fighting. It only says that because it doesn't occupy a hand its use can be combined with a two handed weapon. In other words even though you don't have a free hand you can make still iterative attacks with the beard while wielding a two handed weapon, no TWF required. So it doesn't override anything.Except there wasn't a general rule at the time of the beard being written.So it seems everyone is in agreement except Melkiador?
The beard is an off hand weapon that doesn't use a hand, but does use a metaphorical hand. It can be used with iterative attacks with a two handed weapon, but can not now be used with TWF with a two handed weapon due to a more recent FAQ?
No
The barbazu beatd makes a specific exception to the general rule.
Lacking errata to remove that specific exception, the barbazu beard permits two-weapon fighting while wielding a two-handed weapon.
Irrelevant.
The general rule that exists now is overridden by specific rules text on the item.
The specific rules text references the off-hand, which only exists while TWFing.
The specific rules text references the off-hand, which only exists while TWFing.The specific rules text of the beard doesn't say anything about two weapon fighting. It only says that because it doesn't occupy a hand its use can be combined with a two handed weapon. In other words even though you don't have a free hand you can make still iterative attacks with the beard while wielding a two handed weapon, no TWF required. So it doesn't override anything.Except there wasn't a general rule at the time of the beard being written.So it seems everyone is in agreement except Melkiador?
The beard is an off hand weapon that doesn't use a hand, but does use a metaphorical hand. It can be used with iterative attacks with a two handed weapon, but can not now be used with TWF with a two handed weapon due to a more recent FAQ?
No
The barbazu beatd makes a specific exception to the general rule.
Lacking errata to remove that specific exception, the barbazu beard permits two-weapon fighting while wielding a two-handed weapon.
Irrelevant.
The general rule that exists now is overridden by specific rules text on the item.
I think you missed a few posts because that has already been asked and answered. That is not true. The example I used before was the Spellblade magus. The Athame ability says it creates a dagger of force specifically in the off hand. So if the off hand doesn't exist except for TWF then he would have to do so in order to be able to summon and use the athame but the text states that the magus can, not must, use it TWF. So far no one has shown any evidence that the off hand only exists in TWF other than just saying it. I'm curious where that idea came from?
Another exmaple from the buckler "This small metal shield is worn strapped to your forearm. You can use a bow or crossbow without penalty while carrying it. You can also use your shield arm to wield a weapon (whether you are using an off-hand weapon or using your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon), but you take a –1 penalty on attack rolls while doing so. "
Here you are using your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon. While wielding a two-handed weapon you aren't TWF yet your off hand exists and is being utilized according to the text.