| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Given its not specified, reach applies to both. Whether that's RL martially accurate I can't say, but that's pathfinder.
(Also the pfsrd has it as 1d3/1d6, I don't have the source material to check it atm.)
Many of those eastern martial arts weapons are a bodge job without the information to use them as RAW. You have to house rule them to use them. Like it has Grapple but not Disarm even though the description describes entangling weapons and so on. There a number of threads calling them out as unusable as written.
Many of those eastern martial arts weapons are a bodge job without the information to use them as RAW. You have to house rule them to use them. Like it has Grapple but not Disarm even though the description describes entangling weapons and so on. There a number of threads calling them out as unusable as written.
I haven't heard of this before... the vast majority of the weapons function perfectly fine, no "houseruling" required. Some people may disagree with the designers and want their weapons to have more / different weapon properties, or want a greater degree of realism in their fantasy games, but to call them out as "unusable" seems a bit silly. Granted there are likely one or two weapons that are the exception, but that isn't the case here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This question has come up before, but not concrete answer was given, and Paizo has not answered. I guess we should FAQ this post to so that it hopfully pushes them to answer it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
FAQd it. Based on what I've seen in real life, the kama isn't used as reach, but the weighted chain is. But in anime that kama gets thrown everywhere with magical precision.
I haven't heard of this before... the vast majority of the weapons function perfectly fine, no "houseruling" required. Some people may disagree with the designers and want their weapons to have more / different weapon properties, or want a greater degree of realism in their fantasy games, but to call them out as "unusable" seems a bit silly. Granted there are likely one or two weapons that are the exception, but that isn't the case here.
Yet you are (sorry the op is) here asking and no one has a definitive answer, so in order to use it you will have to iron it out with your GM or House rule it in other words. I personally would use the Meteor Hammer rules for swapping between single long range ring attack (ooer) and double close range weapon and just ignore the off-hand bit. It's a bit silly I know but hey ho.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think they're too afraid of creating a 3.0 spiked chain, but attacking at close range with the kama and long range with the chain is what the real life weapon is supposed to be about. In a lot of real-life kusarigama, the chain even attaches at the top of the kama so you can easily swing the chain from the kama, while still having the kama at the ready. All of that with only one hand. But having a one handed weapon that can attack at 5 and 10, is too powerful for the weapons in pathfinder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've always wondered if they had feats/more rules for several of the eastern weapons that got cut for room and by the time a book they would fit in came around the stigma was too much to use space on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...no one has a definitive answer, so in order to use it you will have to iron it out with your GM or House rule it in other words. I personally would use the Meteor Hammer rules for swapping between single long range ring attack (ooer) and double close range weapon and just ignore the off-hand bit. It's a bit silly I know but hey ho.
But in order to use it, you just use it as written like you would every other weapon in pathfinder... I thought the additional text stipulations that double weapons often have saying that specific ends have differing properties are an exception to this, if its not listed that one end specifically has reach or it only has reach under certain conditions, then by RAW it just has reach.
I will say that yes, the 1d6 S is the kama and the 1d3 B is the ball, which should have been included for clarity. But as written its a double reach weapon, I don't think its adjustable just because you think it should be. Reading anything beyond what the weapon actually has in the rules or comparing it to different weapons, regardless of wanting it to be closer to real life is probably reading too much into it.
Has errata or a designer actually popped up to say they intended one of the ends to not have reach?
FAQ'd, in case i'm wrong though.
And your reading might work great for your games, but not for another GM who reads it based on the actual use and decides only one end has reach at a time.
I think they're too afraid of creating a 3.0 spiked chain, but attacking at close range with the kama and long range with the chain is what the real life weapon is supposed to be about. In a lot of real-life kusarigama, the chain even attaches at the top of the kama so you can easily swing the chain from the kama, while still having the kama at the ready. All of that with only one hand. But having a one handed weapon that can attack at 5 and 10, is too powerful for the weapons in pathfinder.
Well, the whip and scorpion whip can achieve this but they kept the power level in line by charging a bunch of feats to do so. They could make some new feats for the kusarigama that would let you wield it in the way that you described.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is no problem with the weapon, just people's expectations of what the weapons SHOULD do. As written the Kusarigama is double, grapple, monk, reach, trip, NO exceptions. Damage 1d3/1d6.
What does that mean? Kama and sickle are established weapons with damage sizes and damage types attached. Kama (1d6 S) and Sickle (1d6 S). I'm pretty sure they didn't spell it out because it was super clear/obvious that a kama/sickle would do kama/sickle damage and damage type.
Second, it had both double and reach, meaning both ends are reach. Nothing else to be said.
So all told, the weapon works as is without a FAQ. I refuse to click on a FAQ for something that works as they have really messed things up that used to work fine, like ammo and enchantments. If the weapons works differently than I said, I don't want to know about it because it might end up with a standard action to switch between double and one end reach and deals only non-lethal, you know 'cuz it's ALWAYS done that'... :P
Golurkcanfly: The Double Chained Kama acts as 2 light weapons OR reach with the text. That contradicts what double does: "as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon." As such, THAT weapon has a legitimate reason to be FAQ'd. It doesn't work as-is.
There is no problem with the weapon, just people's expectations of what the weapons SHOULD do. As written the Kusarigama is double, grapple, monk, reach, trip, NO exceptions. Damage 1d3/1d6.
What does that mean? Kama and sickle are established weapons with damage sizes and damage types attached. Kama (1d6 S) and Sickle (1d6 S). I'm pretty sure they didn't spell it out because it was super clear/obvious that a kama/sickle would do kama/sickle damage and damage type.
Second, it had both double and reach, meaning both ends are reach. Nothing else to be said.
So all told, the weapon works as is without a FAQ. I refuse to click on a FAQ for something that works as they have really messed things up that used to work fine, like ammo and enchantments. If the weapons works differently than I said, I don't want to know about it because it might end up with a standard action to switch between double and one end reach and deals only non-lethal, you know 'cuz it's ALWAYS done that'... :P
Golurkcanfly: The Double Chained Kama acts as 2 light weapons OR reach with the text. That contradicts what double does: "as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon." As such, THAT weapon has a legitimate reason to be FAQ'd. It doesn't work as-is.
So you believe that a Kusarigama was intended to not be used against targets within 5ft?
So you believe that a Kusarigama was intended to not be used against targets within 5ft?There is no problem with the weapon, just people's expectations of what the weapons SHOULD do. As written the Kusarigama is double, grapple, monk, reach, trip, NO exceptions. Damage 1d3/1d6.
What does that mean? Kama and sickle are established weapons with damage sizes and damage types attached. Kama (1d6 S) and Sickle (1d6 S). I'm pretty sure they didn't spell it out because it was super clear/obvious that a kama/sickle would do kama/sickle damage and damage type.
Second, it had both double and reach, meaning both ends are reach. Nothing else to be said.
So all told, the weapon works as is without a FAQ. I refuse to click on a FAQ for something that works as they have really messed things up that used to work fine, like ammo and enchantments. If the weapons works differently than I said, I don't want to know about it because it might end up with a standard action to switch between double and one end reach and deals only non-lethal, you know 'cuz it's ALWAYS done that'... :P
Golurkcanfly: The Double Chained Kama acts as 2 light weapons OR reach with the text. That contradicts what double does: "as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon." As such, THAT weapon has a legitimate reason to be FAQ'd. It doesn't work as-is.
Yeah, I'm not running it that way, RAW or not. It doesn't make sense, and IME a player who wants to play with a kusarigama is enough of a fancy weapon enthusiast to be turned off by unrealistic behavior. (There's plenty of that to go around, but in this case it's particularly egregious. [Drink!])
Specific beats general, graystone. The Double Chained Kama is fine.
Meanwhile, the Kusarigama is a double weapon which, unlike similar weapons, lacks clarifying text to explain exactly how it's properties interact.
Not really. With the specifics there is no need for double quality as it's a contradictory rule. As it's was added, even though it's unneeded with extra text, and is contradictory.
So if you think it works fine, what does adding double accomplish? For instance, can you use this weapon two handed, even though it's two light weapons, like double says you can?
So you believe that a Kusarigama was intended to not be used against targets within 5ft?
You misunderstand something. I don't really CARE what was intended when the mechanics are clear. [we're in the rules section after all]
If I were to make the weapon, I'd have used the Meteor Hammer as a template: In 'close' mode you use it as a double weapon, while in 'distance' mode you cannot use it as a double weapon but gain reach with one end and treat it as a two handed weapon. Switching between these two modes is a free action decided at the start of your turn.
That said, the authors didn't go that route and made a weapon with double and reach active at one time. It's not how I'd go, but it's clear that doing that means.
blahpers: I'm fine with it as it's unique and does something different than other weapons [reach weapons in two weapon combat]. If you want a weapon that works as you think it should, and is exotic ["fancy"], welcome to the Meteor Hammer. 'Fixing' it just gets rid of a unique option for non-monks/brawlers: reach two weapon fighting. I don't see any gain from that. A "fancy weapon enthusiast" is going to have an issue with just about EVERY weapon. [unrealistic weight, size, damage, 'deadliness', ect. See shows like Deadliest warrior: which I frequently disagree with just proves the point.
Making sense has NEVER been a requirement of RAW. I can get a feat that allows me to cut a rope with a club...
I'm with graystone here, from a rules perspective. How it would work in real life and what "should" be is irrelevant. What matters is how it currently functions by RAW. (Until errata/FAQ changes how it works)
If you want to houserule your own version of it that better reflects your vision for what it should be, then nobody is stopping you...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This isn't the RAW board either. It's the Rules Questions board. And "why don't the rules for this thing make sense with reality?" is a question about the rules.
Well I assume the designers know what they're doing most of the time. Meaning the RAI would match the RAW. The weapon still functions believably and is actually more stylish thanks to the way they wrote it. If it's not broken and it's not been changed since it was released, then chances are they're quite happy with it as it is.
Seeing as nobody but the designers can confirm RAI, its more reasonable for us to approach this from a RAW perspective using what the designers have actually written...
(As I say, I've still FAQ'd it just for you that aren't happy with how it works in the RAW, but I don't think there's much more any of us can add to this debate.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well I assume the designers know what they're doing most of the time. Meaning the RAI would match the RAW.
Well, there's your problem. . . . ; )
It's more than reasonable to ask "is this really what you meant, Paizo?" in the Rules Questions forum. If daggers had been printed as doing only bludgeoning weapons, this is exactly where one should expect people to be posting. This is no different.
Morbid Eels the issue with those assumptions is that sometimes bad things slip through (looking at you 1st print Prone Shooter) and we have to figure out if they are right or a mistake.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And "why don't the rules for this thing make sense with reality?" is a question about the rules.
Not really IMO. It makes perfect sense from a rules perspective: It isn't doing anything illegal. What it's doing is bothering people perspective of how they think the rules should have been and NOT what the rules are. That's squarely in the house-rule section. I don't think the ammo or perception/traps FAQ works from my perspective, but asking for it changed really isn't a rules question as I know how it works.
As I pointed out, I can pick up a feat that allows my club to do slashing or piercing damage. Rules in a fantasy game don't have real world sense and trying to force them into the rules isn't RAW in the slightest.
PS: It seems odd to say a RULES thread isn't all about RAW... RAI's place here is for rules that don't make sense from a rules perspective: That isn't the case here as the weapon works as-is.
Morbid Eels the issue with those assumptions is that sometimes bad things slip through (looking at you 1st print Prone Shooter) and we have to figure out if they are right or a mistake.
That's not really an equivalent situation. Prone shooter didn't do anything as written: A clear mistake. The weapon in question works as-is. This is as issue of not liking the way the rules were written and not an issue of the rules not working.
It's more than reasonable to ask "is this really what you meant, Paizo?" in the Rules Questions forum.
It sure is, but then after being shown/told what that answer is it's not really a rules question anymore.
If I think a longsword should, from a historical perspective, be a pound heavier, should I make a thread to try to fix it? And if I did, why would it be in the rules section over advice/houserules?If you look at the OP, the question is WRONG for a FAQ. We know how the weapon works as written. The question should be 'Are the stats for the Kusarigama correct. Being able to two weapon fight with two reach ends seems wrong.' The OP, as is, can be answered with 'no faq needed' as it works as written: the weapon properties work the same as always.
And as far as the dagger example, once again, I can make a club do slashing or piercing damage: The game isn't required to conform to anyone's sense of reality outside the world of the creators imagination.
It's more than reasonable to ask "is this really what you meant, Paizo?" in the Rules Questions forum.It sure is, but then after being shown/told what that answer is it's not really a rules question anymore.
Which hasn't happened yet. So, here we are.
And "why don't the rules for this thing make sense with reality?" is a question about the rules.Not really IMO. It makes perfect sense from a rules perspective: It isn't doing anything illegal. What it's doing is bothering people perspective of how they think the rules should have been and NOT what the rules are. That's squarely in the house-rule section.
No one is trying to make a houserule here. We are discussing the rules and how they don't appear to be correct based on reality. There is nothing wrong with doing that on this board.
Even ignoring prone shooter here is a quick list of clearly the rules let us do X whoops nope
1. Monks flurrying with 1 weapon (decision was reversed but it was a thing.)
2. Anything to do with metaphysical hands.
3. Magic ranged weapons overcoming DR based on enhancement bonus.
4. Pricing special materials for larger creatures.
So you believe that a Kusarigama was intended to not be used against targets within 5ft?
Clearly this is an issue if one is going by RAW. Good point.
Which hasn't happened yet. So, here we are.It's more than reasonable to ask "is this really what you meant, Paizo?" in the Rules Questions forum.It sure is, but then after being shown/told what that answer is it's not really a rules question anymore.
There is no problem with the weapon, just people's expectations of what the weapons SHOULD do. As written the Kusarigama is double, grapple, monk, reach, trip, NO exceptions. Damage 1d3/1d6.
What does that mean? Kama and sickle are established weapons with damage sizes and damage types attached. Kama (1d6 S) and Sickle (1d6 S). I'm pretty sure they didn't spell it out because it was super clear/obvious that a kama/sickle would do kama/sickle damage and damage type.
Second, it had both double and reach, meaning both ends are reach. Nothing else to be said.
So all told, the weapon works as is without a FAQ.
So, there is is. It's happened. You don't have to accept it or agree with it, but that's how it works by the rules.
No one is trying to make a houserule here. We are discussing the rules and how they don't appear to be correct based on reality. There is nothing wrong with doing that on this board.And "why don't the rules for this thing make sense with reality?" is a question about the rules.Not really IMO. It makes perfect sense from a rules perspective: It isn't doing anything illegal. What it's doing is bothering people perspective of how they think the rules should have been and NOT what the rules are. That's squarely in the house-rule section.
Then the question is 'are the stats right', which isn't what's been asked. the question has been: how does the weapon work by the rules. We know how it works.
Even ignoring prone shooter here is a quick list of clearly the rules let us do X whoops nope
1. Monks flurrying with 1 weapon (decision was reversed but it was a thing.)
2. Anything to do with metaphysical hands.
3. Magic ranged weapons overcoming DR based on enhancement bonus.
4. Pricing special materials for larger creatures.
If you'd have asked 'what are the rules' before those FAQ, the answer was different than after. That's my point: The OP is asking what ARE the rules.
You also listed some FAQ's I most disagree with as the Dev's dug deep into the 'unwritten rules' to come up with those [not RAW]. It makes me wonder why we have written rules some times...
Monk/Pricing: I recall there being a legitimate wording issue what could be read differently as opposed to a 'not liking it' issue.
Hands: this is a cluster [blank] pulled out of nowhere... But I'll agree it was a 'don't like it' issue but from the Dev's side.
Ammo: Yep, this was one person reading the section differently from literally everyone else in the thread... and the dev's went with that guy. Again, it was a issue with wording over 'not liking'.
So I wouldn't agree any are really on point. A better one would be the perception rule where it was a 'do we REALLY have to check every 10' or we can't see traps?' where the answer was 'yes'. However, even that was because of new info added into another book, so it started as partially a checking wording issue.
So you believe that a Kusarigama was intended to not be used against targets within 5ft?Clearly this is an issue if one is going by RAW. Good point.
Yep, that's how reach works.
PS: I think the best way to make an FAQ would be to ask 'Can we get a review of the eastern weapons, similar to the scorpion weapon FAQ. Several have abilities that don't seem compatible normally, like double and reach. Are they meant to be run as normal for those properties or where they meant to be run like a Meteor Hammer [2 non-reach weapons [double] or 1 reach weapon.' It makes it clear and simple to read/understand Then discuss/debate good ways the Dev's could fix it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Really, we don't "know" how the weapon works. We can just make educated guesses, based off the stats. For instance, we can guess which die is the kama end because we know the die for a kama, but we also know the kama doesn't have the grapple property, so does that mean the kama end doesn't either? I mean if you have to make assumptions based off another weapon for one thing then why only stop at the one assumption.
Really, we don't "know" how the weapon works.
We really do though. The book tells you EXACTLY how it works. The only thing not explicit is the damage type to damage die but I'd say it super, 100% implicit so it matters little.
We can just make educated guesses, based off the stats. For instance, we can guess which die is the kama end because we know the die for a kama, but we also know the kama doesn't have the grapple property, so does that mean the kama end doesn't either?
As above, does anyone REALLY think the die's are reversed? As such, this is a non sequitur.
As to grapple, what we DON'T know is what a kama + chain gets until we look at the weapon and it seems like doing that means grapple gets added and has nothing to do with die/type.
PS: I honestly don't have a clue why there is grapple. It makes little sense IMO but as I've said about, rules don't have to make sense to be correct: see slashing club. All I know if the weapon [either end] can use it.
I mean if you have to make assumptions based off another weapon for one thing then why only stop at the one assumption.
SO the burning question to you is the weapon die? Really? If someone wants to make THAT FAQ, I'll click it. But we all know which damage is which, so I don't believe that argument for a moment. ;)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not just the die. The damage type is also listed as "b or p" in the stat block meaning that you should be able to do either damage type with either end. Even when two weapon fighting.
So when attacking from reach with both ends while two weapon fighting, I can choose for all the damage to be bludgeoning or piercing.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
And you can kind of see the actual intent in the descriptive text for the weapon, but the stat blocks are overly simplified to where the information gets lost.
Kusarigama 12 gp 1d2/1d4 1d3/1d6 ×2 — 3 lbs. S or B Double, grapple, monk, reach, trip
This weapon has a single kama or sickle held in the off hand, attached by 10 feet of fine chain to a weighted metal ball. The sickle can be used to make trip attacks, jabs, and blocks, while the ball is whipped around at high speeds and then smashed into the opponent, or used to tangle an opponent's sword or spear, allowing the wielder to then attack with the sickle.
So, the descriptive text makes it pretty clear the ball is supposed to be used for the grapple attempts, and the sickle does the trip attacks.
And the sickle is described as "held in the off hand", implying that you aren't supposed to be swinging the sickle from the chain, so it shouldn't have reach. Also, if you are intended to attack with the sickle when grappling an enemy, then the sickle couldn't be a reach weapon, as enemies always get moved to your nearest square when grappled.
Correction: In the post above, I had accidentally listed the damage type as "b or P", while it is actually "S or B". The point being made is unaffected, though.
I was not aware the ultimate equipment text differed from the ultimate combat text.
With this "new" RAW, it now makes sense that it would function as you think it should. So it seems they changed/clarified it post-ultimate combat after all and as a result I'm changing my ruling on it.
Still doesn't say anything about whether Reach applies to both ends...
Still doesn't say anything about whether Reach applies to both ends...
Not directly, but if the sickle is intended for attacking grappled foes, then it couldn't have reach.
If you successfully grapple a creature that is not adjacent to you, move that creature to an adjacent open space (if no space is available, your grapple fails).
Still doesn't say anything about whether Reach applies to both ends...
Well assuming "tangle" = grapple, then "used to tangle an opponent's sword or spear, allowing the wielder to then attack with the sickle" seems to imply you grapple with the ball, then when they're within 5ft you hit them with the sickle. As Melkiador pointed out, if it had reach on the sickle you wouldn't be able to attack adjacently with it. Given that there's no language for adjusting the reach of the sickle, the sickle part would have to always be non-reach for this to work.
"Tangle an opponent's sword" is a really unclear way to say "grapple". Mechanically, it sounds more like disarm or entangle.
"Tangle an opponent's sword" is a really unclear way to say "grapple". Mechanically, it sounds more like disarm or entangle.
Agreed, but given this weapon doesn't have disarm, it's almost certainly referring to the grapple property.
This weapon just isn't stat block friendly. It probably should have just said "double, monk, see description" in the weapon properties instead. Then it could have said to use the kama's stats for one end and a 1d4 bashing weight with reach and grapple for the other end.
It may have have also mentioned that the kama is considered an off-hand weapon.
Agreed, but given this weapon doesn't have disarm, it's almost certainly referring to the grapple property.
Plausible, though it's not like you need a weapon with Disarm to disarm someone...
...a 1d4 bashing weight with reach and grapple for the other end.
Again, 1d3 :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...a 1d4 bashing weight with reach and grapple for the other end.Again, 1d3 :)
Woops. I've never actually used the thing. Mostly because I didn't want to go through this long discussion with any GM.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The weapon's intended mechanical workings are definitely not clear. I can understand worrying that an actual ruling may change how you use it at home, but to try to get other people to not FAQ it and/or insinuate that no FAQ is needed when there are quiet a few things that could have been intended is something that makes no sense to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well as Melkiador pointed out, the Ultimate Equipment text seems to clarify this to enough of a degree for it to match its real world counterpart. For it to function as the UE text describes it's fairly easy to come to the conclusion that the 1d3 ball has reach & grapple, whereas the 1d6 sickle has trip and lacks reach. (Otherwise that text would make little sense.)
Doesn't clarify it enough to not have discussions like this about it though does it? I'm with @Melkiador better not to use it than have to argue it out or not have to argue and then have the GM try to nerf it at a later date when he realises what she/he's done.
I wouldn't give you reach and close at the same time as a GM unless it was pointed out in no uncertain terms within the rules.
Doesn't clarify it enough to not have discussions like this about it though does it? I wouldn't give you reach and close at the same time as a GM unless it was pointed out in no uncertain terms within the rules.
Well this long discussion has almost exclusively been debating the intent behind the UC text RAW up until now.
With the addition of the newly quoted UE text it nullifies many of those arguments.
Ultimately, unless it specifies or indicates in its text that the swinging ball end loses the reach property or that the weapon only has reach under certain conditions, i'm inclined to believe it keeps it. Though as stated multiple times, my rulings are based exclusively on the text provided, (though it also now happens to be in line with RL usage) and I've FAQ'd for confirmation or correction already just in case.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do a lot of people think a double weapon with reach at one end and not at the other would be overpowered?