Thoughts on Titan Mauler build


Advice

51 to 97 of 97 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
thaX wrote:

To me, if I, as a GM, to allow the off hand use of a Two Handed weapon, It would be with a -2 penalty with TWF. This would be the normal scale of what is set with the Light/One Handed.

With the feat, it would be (At first level) (1)Light Weapon -2/-2 (2) One Handed Weapon -4/-4 and (3) Two Handed Weapon -6/-6.

That would be one top of whatever penalties the character has for wielding the Two Handed Weapon with one hand.

Regardless of primary or off hand, you're wielding it as a one hander. You don't get any THW benefits when wielding it as a OHW, so why would you suffer penalties for it being a THW? Jotungrip already imposes the universal-2 penalty for wielding a weapon that normally requires two hands because of your Size, as a one-hander, and it is precisely that penalty which accounts for the difficulty in wielding it as a OHW. Put another way, the character pays a permanent -2 on attack to get be able to treat the Medium sized weapon as a Small weapon, but from that point on, it is a Small weapon for that creature with regard to mechanics.

Imposing an additional -2 is essentially ignoring the fact that is it is being used as a OWH and that the character is already paying a -2 for doing so. The only way what you're advocating would be consistent with the rules is if Jotungrip allowed you to actually count it as a THW in one hand. In other words, if Jotungrip said that you roll damage as if it were a two-handed weapon, then I could agree that the rules might be ambiguous with regard to TWF and I could see a need for an additional penalty for mechanical consistency.

I view it as a Barbarian giving up an ability (Uncanny Dodge) to have a one handed weapon with albeit slightly higher damage dice than normal one handers, but also with a permanent reduction in accuracy. In many way, Jotungrip is like Exotic Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword), that many others have referenced. You wouldn't impose an additional -2 for using a Bastard sword in the off hand, would you?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

No on the Bastard sword as it is a One Handed Weapon.

Another factor to think about is the actual size of the weapon. A Two Handed weapon is the same size as the wielder, so that should account for some difficulty in this area.

It would be a houserule, at any rate, as there are no rules for using a Two Handed weapon in the off hand (Or the penalty, if any, that would be imposed)

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As mentioned several times upthread, there are rules for wielding a 2 handed weapon in your offhand. The basic TWFing rules. They make no mention of the type of weapon, only that a weapon is wielded in the offhand and that the penalty is less if it is a light weapon.

It'd be a houserule to not allow it in the first place or increase the penalties.


thaX wrote:
No on the Bastard sword as it is a One Handed Weapon.

As you already know, it's a one-handed Exotic weapon, it's a two-handed Martial weapon. If I do not have the Proficiency feat, it is a medium THW and all the THW rules apply to it.

Once I get EWP (bastard), it is a medium OHW and all the OH rules apply to it, as you concede.

Just like a medium greatsword, a medium bastard sword can be wielded in one hand by a large creature.

I find it curious that you do not see Jotungrip working in the same way. In both cases, we have circumstance that changes the effort required to wield a weapon, from two hands to one hand.

Let me ask you, does Jotungrip let medium creature wield a medium bastard sword in one-hand without EWP at the same -2 as other THWs?


Well, glad to see this has brought up a crazy whirlwind of discussion. Let me calm this down with another question for a different variant:

Level 6 Titan Mauler
- Massive Weapons at Level 3
- Abyssal Blood at Level 6
- Impact on the weapon
- Frost on the Weapon
- Elemental Blood, Lesser
- Vital Strike
- Power Attack

At Level 6, damage at most would be 12d6 + 2d6 cold + 4 + 3 from Magic weapon + Str

Thoughts?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Jurassic Pratt wrote:

As mentioned several times upthread, there are rules for wielding a 2 handed weapon in your offhand. The basic TWFing rules. They make no mention of the type of weapon, only that a weapon is wielded in the offhand and that the penalty is less if it is a light weapon.

It'd be a houserule to not allow it in the first place or increase the penalties.

And this is where be began this debate, as the difference between the light weapon and a Two Handed weapon seems to be one of preference. Why get the lesser penalty for the Light weapon and ignore the weapon being Two Handed for the other side of the equation?

We disagree about this, as I see what the rules say "you can" and you don't see where it says "You Can't" and nothing is in between to mediate between those two stances.

A lot of rule "RAW" readings are extending rules to include omissions that tend to stretch and go beyond what was intended or would be allowed. This is one of those situations.

So now lets move on.

Everything on that build,Shmyah, looks ok. Anyone else have any thoughts?


thaX wrote:


And this is where be began this debate, as the difference between the light weapon and a Two Handed weapon seems to be one of preference. Why get the lesser penalty for the Light weapon and ignore the weapon being Two Handed for the other side of the equation?

You know, when I asked my question about the bastard sword and Jotungrip, I didn't know the answer. So then I went on the forums and looked to see what others were saying. Perhaps the majority of posters back in 2014 or so, repeated the same thing you did:

"It's a two-handed weapon and that doesn't change."

Everyone citing this mantra insisted that Jotungrip did not allow one to wield a basterd sword one handed without EWP. Because they subscribed to this idea that Light, OH, and TW are weapon qualities that can't be changed

So then I went and looked at the FAQ for bastards swords and the answer is quite interesting:

Bastard Sword:
Is this a one-handed weapon or a two-handed weapon?
A bastard sword is a one-handed weapon (although for some rules it blurs the line between a one-handed and a two-handed weapon).

The physical properties of a bastard sword are that of a one-handed weapon. For example, its hardness, hit points, ability to be crafted out of special materials, category for using the Craft skill, effect of alchemical silver, and so on, are all that of a one-handed weapon.

For class abilities, feats, and other rule elements that vary based on or specifically depend on wielding a one-handed weapon, a two-handed weapon, or a one-handed weapon with two hands, the bastard sword counts as however many hands you are using to wield it.

For example, if you are wielding it one-handed (which normally requires the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat), it is treated as a one-handed weapon; Power Attack only gets the one-handed bonus, you cannot use Pushing Assault or Shield of Swings (which require a two-handed weapon), and so on.

If you are wielding it with two hands (whether or not you have the Exotic Weapon Proficiency to wield it with one hand), it is treated as a two-handed weapon; Power Attack gets the increased damage bonus, you can use Pushing Assault or Shield of Swings (which require a two-handed weapon), and so on.

An unusual case of the handedness rule is an ability that allows you to treat a two-handed weapon as a one-handed weapon. For example, the titan mauler's jotungrip (which allows you to wield a two-handed weapon with one hand) allows you to wield a bastard sword in one hand even without the Exotic Weapon Proficiency, and (as the ability states) treats it as a one-handed weapon, therefore it is treated as a one-handed weapon for other effects.

First off, you'll notice that the FAQ explicitly discuses Titan Mauler and says that, yes, you can use Jotungrip to treat a "two-handed weapon as a one-handed weapon." You'll also notice that it says this:

FAQ on Bastard Swords + Titan Mauler wrote:
..and (as the ability states) treats it as a one-handed weapon, therefore it is treated as a one-handed weapon for other effects

This pretty much settles the discussion. The FAQ unequivocally tells us that we treat the "two-handed weapon" as a one handed weapon for "other effects." So Paizo has answered our question: if you are allowed to wield the weapon in one-hand, it's treated as a one handed weapon for "other effects," and there is no exclusion for TWF.

Based on this FAQ, any GM who rules otherwise in PFS would be house ruling, which is forbidden in PFS. Players should not expect table variation on this.

But the really interesting part is this FAQ for me was this:

FAQ wrote:
If you are wielding it with two hands (whether or not you have the Exotic Weapon Proficiency to wield it with one hand), it is treated as a two-handed weapon; Power Attack gets the increased damage bonus, you can use Pushing Assault or Shield of Swings (which require a two-handed weapon), and so on.

I was not expecting this. As it turns out, if you use a OHW with two hands, it is treated as a THW for feats and other effects. This part of the rules, we both apparently got wrong. A Longsword gripped with both hands is, in the eyes of any rules that matter, a THW. As the FAQ explains, a player who has Pushing Assault can benefit from that feat by gripping a longsword with two hands. This FAQ also dispels the "weapon quality" notion of effort. Whether the a weapon is OH or TH, is purely a function of how you can legally wield the weapon and how you choose to wield the weapon. You seemed to disagree with this statement previously, but the FAQ spells it out for us.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
thaX wrote:
Jurassic Pratt wrote:

As mentioned several times upthread, there are rules for wielding a 2 handed weapon in your offhand. The basic TWFing rules. They make no mention of the type of weapon, only that a weapon is wielded in the offhand and that the penalty is less if it is a light weapon.

It'd be a houserule to not allow it in the first place or increase the penalties.

And this is where be began this debate, as the difference between the light weapon and a Two Handed weapon seems to be one of preference. Why get the lesser penalty for the Light weapon and ignore the weapon being Two Handed for the other side of the equation?

We disagree about this, as I see what the rules say "you can" and you don't see where it says "You Can't" and nothing is in between to mediate between those two stances.

A lot of rule "RAW" readings are extending rules to include omissions that tend to stretch and go beyond what was intended or would be allowed. This is one of those situations.

So now lets move on.

Everything on that build,Shmyah, looks ok. Anyone else have any thoughts?

I would move on if you hadn't just seriously mischaracterized my viewpoint. I see the rules saying "you can" as they only mention wielding a weapon. By your own logic here you couldn't even use 1 handed weapons while TWFing as it only mentions light offhands.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

TWF only mentions that you can use light off hand weapons at a LESS penalty than using another one-handed weapon. THATS IT! Where do one get the idea that you cant off-hand any other weapon you are capable of whielding one-handed? Hell you could even use a RANGED weapon as your off-hand attack, which by this logic wouldnt allow it, but yet by all other rulings you are fully capable of.

Is the whole argument against this just that one disgruntled GM that dont want the barbarian to dual whield large weapons?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dracoknight wrote:
Is the whole argument against this just that one disgruntled GM that dont want the barbarian to dual whield large weapons?

That seems to be the long and short of it.

Grand Lodge

There should be more focus on how to make the concept viable enough, instead of repeating the same hamster's wheel.

Dark Archive

Philippe Lam wrote:
There should be more focus on how to make the concept viable enough, instead of repeating the same hamster's wheel.

I had thought up a similar build, TWF with Scythes (because it looked awesome), making use of Jotungrip. I realized in order to make it viable, you need an enormous amount of to hit bonuses, due to all the penalties. My build consisted of Titan Mauler (Unchained) 2 / Weapon Master 3 / Sentinel of Urgathoa X. Titan Mauler for the THW as OHW and Rage, Weapon Master for Weapon Training and access to Gloves of Dueling, and Sentinel prestige class for the Sacred Weapon ability + Urgathoa's second boon. Combined with the regular weapon focus and Furious Scythes, one could get a decent to hit, but only at mid-high levels. You might be able to further reduce penalties with advanced weapon training: advamced dual wield (if I remember the correct name), but that requires one extra lvl of Weapon Master. Do also realize that the Sentinel bonuses only aply to the favored weapon of the deity, so for a critfishing build with THD'ed weapons, Gorum is your best bet.

It became moot for my build though, as the players at the table decided to do an all dwarf party, reverting my build to Warhammer dual wield.

Grand Lodge

It's better than trying to go solo barbarian, in my own POV. The player will not be able to reduce properly the penalties for oversized weapons, but they more than compensate with their own bonuses, so that's not a real problem.

Might test that on Hero Lab and see the theory of how it might perform.


thaX wrote:
You can not TWF with Two Handed weapons. Not at all.

False: there are no rules that prevent a character from TWF with two-handed weapons, as long as the character physically possesses the required number of hands.

In the case of the Titan Mauler, only one hand is required per weapon.

Quote:
There is no Off Hand use for a Two Handed weapon, no matter how many hands it takes to wield it. Though one can wield the weapon One Handed (or treats it like a one handed weapon), it does not lose the Two Handed quality. The weapon in your off hand needs to be a One Handed or Light Weapon.

Here is the actual RAW

Two Weapon Fighting wrote:

If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in two ways. First, if your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light. Second, the Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6.

Table: Two-weapon Fighting Penalties summarizes the interaction of all these factors.

Table: Two-Weapon Fighting Penalties

Circumstances | Primary Hand | Off Hand

Normal penalties –6 –10
Off-hand weapon is light –4 –8
Two-Weapon Fighting feat –4 –4
Off-hand weapon is light and Two-Weapon Fighting feat –2 –2

At no point in RAW is it stated that two-handed weapons cannot be used.

A titan mauler using two nodachi will take the -4/-4 penalty for using an off-hand weapon that is not light and the -2 penalty for using Jotungrip. While unlikely to actually hit anything, he can dual wield nodachi.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mr. Bonkers wrote:
I had thought up a similar build, TWF with Scythes (because it looked awesome), making use of Jotungrip.

Hand's Autonomy lowers the TWF penalties by 2 and the prerequisite feat for it grants you a +1 hit/dam with a single 1 handed weapon.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

As we continue to disagree with offhand use of Two Handed Weapons, I will go back to the Weapon Designations in the Core Rulebook. Only Light and One Handed weapons are intended as being Off Hand Weapons.

N.N. - I was unclear about the Bastard Sword. I was saying "No" to your question, not the availability of the sword. Using the ability, I believe one character could use it as you suggest, and TWF with two of them. I don't think it matters that the character is able to wield it one handed form the Barbarian ability or having the Exotic Weapon Proficienty.

Our main disagreement is over whether or not the weapon morphs when wielded differently. A light weapon is always wielded with one hand, yet there is no argument about whether or not it is a Light weapon here.

I will stop posting about this. I believe I don't have anything more to add here.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Mr. Bonkers wrote:
I had thought up a similar build, TWF with Scythes (because it looked awesome), making use of Jotungrip.
Hand's Autonomy lowers the TWF penalties by 2 and the prerequisite feat for it grants you a +1 hit/dam with a single 1 handed weapon.

I play so much PFS, that I keep forgetting about feats like that. Thanks for the reminder!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thaX wrote:
As we continue to disagree with offhand use of Two Handed Weapons, I will go back to the Weapon Designations in the Core Rulebook. Only Light and One Handed weapons are intended as being Off Hand Weapons.

Titan Mauler alters/changes that as it allows one handed use. Second NOTHING in the core book points to intent for ANY weapon other than light. There are as many mentions of one handed weapons as there are two handed weapons: none. Third, the core isn't written from the perspective of 3+ armed creatures/PC's, so how do you prove intent for them even if you could for 2 armed ones?

thaX wrote:
Our main disagreement is over whether or not the weapon morphs when wielded differently. A light weapon is always wielded with one hand, yet there is no argument about whether or not it is a Light weapon here.

We have an FAQs that illustrates such morphing.

Bastard Sword: Is this a one-handed weapon or a two-handed weapon wrote:
If you are wielding it with two hands (whether or not you have the Exotic Weapon Proficiency to wield it with one hand), it is treated as a two-handed weapon

RAW rules is that a one handed weapon wielded in two hands is "treated as a two-handed weapon": morphing in play.

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? wrote:
"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."

It applies to feats, like power attack... Why assume it morphs for power attack and not two weapon fighting???

To be quite honest, you seem to be going against the RAW and RAI of this IMO. The weapon keeps it's initial properties, like hp, based on it's original handedness but it's "treated" as the handedness for almost everything else based on how you wield it.


Quote:
N.N. - I was unclear about the Bastard Sword. I was saying "No" to your question, not the availability of the sword. Using the ability, I believe one character could use it as you suggest, and TWF with two of them. I don't think it matters that the character is able to wield it one handed form the Barbarian ability or having the Exotic Weapon Proficienty.

Yes, I am aware of what you were discussing. I did not mean to imply your answer was "no" to the second question, I merely continued on since I didn't think you were going to answer it.

thaX wrote:
Our main disagreement is over whether or not the weapon morphs when wielded differently.

There are two FAQs which unequivocally state that how you wield it, determines what rules apply. Graystone just pointed out another one.

Here's the other FAQ again;

FAQ wrote:

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.

This settles the debate, thaX. The only exception to this rules seems to be the lance while mounted, which is specifically addressed in its own FAQ. But technically it's not a Feat/Ability which allows one to wield it in one hand.

Quote:
A light weapon is always wielded with one hand, yet there is no argument about whether or not it is a Light weapon here.

I don't understand your question. There is no feat/ability which says treat the weapon as a Light weapon. Where as Jotungrip says you can wield it one-handed. Combine that with the FAQ above and its a straight forward result.

If we really want to get tricky, can you TWF with a lance while mounted? Can you dual wield lances while mounted?


N N 959 wrote:
There is no feat/ability which says treat the weapon as a Light weapon.

There IS an item: effortless lace.

"If the weapon is wielded by a creature whose size matches that of the weapon’s intended wielder, the weapon is treated as a light melee weapon when determining whether it can be used with Weapon Finesse, as well as with any feat, spell, or special weapon ability that can be used in conjunction with light weapons.": it's still a "one-handed piercing or slashing melee weapon", just treated as a light one.

Grand Lodge

@thaX By your own logic you couldn't TWF with anything other than a light off-hand weapon because the TWFing rules never mention onehanded weapons or ranged weapons.


graystone wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
There is no feat/ability which says treat the weapon as a Light weapon.

There IS an item: effortless lace.

"If the weapon is wielded by a creature whose size matches that of the weapon’s intended wielder, the weapon is treated as a light melee weapon when determining whether it can be used with Weapon Finesse, as well as with any feat, spell, or special weapon ability that can be used in conjunction with light weapons.": it's still a "one-handed piercing or slashing melee weapon", just treated as a light one.

By RAW, the weapon doesn't work with anything but Spells, Weapon Finesse, Feats, and Special Weapon Abilities that can be used with Light weapons e.g. Agile quality. Since TWF isn't any of those, it shouldn't apply. I am aware that the the author of the weapon said he intended it to work with TWF, but that doesn't mean anything as a similar thing is true of Jotungrip. Paizo needs to clarify whether this actually works for TWF, but on the surface it does not.

By the same token, one can continue to use two hands on a weapon with EL and get the THW bonuses, as Power Attack and "the like" are no included with what counts. The ambiguity results when a Feat works with Light weapons and you're using it two handed. Can you put Lace on a Longword, grip it with two hands, and use Pushing Assault?


N N 959 wrote:
By RAW, the weapon doesn't work with anything but Spells, Weapon Finesse, Feats, and Special Weapon Abilities that can be used with Light weapons e.g. Agile quality. Since TWF isn't any of those, it shouldn't apply. I am aware that the the author of the weapon said he intended it to work with TWF, but that doesn't mean anything as a similar thing is true of Jotungrip. Paizo needs to clarify whether this actually works for TWF, but on the surface it does not.

It seems more a grey area than clearly not RAW. TWF [the section] mentions TWF [the feat] and even lists it in the table. In addition, the requirement "Spells, Weapon Finesse, Feats, and Special Weapon Abilities that can be used with Light weapons" is vague enough to encompass MORE than feats that strictly call out light weapons as the requirement is "that can be used with Light weapons" and not 'that REQUIRE a light weapon. The TFW feat qualifies as a feat you can use with a light weapon.


thaX wrote:

As we continue to disagree with offhand use of Two Handed Weapons, I will go back to the Weapon Designations in the Core Rulebook. Only Light and One Handed weapons are intended as being Off Hand Weapons.

Its not even a disagreement, its you who is outright wrong. By all ways of how you can look at the rules your assumption is just directly wrong.

Anyway the question is: What penalty would a ranged weapon in the offhand incur? -4 for not being "light"?

Dark Archive

Dracoknight wrote:
thaX wrote:

As we continue to disagree with offhand use of Two Handed Weapons, I will go back to the Weapon Designations in the Core Rulebook. Only Light and One Handed weapons are intended as being Off Hand Weapons.

Its not even a disagreement, its you who is outright wrong. By all ways of how you can look at the rules your assumption is just directly wrong.

Anyway the question is: What penalty would a ranged weapon in the offhand incur? -4 for not being "light"?

Depends on the ranged weapon I would assume. Thrown weapons would just be based on their size, so we are really discussing bows.

Now from that on I am speaking out my butt, I have no books open and don't really want to grab them either. I believe crossbows have some specific ruling on how you TWF with them, but I believe that light crossbows count as light and that you wouldn't be able to w/ a heavy. Guns I believe are one-handed. Long in short bows Id say, completely not based on any rules, require a hand free to both shoot and reload, but are one-handed technically. Thus a three-armed creature IMO could two-weapon fight w/ the bows.


graystone wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
By RAW, the weapon doesn't work with anything but Spells, Weapon Finesse, Feats, and Special Weapon Abilities that can be used with Light weapons e.g. Agile quality. Since TWF isn't any of those, it shouldn't apply. I am aware that the the author of the weapon said he intended it to work with TWF, but that doesn't mean anything as a similar thing is true of Jotungrip. Paizo needs to clarify whether this actually works for TWF, but on the surface it does not.
It seems more a grey area than clearly not RAW.

The RAW is actually clear. The RAI is what are unsure about.

Quote:
TWF [the section] mentions TWF [the feat] and even lists it in the table.

All good, except the TWF Feat doesn't talk or care about Light weapons. It simply lessons the penalties for TWF: Primary hand by 2 and off hand by 6. There's no reference to Light weapons and only to the TWF table in the Core rules.

Quote:
In addition, the requirement "Spells, Weapon Finesse, Feats, and Special Weapon Abilities that can be used with Light weapons" is vague enough to encompass MORE than feats that strictly call out light weapons as the requirement is "that can be used with Light weapons"

Spells... etc" isn't vague at all. It's very specific and an exclusive list, not an inclusive one. As I stated previously, they specifically don't have any open-ended qualifiers as they do with Jotungrip. For example, we know that Effortless Lace does not force you to do damage as a light weapon.

Quote:
The TFW feat qualifies as a feat you can use with a light weapon.

No, it doesn't say anything about Light weapons. The TWF "Feat" is not affected by use or non-use of Light weapons. I can use a Light weapon while casting Fireball, that doesn't make Fireball a spell that triggers EL.

Look, it's possible Paizo wanted character to be able to Lace-up longswords and TWF with them as Light weapons. However, considering the item comes from Giant Hunter's Handbook and the first paragraph benefit is to allow smaller characters to use larger weapons without the -2 penalty, would seem that primary function of the item is to allow medium characters to use Large weapons without penalty. Now, I can use that Large Longsword as a THW without a -2. And that seems entirely consistent with the theme of giant hunting.

The second benefit listed is the one we are discussing and it reads as if the goal is simply to allow Weapon Finesse users to use a variety of slashing/OH weapons. How can you argue that this should be treated as a Light weapon for TWF and but it is not a Light weapon for STR bonus? That doesn't seem correct.


N N 959 wrote:
All good, except the TWF Feat doesn't talk or care about Light weapons.

#1 it does. Looking at the feat, it says "See Two-Weapon Fighting in Combat". The combat section is an integral section of the feat and you can't figure out the penalties without it.

#2 the requirement ISN'T that the feat talk or care about light weapons but that it "can be used with Light weapons". Are you saying you CAN'T use TWF with a light weapon?

I'm not saying it's poorly written, just that it's not written in a way that explicitly prevents it from working like we know it's meant to [per the author's intent].

N N 959 wrote:
Spells... etc" isn't vague at all. It's very specific and an exclusive list, not an inclusive one. As I stated previously, they specifically don't have any open-ended qualifiers as they do with Jotungrip. For example, we know that Effortless Lace does not force you to do damage as a light weapon.

Yes, it's exclusive: feat IS included and fit as it "can be used with Light weapons".

N N 959 wrote:
No, it doesn't say anything about Light weapons. The TWF "Feat" is not affected by use or non-use of Light weapons. I can use a Light weapon while casting Fireball, that doesn't make Fireball a spell that triggers EL.

Not what is asked for and you know it. The item doesn't say that it REQUIRES light weapons or mention them but "can be used with". You don't have to agree with it but at least acknowledge what the actual words are.

N N 959 wrote:
The TWF "Feat" is not affected by use or non-use of Light weapons.

Not what's asked for...

N N 959 wrote:
I can use a Light weapon while casting Fireball, that doesn't make Fireball a spell that triggers EL.

Quite honestly I'm not sure what spell would be affected/altered by the weapon being light or not so I'm not sure that would be a point in your favor even if I did subscribe to your reading [which I don't].

N N 959 wrote:
The second benefit listed is the one we are discussing and it reads as if the goal is simply to allow Weapon Finesse users to use a variety of slashing/OH weapons. How can you argue that this should be treated as a Light weapon for TWF and but it is not a Light weapon for STR bonus? That doesn't seem correct.

I'm unsure what you mean. The item is worded with "can", meaning you have the option to. Secondly, being usable with weapon finesse isn't an exclusive ability of light weapons: so it's as odd as using a Elven branched spear with weapon finesse AND getting 1.5 str.


graystone wrote:
#1 it does. Looking at the feat, it says "See Two-Weapon Fighting in Combat". The combat section is an integral section of the feat and you can't figure out the penalties without it.

That's right the mechanic of Two Weapon fighting cares what weapon you are using the FEAT does not care. Whether you use light weapons or not is 100% irrelevant to the TWF "FEAT". Ergo, there is no FEAT, SPELL, OR WEAPON SPECIAL ABILITY that comes into play.

Quote:
#2 the requirement ISN'T that the feat talk or care about light weapons but that it "can be used with Light weapons"

No, that is not the requirement. It says

Giant Hunter's Handbook" wrote:
...that can be used in conjunction with light weapons.

By contrast Weapon Finesse specifically identifies "light weapons." Net and Trident specifically identify "light weapons." Piranha Strike specifically talks about "light weapons."

Explain to me why would you even need to say "in conjunction with" if it applied to any feat that you can use a light weapon? Why not say:

It's treated as a light weapon with everything except STR modifiers and Power Attack.

Because that is what you're telling me. Instead, the item specifically goes out of its way to specify a group of exclusive things. So it makes more sense if the "in conjunction with" is telling us to limit this to things that explicitly designed to trigger off of Light weapons i.e. have some rule or clause that is affected by the use of a Light weapon, which is not the TWF feat, or ITWF, or GTWF.

Quote:
I'm not saying it's poorly written, just that it's not written in a way that explicitly prevents it from working like we know it's meant to [per the author's intent].

I'll need to read the author's quote to be 100% sure. The item is clearly not focused on TWF as it's main benefit, nor is TWF clearly an intended beneficiary. If so, the item would be associated with a TWF section of the rules, but then I don't have the book, so maybe I'm wrong.

Quote:
Quite honestly I'm not sure what spell would be affected/altered by the weapon being light or not so I'm not sure that would be a point in your favor even if I did subscribe to your reading [which I don't].

Hide Weapon cares whether you have a Light or One Handed Weapon.

The main problem with your argument is that it means a spell like Lead Blades would treat your weapon as a Light Weapon and then modify it as such. Why? Because I can certainly use a light weapon with Lead Blades, so now Effortless Lace causes the spell to treat my weapon as a Light weapon and it modifies it as such. Clearly not intended.

Quote:
I'm unsure what you mean.

I mean you're arguing that EL allows me to treat my Longsword as a Light weapon for TWF, but I'm not doing Light weapon damage in the off hand, I'm doing the normal damage and getting 1x STR in both hands. Is there even a Feat which allows me to get 2x STR damage? But now I can get that for 2,500 gp?


N N 959 wrote:
, there is no FEAT, SPELL, OR WEAPON SPECIAL ABILITY that comes into play.

That's not the requirement.

Giant Hunter's Handbook" wrote:
...that can be used in conjunction with light weapons.

I don't see how that's functionally different.

N N 959 wrote:
By contrast Weapon Finesse specifically identifies "light weapons." Net and Trident specifically identify "light weapons." Piranha Strike specifically talks about "light weapons."

And? being used "in conjunction with" isn't synonymous with "requires" or "calls out".

N N 959 wrote:
Explain to me why would you even need to say "in conjunction with" if it applied to any feat that you can use a light weapon?

Semantics really. They are equivalent statements.

N N 959 wrote:
Why not say:It's treated as a light weapon with everything except STR modifiers and Power Attack.

Because that's NOT what it does? Power attack is a feat that you can use with light weapons: hence, it'd only be str of you two hand it. I'm not here to defend the wording choice: I've already said I think it could be better worded.

N N 959 wrote:
Because that is what you're telling me. Instead, the item specifically goes out of its way to specify a group of exclusive things.

A group that can be used with light weapons. If it's like you said, it's quite easy to say 'that require a light weapon' or 'that specifically affect a light weapon'. The argument works both ways if we go down the 'well it SHOULD be worded x,y,z', as the wording is poor and could be clearer.

N N 959 wrote:
I'll need to read the author's quote to be 100% sure. The item is clearly not focused on TWF as it's main benefit, nor is TWF clearly an intended beneficiary. If so, the item would be associated with a TWF section of the rules, but then I don't have the book, so maybe I'm wrong.

The author assumed that his wording allowed it to work with TWF, hence no need to point out it worked. You don't point something out when you don't think you need to. I'd point you to the thread if i could recall which one it was but it's been a while.

N N 959 wrote:
The main problem with your argument is that it means a spell like Lead Blades would treat your weapon as a Light Weapon and then modify it as such.

I don't see how lead blades is affected by the item as the spell doesn't care what handedness your weapon is. The spell modifies damage by a step...

EDIT: This tangent is getting pretty far afield from the general titan mauler theme. As such, we should move to a new thread if you wish to continue.


Another note to take is that the attacker in question choose which hand is the off-hand before an attack. And technically an attack doesnt count as a off-hand before you "declare"(MGT term, as in you have to "activate" before you use it) using TWF. So if you have 3 attacks from bab you could attack with Weapon1 - Weapon2 - Weapon1 without technically using "TWF".

So the mention of "Off-hand" is just which weapon you use for your "secondary" attacks. So forexample you would use weapon 1 as a "off-hand" and weapon 2 as a "main-hand" for this round, and the next turn switch to the opposite.

I just felt a lot of the argument comes in the assumption that the "Off-hand" always is the left hand weapon, though technically a "off-hand" is only when you actually use the extra attack gained from a second weapon. Though this causes a major headache as some people would think they can loophole around the TWF penalties by using this technique by first attack normally and then attempt using their TWF, only to get a "nope" from the GM and get pouty that their sham is seen through.

Grand Lodge

Regardless of the side conversation regarding the minutiae of the Effortless Lace, OP you should consider multiclassing into fighter and taking the Effortless Dual Wielding advanced weapon training. This allows you to "treat all one-handed weapons that belong to the associated weapon group as though they were light weapons when determining [your] penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons."

Depending on how your GM interprets the "and the like" clause of Jotungrip, this certainly may well qualify for whatever weapon you're Jotungripping.


graystone wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
, there is no FEAT, SPELL, OR WEAPON SPECIAL ABILITY that comes into play.
That's not the requirement.

That is absolutely the requirement. EL only triggers when a Feat, Spell, or Weapon Special Abilities that can be used in conjunction with Light weapons.

Does the item say you do damage as if it were Light weapon? No.

Quote:
I don't see how that's functionally different.

Yes, that's the problem.

Quote:
And? being used "in conjunction with" isn't synonymous with "requires" or "calls out".

If it is not, then why do you need to even call out the list? Let me ask you, what is the point of even having the list of things it works with?

Quote:
Semantics really. They are equivalent statements.

No, the rules aren't written that way. It would be tantamount to saying STR damage applies to any melee weapon that you can use with one or two hands. That last part is totally redundant.

Saying that this works "in conjunction with" a list of items and then trying to argue that this is equivalent to anything that lets you use a Light weapon, directly or indirectly would be nonsensical rules writing.

Quote:
Because that's NOT what it does? Power attack is a feat that you can use with light weapons

Okay, so remove "Power Attack" and keep the rest.

Quote:
A group that can be used with light weapons. If it's like you said, it's quite easy to say 'that require a light weapon' or 'that specifically affect a light weapon'.

No, that would not be the same. Hide Weapon doesn't require a light weapon, but it affects a light weapon. Also, "that specifically affects a light weapon" is inconsistent with the language of the rules and is not stylistically appropriate.

I agree that the phrase "in conjunction with" is poorly chosen. If it means what you say, then you don't need to even say it. If it means what I think it does, then it's not clear.

Quote:
The author assumed that his wording allowed it to work with TWF, hence no need to point out it worked.

There's a fundamental difference between the author assuming it worked with TWF and intending it to work with TWF.

Quote:
I don't see how lead blades is affected by the item as the spell doesn't care what handedness your weapon is. The spell modifies damage by a step...

You're right, I was confusing the primary benefits with actually reducing the size of the weapon. Same with the 2x STR question. I forgot that off hand is what limits damage, not it being Light.


Mr. Bonkers wrote:
graystone wrote:
Mr. Bonkers wrote:
I had thought up a similar build, TWF with Scythes (because it looked awesome), making use of Jotungrip.
Hand's Autonomy lowers the TWF penalties by 2 and the prerequisite feat for it grants you a +1 hit/dam with a single 1 handed weapon.
I play so much PFS, that I keep forgetting about feats like that. Thanks for the reminder!

Unfortunately, there's still a minimum -1 penalty applicable, even with the possessed hand feat tree. Luckily, the dual balanced weapon modification from Adventurer's Armory 2 should still be of some use in that regard.


Nefreet wrote:

Vestigial Arms is a bad argument, because an Alchemist actually can't dual wield two-handed weapons.

This was hashed out with one of the Designers in the Rules Forum years ago.

Please provide the quote.

The only developer quotes I am familiar with (and I have them saved) are the ones by SKR, and the only time the discussion turned to two-handed weapons, context did not involve a character with Vestigial Arms.

Silver Crusade

You might want to add this one to your collection.

Specifically:

SKR wrote:
The intent is that you have an extra arm for holding stuff, not to turn you into a double-greatsword-wielding maniac.


N N 959: I didn't read/reply to your last post as I'd mentioned in my last post that we're getting off track from the thread. Please make a new thread if you're interested in debating the topic. If not, I'm sure anyone can see how I think it works from the posts I did make.


Gray Warden wrote:

You might want to add this one to your collection.

Specifically:

SKR wrote:
The intent is that you have an extra arm for holding stuff, not to turn you into a double-greatsword-wielding maniac.

Expand further on the context of the statement of intent instead of just what you want it to say.

SKR wrote:
If you mean "use two hands on one weapon, and use the other arm for a shield," then yes. Though I wasn't really intending for people to do that, either. :p

There is a disconnect between intent and RAW that is acknowledged by SKR.


graystone wrote:
N N 959: I didn't read/reply to your last post as I'd mentioned in my last post that we're getting off track from the thread. Please make a new thread if you're interested in debating the topic. If not, I'm sure anyone can see how I think it works from the posts I did make.

The OP is asking for advice on a Titan Mauler build. The primary function Effortless Lace is to enable giant killers and comes from the Giant Hunters's Handbook. "Jotun" is the Norse word for giant.. It's completely on topic to discuss things that would affect the Titan Mauler build such as whether EL is compatible with TWF.

Silver Crusade

Volkard Abendroth wrote:
Gray Warden wrote:

You might want to add this one to your collection.

Specifically:

SKR wrote:
The intent is that you have an extra arm for holding stuff, not to turn you into a double-greatsword-wielding maniac.

Expand further on the context of the statement of intent instead of just what you want it to say.

SKR wrote:
If you mean "use two hands on one weapon, and use the other arm for a shield," then yes. Though I wasn't really intending for people to do that, either. :p

There is a disconnect between intent and RAW that is acknowledged by SKR.

You asked for the quote of the designer saying that alchemists cannot dual wield 2H weapons. Here is the quote.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
n n 959 wrote:
FAQ quoted by N.N. 959 wrote:

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.

This settles the debate, thaX. The only exception to this rules seems to be the lance while mounted, which is specifically addressed in its own FAQ. But technically it's not a Feat/Ability which allows one to wield it in one hand.

I have addressed this particular earlier in this thread and in others. "...and so on." does not make the weapon designation of that weapon changed, it only scales the damage and scale in which the weapon is used for. It is a One Handed weapon as far as determining how to apply damage effects after the rolls are made. This is not what is looked for when trying to wield a second weapon in the off hand.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Annnnnd once again that's purely your opinion with no facts or rules to back it up. Which is fine. But it's not the RAW you make it out to be.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gray Warden wrote:
Volkard Abendroth wrote:
Gray Warden wrote:

You might want to add this one to your collection.

Specifically:

SKR wrote:
The intent is that you have an extra arm for holding stuff, not to turn you into a double-greatsword-wielding maniac.

Expand further on the context of the statement of intent instead of just what you want it to say.

SKR wrote:
If you mean "use two hands on one weapon, and use the other arm for a shield," then yes. Though I wasn't really intending for people to do that, either. :p

There is a disconnect between intent and RAW that is acknowledged by SKR.

You asked for the quote of the designer saying that alchemists cannot dual wield 2H weapons. Here is the quote.

Followed by the additional quote a few paragraphs later acknowledging that while not intended, it is legal under RAW.

You can make almost anything appear valid or invalid under RAW if you only include snipets of the conversation and/or RAW taken out of context.

Silver Crusade

Volkard Abendroth wrote:
Followed by the additional quote a few paragraphs later acknowledging that while not intended, it is legal under RAW.

Except that the additional quote a few paragraphs later was referring to another thing, and the two bits are independent.

So we have two statements, the first referring to A = "using two 2H weapons" and the second referring to B = "using a 2H weapon and a shield".

The first statement says A is not possible BECAUSE it was not intended.

The second statement says that B is possible DESPITE not being intended.

Or at least this is how I try to conciliate RAW and the intentions of the authors (when clearly stated).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gray Warden wrote:
Volkard Abendroth wrote:
Followed by the additional quote a few paragraphs later acknowledging that while not intended, it is legal under RAW.

Except that the additional quote a few paragraphs later was referring to another thing, and the two bits are independent.

So we have two statements, the first referring to A = "using two 2H weapons" and the second referring to B = "using a 2H weapon and a shield".

The first statement says A is not possible BECAUSE it was not intended.

The second statement says that B is possible DESPITE not being intended.

Or at least this is how I try to conciliate RAW and the intentions of the authors (when clearly stated).

The first quote states only that a particular was not intended.

The second quote also states a similar usage was not intended. The second quote also acknowledges that while certain uses may not be intended, they are legal.

Silver Crusade

Volkard Abendroth wrote:
The second quote also states a similar usage was not intended. The second quote also acknowledges that while that specific use may not be intended, it is legal.


Gray Warden wrote:
Volkard Abendroth wrote:
The second quote also states a similar usage was not intended. The second quote also acknowledges that while that specific use may not be intended, it is legal.

The first post never stated the specific use was not legal, only unintended.

The second posted acknowledges that unintended uses are legal if RAW supports them.


Gray Warden wrote:
Volkard Abendroth wrote:
The second quote also states a similar usage was not intended. The second quote also acknowledges that while that specific use may not be intended, it is legal.

I don't think your bolding means what you think it does... Not intended and not legal aren't the same thing: The fact that one is better at pointing that out doesn't really matter.

Secondly, even if it meant what you think it does, it's from unofficial posts [SKR's posts predate the 'thread posts are unofficial' ruling so all of them fall under it]. So it'd be officially unofficial... :P

51 to 97 of 97 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Thoughts on Titan Mauler build All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Advice