|
1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
|
Is a Vanguard's Entropic Strike "wielded in a hand"? I'm looking at the Android feat "Arm Extensions" which takes a penalty to attack when you attack with a "weapon wield in your hands". By my way of looking at it, since an Entropic Strike clearly states it doesn't take a hand, it can't be wielded in your hand, but this interpretation has been met with some resistance by others. I mean, in theory, arm extensions extend your reach, which I believe applies to all attacks, and thus could even be made with a kick, but that seems weird to me. I just figure that the whole wielded line was purposeful or it would just say a -2 to all attacks. Anyhow, I'd love your input. While making an attack without the -2 is strong, it does prevent the use of weapon fusions or traits on your attack.
You can make an entropic strike with any body part, but I'd personally apply the arm extensions penalty to attacks with your hands, and rule that if you're using the extra reach you're taking the penalty.
Xenocrat: so the entropic strike counts as a weapon wielded in your hands despite not needing any hands to wield? Would you apply the penalty to the attack roll to deliver a touch spell?
|
5 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I think he's saying that you can make the entropic strikes from whatever part of your body you want, but if you're using arm extensions to gain 5 feet of extra reach to the attack, you're taking the penalty. If you're not gaining the extra reach, then you don't take the penalty.
Which I agree with.
So do I have this correct, based on Pantshandshake comment, if your arms are extended but the target moved next to you then you can kick it and not take -2 but at 15ft reach you take -2. At 10ft reach -- would you treat it like Lunge and not take -2? You still have all the other penalities on you from having arms extended so i would think not taking -2 at 10ft would be acceptable. Basically, using the full 15ft evokes -2 to attack.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Lunge has nothing to do with this. If you are using extra reach from Arm Extensions, then you'd have the penalty to attack.
i guess i was confusing extra reach as being 15ft vs. reach at 10ft.
At 5ft you can just kick.
my point with lunge is that no one seems worked up about that at 10ft or with a reach weapon at 15ft to attack an enemy. There is no attack penalty for that situation. Yet it seems that there is much manipulation to the way arm extension is written in saying that ES is wielded in hand even if you already have weapons (like knives) already in your hands in order to give -2 to attack. That is how it seems to me. I guess I am missing something. Are the other penalties not good enough? -2 to tumble past enemies, -2 to dex ability check (wouldn't that be reflex saves) -2 to jumping across a pit (which happened in combat last game for me) and stuff like that?
Now I'm not even sure what your point is.
Basically . It seems that the gut reaction is no way i am allowing reach without a -2 attack penalty with arm extension (forgetting there are many other penalities associated with using it) while lunging also allows reach but with no -2 attack penalty. That's all.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
I think you're misreading slightly. It's "no way am I allowing a character to use reach from an ability that includes a -2 attack penalty of part of the tradeoff while ignoring that attack penalty." Other sources of reach that do not include an attack penalty are a separate matter. No one is forgetting that there are some other minor penalties associated with Arm Extensions, they just aren't any more relevant than lunge is.
Ahhh , gotchca. Thanks for clarifying. Now I see what the problem is.
Thematically, I was thinking that the penalities made sense, having lesser control of a weapon with long arms, hence -2 to attack. But since ES seems more of a simple touch then the whole "wielded in hand" (and ES not needing a free hand or any hand) RAW then the "control" problem wouln't apply.
Just a last thought about balance when using AE with ES, since using ES in the non-weapon touch mode means that no weapon properties, materials, fusion, runes, all the extra boosts that a weapon can have - do not apply to the touch ES attack, would that seem to cause an imbalance when adding -2 to the attack?
Since the question seems to rely on the interpetation of "weapon wielded in hand" then I submit that ES (touch mode) not be defined as that to keep, IMO, balance.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
An unarmed ES is a fully effective attack, even without fusions or more properties than ES gets on its own. Especially as Entropic Attunement starts ramping up.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
