|
7 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
|
I have built a new Lvl 1 toon which is an android Vanguard having the Arms Extension Feat from my COM book. The Arm Extensions Feat states "While your arms are extended, you take a −2 penalty to attack rolls with weapons wielded in your hands .....".
I have been using Entropic Strike with my arms extended (not thru a weapon) and have some GM's say I have to take the -2 to attack and others say no I don't. For example, I am wieldy a survial knife in each hand but use my forearm to deliver the entropic strike. Do I take a -2 to attack with the entropic strike?
I would love to have a consistent ruling on this since the GMs are interpreting the various terminologies in different ways. Since I have not yet played a level 2 game with this toon, then with this clarification I may decide to rebuild my character.
Thanks very much for the help.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
There is absolutely no way that I would ever allow the extra reach to be used without the penalty.
I agree, I wouldn't allow you to make use of the reach without taking the penalty.
There are additional penalities to Arm Extension besides the attack as stated:
"While your arms are extended, you take a −2 penalty to attack rolls with weapons wielded in your hands and to Dexterity- and Strength-based ability checks and skill checks." Also it takes a move action to extend and a move action to retract thereby ending those penalties.
In comparison, doesn't Lunge gives reach with only a -2 AC penalty. No attack penalty? No move action to use and penalty ends automatically.
I have talked to 5 GM's and 2 have have said no way, need to take -2 to attack but 3 GM's have said I don't after talking it over with them. First gut reaction seems to be take -2 but apon further reflection it becomes questionable.
For home games a GM can rule what they wish but for Society there should be some consistency hence my asking the developer at PaizoCon and was told it was a great question and should be put here for him to review.
Hopefully, something will be ruled so players will not be surprised with GM varation. This is only my 2nd Starfinder toon, my first being a straight forward Operative (newly lvl 6).
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
In addition to creating a thread, you should be clicking the FAQ button, if you're trying to get it into the work queue, as the number of people clicking those buttons is actually used.
Entropic Strike is a magical one handed weapon. I cannot see treating "forearm" as mechanically distinct from "hand" as a legitimate approach when we're treating all playable races as having 2 mechanical "hands" worth of wielding ability barring a specific rule to the contrary, regardless of their physical form.
Thanks, didn't know about that. First postings to forum. Joe just said to post it to the rule question section.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Yeah, the only official answer would be to wait for someone from Paizo to officially address it.
My only advice to you otherwise since this is for SFS, is to assume the worst case and take the penalty, and if some GMs don't force you to then you get a bonus.
As for how the other penalties factor in...they don't in my opinion. You're unlikely to make very many strength or dexterity based checks in combat, not that you can't but it's just not that likely. Clearly the attack penalty is much more bothersome, and again I wouldn't let you avoid the penalty just because you deliver the attack with your forearm instead of your hand.
That's a "hard-line RAW" stance that misses the intention to apply a penalty to attacks while using the increased reach.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
It seems pretty simple.
Are you gaining extra reach to your attacks? Then you're using the feat, and you gain the bonuses and penalties described in the feat.
Are you not gaining extra reach? Then you're not using the feat, and you gain neither the bonuses nor the penalties described in this feat.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Bluejay wrote: There are additional penalities to Arm Extension besides the attack as stated:
"While your arms are extended, you take a −2 penalty to attack rolls with weapons wielded in your hands and to Dexterity- and Strength-based ability checks and skill checks." Also it takes a move action to extend and a move action to retract thereby ending those penalties.
In comparison, doesn't Lunge gives reach with only a -2 AC penalty. No attack penalty? No move action to use and penalty ends automatically.
As a note on the comparison to lunge:
1) As far as I can tell this would stack with lunge if you used both. So you could get 10ft extra reach.
2) Lunge benefit only last till the end of your turn, which is big since it means you can't use it for AoO.
Having additional reach only when it's your turn isn't as big a benefit, since it really only means you can avoid some attacks of opportunity (maybe) since you didn't have to move to attack.
Having real full reach that doesn't end until you choose is better, so they had to give it greater penalties to balance it out.
Thanks, just a couple of other questions. Does the way that arm extension penalities are worded mean that a reflex save against AoE would be at -2? I know that tumbling thru an enemy and jumping across a pit during combat (both can up in last SFS game with different toon) would be at -2 but not sure if relex is effected.
My last question has to do with how Add Leverage might work with Entopic strike (not sure if Arm Extension matters per se). Since ES is being considered "wielded in hand" but needs 0 hands as it's minimum and does not need hands free to use, then could a bullrush using ES result in a 20' effect when a toon has 4 arms? Even with knives in other hands?
Thanks again.
For the save:
I'd say your save is not modified, as I don't believe a save falls under the "Dexterity- and Strength-based ability checks and skill checks" category.
For the Bullrush/ES/Add Leverage interaction:
It gets really weird. At a quick and dirty guess, yes, you can use more hands to leverage Add Leverage, however, per Add Leverage's rules:
You can’t hold items in hands used to add leverage, or use them for any other purpose.
I wish to say sorry I did not originally see another thread called "Wielding with Entropic Strike". For those interested in this topic please see that thread too as that has many similar ideas beinging brought up. I have posted some thoughts there but do not wish to add them here to as that may be frowned apon. I am new to forums and these have been my first postings. Thanks for bearing up with me.
I saw that line about "can't hold items in hand ... or use it for anything else". The first part is a given based on the first line "For each hand you use to wield your weapon beyond the minimum required ...". By definition, you can't have an item in a hand used to wield a weapon. But if we end up allowing Arm Extension to have a knife in hand and still consider that ES (touch) is "wielded in hand" at the same time, one could argue that for consistancy, all hands, even if holding knives, could still be used to wield ES and be added to the leverage.
Or my thinking process is totally bonkers.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
See, here's the problem.
Your version of consistency looks an awful lot like cherry picking through various abilities to only take the upsides.
My version of consistency is following the rules as they're written.
It doesn't matter what amount of hands you need to use for your weapon, Add Leverage disallows anything else in the hands you're using for Add Leverage.
TLDR: Stop trying to word things in a way that gets you bonuses without having to pay the penalties that those bonuses impart.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
