This is something that pops up from time to time, and is often brought up as common knowledge/official ruling.
I have seen it mentioned in relation to TWF with a Greatsword and Armor Spikes... among other combinations.
People are quick to nerf the Kasatha with this same "hands' worth of effort" BS, too.
Nobody seems to have any concerns about the "hands' worth of effort" it takes to pull off a bite and a gore attack with the same head, though.
Anyways, can anyone show me where this is in the rules?
Can we put this stupid concept in the grave and bury it for good?
I had an argument on this topic awhile back
and the only things that got linked were
This Comment from SKR and this FAQ.
Even then there was no consensus.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is nothing wrong with the 'Hands of effort' concept except for the fact that its unintuitive. Its a way of limiting the effective scaling of some damage or extra attack sources (like two weapon fighting) to keep them more in line with what the devs intended. You can certainly disregard them if you like, but I've happily been using them and feel they're very fair.
It only limits melee martials.
Spellcasters and archers have no such restrictions on their damage... why can't melee martials have nice things, too? Where is the "hands' worth of effort" crap when it comes to TWF and Rapid Shot?
And, the penalty to accuracy, combined with the additional costs of upgrading a second weapon should be more than enough to balance it out.
The Keen, Impact Butchering Axe is fine, but those Armor Spikes are just TOO much... GTFOH.
Anyways, thanks for confirming that it is completely bull$#!+ and there's no official rules support for this nonsense.
It actually restores a little bit of faith in Paizo that they didn't include such crap in the official rules. Thank goodness.
But having a bite attack and a gore attack doesn't give you another "head's worth of effort"... so how are they both allowed?
You can't claw and slam with the same hand (outside of certain Flurry type actions)... the limb is spent after one attack... that is the "limb's worth of effort". Your head should only get one "head's worth of effort", correct?
I don't actually care, because it's a nonissue... the whole concept is completely bull$#!+. It's not official rules, and apparently was made up only to limit melee martials.
Melee martials are like the very lowest tier of crap people should be worried about nerfing.
In the specific case of the Kasatha, I would rule that being an alien race that has four arms qualifies as "for some special reason"...
And in the case of a Greatsword + Armor Spikes, that definitely qualifies as "you fight with two weapons"...
|
Kasatha has an ability that grants it additional off-hands/lets it count as having a free hand. That’s the part that was relevant in the magus discussion. A Kasatha absolutely can wield two 2-handed weapons at once, because Multi-armed gives them two additional off-hands. One of them is still going to be an off-hand weapon and getting .5x STR, though, not both 2-handed weapons getting 1.5x STR.
Hands of effort isn’t about how many physical hands you can use to attack. It’s about the strength bonus. You can total 1.5x STR (excepting things like dragon style that specifically override that). When you throw an extra attack in, you’re getting an extra strength bonus. So the ruling was you can either get the extra .5x STR from two handing or from TWF, but not from both at the same time.
Attacking with your normal BAB attacks, you’re getting 1x for 1-handed/light weapons or 1.5x for two-handed weapons. So you don’t exceed the 1.5x limit.
If you TWF with 1-handed or light weapons, you’re getting 1x STR for your main hand and .5x STR for your off-hand. You don’t exceed the 1.5x STR limit.
If you could TWF with a 2-handed weapon and armor spikes, then you would be getting 1.5x STR from the 2-handed weapon and .5x STR from the extra attack with the off-hand, totally 2x STR and exceeding the 1.5x STR limit.
That’s what hands of effort was about. A situation where you are getting an extra weapon attack simply by utilizing another “hand.”
Natural weapons do grant additional attacks, but if they are mixed with manufactured weapons, then they are reduced to .5x STR. Also, natural weapons follow different rules, so they don’t affect the TWF discussion.
Could they have ruled that you can TWF with a 2-handed sword and armor spikes, but you only get 1x STR on the 2-handed sword when you do? They could have, and that might have been a more popular answer. But we got the ruling we got.
I also get frustrated when the hands of effort ruling is applied where it doesn’t belong. Just because that and the armor spikes faq get misinterpreted and applied outside of two-weapon fighting situations doesn’t mean they aren’t based on something or that they are unimportant.
Well, Double Slice sure $#!+$ all over "hands' worth of effort", doesn't it?
|
|
Well, Double Slice sure $#!+$ all over "hands' worth of effort", doesn't it?
That would be an ability where specific overrides general. As would monk flurry of blows. Nothing in the hands of effort discussion said that an extra ability can’t let you break the normal rules. It was just laying out what the normal rules are and how two-handing a weapon is balanced against two-weapon fighting. Double slice still isn’t going to let you TWF with a two-handed weapon, though.
Edit: To put it another way, with Double Slice you are spending a feat to deal additional damage. The same way spending a feat on Power Attack lets you deal additional damage. You’ve used a resource to gain a boost to damage. Just like overhand chop gives you extra damage with a two-handed weapon. Or any of a million different feats or class abilities.
Anyone can TWF without taking any other ability. They might suffer a big penalty on their attacks, but they don’t need an additional feat in order to TWF. Just to lower the penalties. So the base action of TWF is balanced against the base action of wielding a two-handed weapon.
But nobody seems to follow this same path of logic.
People say that you cannot TWF with a Greatsword and Armor Spikes... they don't include the disclaimer that the feat Double Slice solves the issue of "hands' worth of Strength-bonus", or whatever.
Nobody, that I have seen, has ever brought up that Double Slice allows you to TWF with a Greatsword and Armor Spikes.
It's always just "no", followed by the same old "hands' worth of effort" rhetoric.
And, even if all of this is intentional for some BS balance nonsense, it only netfs melee martials. That's it. Literally nobody else is "balanced" by this rule, or even affected by it. So who or what are they balancing melee martials with/against? Who or what else is affected by this ruling? Who or what is the other half of this equation?
You aren't balancing anything by nerfing melee martials. They are the absolute last tier of character that needs to be nerfed. ROGUES are melee martials, what more possibly has to be said about how far off point it is to nerf melee martials?
Only double your strength bonus without something special... screw that.
How about they put a hard cap on Caster Level at 20? What?! How's that for a place to apply your precious balance?
Sorry, if this sounds directed at anyone in particular. It's not. I just cannot approach a topic so frustratingly stupid without piling on the sarcasm and cynicism.
|
|
Double Slice doesn’t allow you two TWF with a greatsword and armor spikes. I’m not sure if you misread my post.
You can’t TWF with a greatsword and armor spikes because we have an FAQ that says you can’t, regardless of anything covered in the hands of effort discussion. There is a direct ruling saying that you can’t.
Over the years the hands of effort discussion has definitely been applied where it shouldn’t be, and that’s partly because it was a discussion and not a fully formulated ruling. I’ve seen it used to say that if you attack with a two-handed weapon during your turn, then you can’t take an AoO with a different weapon after your turn is over. Which, to me, is just clearly never something that even came into the hands of effort discussion. But it’s become a viewpoint that at least a few people have.
The important takeaway, for me, is that if something is going to break the normal hands of effort, 1.5x STR limit, then it needs to specifically state how it is doing so.
Double Slice specifically states you get 1x STR on your off hand.
Monk flurry specifically states you get 1x STR on all attacks.
Unchained Monk flurry specifically states you get 1x STR it 1.5x STR with a 2-handed weapon.
Kasatha’s Multi-armed racial trait specifically states they have additional off-hands.
If an ability exists that specifically states it lets you TWF with a greatsword and armor spikes, then you’d be able to do so if you had that. Otherwise, you can’t, because they already ruled on that one.
Understood. Thank you for your patience. I know that I have been difficult.
The underlying logic of these decisions is far beyond my big dumb Fighter level of comprehension. The method to their madness escapes me.
Good thing they ruled that the Greatsword + Armor Spikes is not allowed... I am sure it would have really raised the Fighter class to be comparable to a generic CRB Wizard. Lol.
Get out the nerfbat, we have some melee martials to "balance"...
My deduced understanding is that the main 'imbalance' is with armour spikes (and similar) and reach weapons. With one or two exceptions that have their own caveats, reach weapons are all two handed meaning that you cannot threaten and gain an AoO with both in the same round. During your turn you able to switch weapons as many times as you like as free actions to make iterative attacks with the most suitable weapon but at the end of your turn you must choose which one to threaten with. Monks and brawlers have a specific exception that allows them to use their unarmed strikes with their hands full; meaning they can simultaneously threaten at reach and adjacently.
The TWF ability mechanically allows extra attacks at the expense of accuracy and strength but does enable the 2 handed plus another weapon option. For that a specific exception is required, such as the monk's mentioned above.
That's my understanding at least.
|
|
The entire Hands of Effort discussion had nothing to do with attacks of Opportunity. You can threaten with a two-handed weapon and armor spikes just fine. You just can't TWF with them.
There was a separate discussion about what kind of action it was to grip a Two-Handed Weapon, which ended up being ruled a free action. Meaning as long as you are wielding the Two-Handed Weapon with two hands at the end of the round, you can threaten with it. That has no effect on Armor Spikes and whether or not you can attack with them (Or barbazau beard, or spiked boots, or anything else that isn't wielded with your physical hands).
Edit: To continue that thought, choosing to grip a two-handed weapon at the end of your turn has an effect on whether or not you can make an AoO with a gauntlet, because you are using the same physical limb for both of those weapons. But that doesn't affect armor spikes. The only requirement to take an AoO is that you could make an attack with that weapon into the threatened square, which as you've already acknowledged you can do with your iteratives in a normal round.
Plus, not all reach weapons are two-handed... I can immediately think of the Whip. There might be others, like the Bladed Scarf Magus.
|
|
Yeah. There were a lot of better ways they could have handled to TWF with armor spikes issue, like just ruling that you need a free hand to use armor spikes if you aren't grappling (to pull the target onto the spikes, which is how most people seem to picture it anyway).
This is definitely one of those situations where the "solution" caused as many or more problems than the original issue, because it keeps being taken out of context.
But just a note that bladed scarf isn't a reach weapon, and the Elasticity Arcana ends at the end of the Magus's turn, so they don't get reach for AoOs unless they've got it from some other means (enlarge person, long arm, etc.)
I didn't realize that about the Elasticity Arcana.
And I have always imagined armor spikes as GWAR-style spiked pualdrons... and the use of them comes in the form of a shoulder-bash.
Which, in my opinion, is the natural progression of momentum after swinging a Greatsword. Lol. You follow through with your swing, and then slam your shoulder into them. Slash-BAM! Slash-BAM!
Not trying to restart the argument, I know it's not allowed... just explaining how I have always imagined TWF with a Greatsword and Armor Spikes.
I feel like the goal was to prevent certain melee martials from outshining other melee martials. Specifically, those who can acquire a multitude of extra limbs in various ways and those who cannot.
An alchemist's discovery is about the equivalent of a feat. If a fighter could just pick up a feat with the benefit: "you gain an extra off-hand attack", with no prerequisites...I mean. I'd probably take Iron Will and Power Attack...and then just that a million times. Cleave--even Great--Two Weapon Fighting and Rapid Shot all have restrictions and conditions to limit them.
Honestly, I think Two Weapon Fighting needs a boost. For the cost of a couple feats with some steep prerequisites, -2 on all your attacks, an additonal weapon you need to enchant and dealing substantially less damage on a standard attack, you can deal, on average, 1 point of extra damage per attack on a successful full attack. Yuck.
I got rid of the dexterity requirements and the attack penalty, rolled the benefits of Improved/Greater and Double Slice (and increased the effects of Power Attack on offhand attacks) into the feat and basically give people additional magic weapons for free. Never looked back.
It's still not what I understand two weapon fighting to actually be (something you do when you're clever and careful, versus the blender Pathfinder tries to make you), but at least there's a reason to do it.
In my opinion, TWF is something you do with a Greatsword and Armor Spikes...
All that Hollywood dual-wielding crap is bonkers BS.
I'm sure there are plenty of examples throughout history that will show effective use of dual-wielding, but I think it's freaking clownshoes.
As for balancing melee martials against other melee martials... they f!ck!ng FAILED, just look at the Rogue. Lol.
We have Barbarians, and Cavaliers, and Fighters, and Rangers... all relatively balanced considering their individual roles... and then the Rogue.
Whoever is in charge of this balancing BS, you're freaking fired! Lol.
They chose the wrong area to focus on in general (being melee martials), chose the wrong direction to approach from (making things weaker instead of raising the bar to make things better), and then still missed the mark entirely. 100% failure.
As for acquiring more arms... what? The Alchemist? The ONE class that has relatively easy access to extra arms? GTFOH. Vestigial Arm doesn't give any attacks anyways.
Does TWF need help? Probably not.
The whole feat tax system is stupid and feats should just scale with HD instead of requiring essentially the same feat again later... if only all the feats behaved like Deific Obedience in the way they interact with HD. Combat feats could scale with BAB, instead... that way full BAB classes get access to more than 3/4 BAB classes, as they should when it comes to combat feats.
TWF requiring a certain Dex is also stupid. Somebody strong enough to use two weapons should be able to do so, and take the feats necessary to reduce the penalties. The powers that be literally just added the Dex requirements as a tax to make you have to really want it in order to pay for it. Once again, the absolute worst approach possible, but I am sure they did it on purpose. Because "balance", or some such nonsense.
Ultimately doesn't matter, b!tch!ng about it isn't going to change anything. But it feels good to vent frustration.
A developer's vision of something should not interfere with how others want to play. It is not a developer's job to make your character for you. It is a gross overstepping of one's position to for them to force you to play your character how they envision it being played. Fantasy games are supposed to be open to creativity and endless possibilities.
Power Attack and Piranha Strike are the same thing, just a different name... they could have been named the same thing and neither needs a stat prerequisite. It literally makes no difference. The whole image thing isn't worth adding prerequisite stats. Or muddying the water with superfluous feats. Literally dont need to waste time writing or printing Piranha Strike if you just got rid of the Str 13 prerequisite on Power Attack. All the fluff and flavor descriptions don't change the fact the feat offers the same benefits and same penalties.
Adding Combat Expertise as a prerequisite for Improved Dirty Trick is a sick joke. It doesn't take a genius to fight dirty. Lol. A moron bully can kick you in your junk and spit in your face. They just added it to be difficult, because they went bat$#!+ bonkers adding prerequisites to everything. Probably for "balance" or something.
Absolutely nothing about your personal vision of something should influence how others want to play the game. If you are a developer and think TWF is all about finesse and dancing, that's fine... don't make it a requirement for the brute Barbarian that wants to smash $#!+ with a pair of clubs or hammers. You have no d@mn right to force your vision of something into how other people want to play the game. None. The prerequisites are complete BS if they are there to enforce someone else's vision.
What if I don't want to play a dancing TWF? Why do I have to meet the Dex requirements that their idea of a TWF needs? My character shouldn't be required to be the same as the developer's character.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
The good news is that you and your GM may choose to rule 0 any rule to work any way you like.
The bad news is the rules are written and designed for two armed players, with two hands of effort. You need actual rule to allow more than that explicitly such as the Bow Nomad kasathas.
I'm so lost. voodistmonk, I feel like you kind of came at me back there for some (all) of my points, then ranted about them in such a way that you seemed to be in agreement with my original stance.
The game isn't balanced. So...either make peace with it and play it as-is, change it or don't play it. I really don't know what else to say.
It seems like you're looking more for a space to vent than you are for an actual conversation. Which I get, by the way.
I am probably just "old man screams at cloud" now, honestly.
I wasn't trying to come at you specifically, sorry.
I started this thread hoping someone would enlighten me to the glorious and unquestionable logic behind the "hands' worth of effort" concept.
I have been presented with answers ranging from Strength Bonus, to AoO, to developer's vision, to deal with it. Some answes make more sense than others, but none of them have actually satisfied my wanting to know why.
The Strength Bonus is a good answer. It is supported by a few general rules, even though none of them outright state it. I just don't see any logic in this being a reasonable excuse to disallow 2H weapons + Armor Spikes + TWF, when you have ten million ways around the Strength Bonus limit with things like Double Slice and Flurry of Blows.
They included all these other ways around the Strength Bonus maximum, but the guy over there with the Greatsword and the Armor Spikes... screw that guy. The guy with the Greatsword and Armor Spikes can't even spend a Ki point to add ANOTHER attack and Strength Bonus to his attack routine. Lol. The Monk might even be doing more base damage than the Greatsword, too.
I'm not saying nerf the Monk. Absolutely not. Please stop nerfing things, and make everything else better instead.
Maybe I am just dunce.
"But what about Pig-pen? He's very stupid..." [Out Cold]
Don't get me wrong, I love this game. I readily accept the challenge of making the characters I want within the confines of the rules... even if I don't agree with them. I don't ever make Two-Weapon Fighting characters, because I don't get to play MY VISION for the concept. And I don't want to play the developer's vision of it. But that doesn't stop me from enjoying the game.
The only real answer is probably what Claxon just said in another thread:
"It's not logical, don't try to apply logic to it, the rules simply are what they are.
And in my opinion there's little reason to change them."
|
|
The Strength Bonus is a good answer. It is supported by a few general rules, even though none of them outright state it. I just don't see any logic in this being a reasonable excuse to disallow 2H weapons + Armor Spikes + TWF, when you have ten million ways around the Strength Bonus limit with things like Double Slice and Flurry of Blows.
There were plenty of people at the time the ruling happened who would agree with you. When it comes down to it, the ruling was what it was, most of the designers who were there at the time are no longer with Paizo, and the designers who are with Paizo have moved on to 2E. So the ruling is what it is, and it's unlikely to change. The best I can do is explain what the discussion was at the time that it was issued, even if the justification given didn't make complete sense to people at the time, either.
I appreciate the insight. And it's the best answer I am going to get.
I was kind of hoping to be proven wrong without a doubt, so I could have some closure and move on. Without said closure, it will always bug me.
I will, however, refrain from my usual sarcastic remarks every time I see it mentioned.
Thanks for the help, everyone.
Personally I'd be fine with a bonus attack with armor spikes - if it's gated behind a proper cost, like a feat. Paizo actually did this for the advanced armor training option steel headbutt, for example. Quite similar to armor spikes in damage output and usage of an unusual item slot for a weapon.
But if you grant a free bonus attack for some characters, you end up with more rocket-tag, a more complicated game (another roll for little difference) and a somewhat shifted party balance. A GM / module designer might make monsters a bit more durable to compensate the additional attack, but this also affects other PCs who can't really use armor spikes. Like monks.
My martial players tend to want more damage. And then even more damage. Because physical damage solves a lot of problems, at least in combat. But I don't always bow in, instead they often get items to improve their defense and utility. It works to reduce rocket-tag and full-attack boredom, to some degree.
Full attack boredom. That is a thing with TWF, in general.
TWF + Rapid Shot... 5 minutes later... "and now my off-hand..." 5 minutes turns to 10...
That is a gross exaggeration, but you get the point.
As for the Armor Spikes being locked behind a feat, in a homebrew world, I would just have that feat be Double Slice. It allows you to apply more than 1.5x Strength Bonus, and therefore you not breaking anything, you aren't special, and you still have to take the TWF feats. And unless I also drop the TWF prerequisites, you will be paying the price for Dex in your point buy and magical items like belts. And you still have to pay to get the Armor Spikes enchantments separately. I find that to be perfectly fair and balanced.
In any other setting, however, the answer is simply "no, because reasons"... and I can do my best to explain all this as it was explained to me.
|
But having a bite attack and a gore attack doesn't give you another "head's worth of effort"... so how are they both allowed?
Because you can't get iterative attacks with them at the same time, as they are natural attacks, while the attacks limited by the hand of effort can get iterative attacks.
Essentially you are comparing oranges and cauliflower and asking why they are cooked differently.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A developer's vision of something should not interfere with how others want to play. It is not a developer's job to make your character for you. It is a gross overstepping of one's position to for them to force you to play your character how they envision it being played. Fantasy games are supposed to be open to creativity and endless possibilities.
LOL
The Developers vision is what shapes the game, so they have all the rights to limit what can be done in the game they have developed.You are free to buy and play a game that fulfills your vision or develop one that does that, but the game they have developed is their games, not yours.
|
|
A Kasatha absolutely can wield two 2-handed weapons at once, because Multi-armed gives them two additional off-hands. One of them is still going to be an off-hand weapon and getting .5x STR, though, not both 2-handed weapons getting 1.5x STR.
There is no such rule.
Actual rules;
Non-light weapons wielded in two hands get +1.5x Str bonus to damage
Weapons wielded in a primary hand get +1x Str bonus to damage
Weapons wielded in an off-hand get +0.5x Str bonus to damage
Attacks with weapons not wielded in a hand (e.g. boot blade, boulder helmet) are treated as off-hand attacks (i.e. +0.5x Str bonus to damage). This includes preventing one hand from being used to make a weapon attack that turn.
Now, if we apply these rules to creatures with two arms and no natural weapon attacks we find that they are limited to a max of +1.5x Str bonus to damage... either from a two-handed weapon or primary and off-hand (or non-hand being treated as off-hand) weapons. That 'limit' is a RESULT of the rules when applied to two handed creatures... NOT an absolute limit on ALL creatures.
The same rules apply in exactly the same way to creatures with more than two hands and/or natural attacks, with resultant higher total Str bonuses to damage;
In this example, the spear is being wielded in two off-hands and still getting the normal +1.5x Str damage bonus (+6 from Str 22 * 1.5 = +9).
Meanwhile, the longsword in the primary hand (note the iterative attacks) is also getting the normal 1x Str damage bonus.
That's +2.5x Str damage bonus before we even get to the kukri and two slam attacks from the remaining three (out of six total) arms. Ergo, there is no +1.5x Str damage 'cap'.
Hands of effort isn’t about how many physical hands you can use to attack. It’s about the strength bonus. You can total 1.5x STR (excepting things like dragon style that specifically override that). When you throw an extra attack in, you’re getting an extra strength bonus. So the ruling was you can either get the extra .5x STR from two handing or from TWF, but not from both at the same time.
The 'hands of effort' explanation was specifically limited to Core Rulebook races and options in existence at that time... i.e. those with only two arms and no natural weapons. It only described the limits of what races like those could achieve, not an absolute cap on any and all creatures.
Put another way, creatures with four hands are NOT subject to the limitations described specifically for two handed creatures. Nor are creatures with natural attacks.
|
|
For the record;
The actual 'hands of effort' post
There was never anything wrong with the 'hands of effort' explanation. The problem is that people have spent years trying to make it into a universal rule rather than an explanation of how the ACTUAL rules work out for low level creatures with only two arms and no natural attacks.
Great example, CBDunkerson. Thanks for the links. There is also a post on these forums by Krome, dating back to June 2007 that mentions the "hands' worth of effort" as an unwritten rule.
The rules being written before playable races with 4 arms were available still means that the Kasatha exists as an anomaly, outside the rules. It's not that the rules don't apply to the Kasatha, it's that the Kasatha wasn't written in a way that clarifies without a doubt how they interact with the existing rules.
All other hands are treated as off-hands was probably meant to be that very clarification, but it fell short of being concrete and unambiguous.
And without official support for the answers in the form of an errata to clear things up, everything is going to be homebrew/GM fiat/rule zero.
I really need to encourage someone to play a Kasatha in my next campaign just to see what it's all about. I, personally, am not the least bit intimidated by GM'ing a Kasatha, or even a whole party of them.
|
|
CBDunkerson - I’m not sure where you’re actually disagreeing with me. There is a designer statement somewhere that the rules are two-armed humanoid focused, so they don’t handle multi-armed creatures well (I think in relation to grappling, but it’s relevant here).
Kasatha has a specific rule that grants them additional off-hands, not additional main-hands, so they wouldn’t be able to get 1.5x STR on a second two-handed weapon.
If you’d prefer to look at the Kasatha rule as limiting them to only additional off-hands, I supposed I could see that argument. Meaning that without it, they could wield two two-handed weapons and get 1.5x STR on both. I’d want to find bestiary examples of creatures that do that. Upasundas come to mind, which include a spear in their stat block. They seem to be getting 1x STR mod on all of their attacks, not .5x, but also not 1.5x on the spear, despite it being two-handed. But they have Multiweapon Mastery, which probably is only referring to penalties on the attack rolls, but might also have been applied to the reduced strength bonuses.
I never said hands of effort was an absolute cap. In fact I gave several examples that exceed it. It’s the baseline, which is what the core rulebook is. And the math in hands of effort was based on how you can assign that 1.5x STR before you add in any other abilities.
The whole thing about this entire concept going right out the window upon acquiring iterative attacks is very accurate.
The 1.5x Strength Bonus thing is to balance low level play where a 2H already outclasses everything else.
After level 6, nobody cares.
Doesn't change any of these rules, but they literally are not designed for "balance" past low level play.
|
|
The rules being written before playable races with 4 arms were available still means that the Kasatha exists as an anomaly, outside the rules. It's not that the rules don't apply to the Kasatha, it's that the Kasatha wasn't written in a way that clarifies without a doubt how they interact with the existing rules.
How true.
The problem is that the Kasata was written as a monster, then made a playable race. Monsters usually bend and circumvent the player character rules, so creating rules to explain how they do that when they became a playable race is always complicated, even more, if it is done in a book full of other creatures for which the developers need to do the same.|
|
The whole thing about this entire concept going right out the window upon acquiring iterative attacks is very accurate.
The 1.5x Strength Bonus thing is to balance low level play where a 2H already outclasses everything else.
After level 6, nobody cares.
Doesn't change any of these rules, but they literally are not designed for "balance" past low level play.
Power attack adds to that, as a two-handed weapon gets more out of it. An unchained monk with a two-handed weapon does a lot of damage.
The Monk is one of the exceptions that I feel makes the whole argument moot. Even the cMonk is capable of shattering any and all Strength Bonus maximum allotment compared to pretty much any other player. And they can do it well before level 6. I know, it's just one class and it means you are a Monk, but still.
Hmm, Kasatha UnMonk with a Seven-Branched Sword... or TWO Seven-Branched Swords. Lol.
Honestly, I never should have looked it up, at all. I should have just built and used TWF Greatsword and Armor Spikes characters until I was told that I can't. And, as GM, I doubt I ever would have been corrected. I could have been living in my own little incorrect existence, swinging Greatswords and shoulder bashing Armor Spikes. All happy and content in my ignorance.
|
|
CBDunkerson - I’m not sure where you’re actually disagreeing with me. ...
Kasatha has a specific rule that grants them additional off-hands, not additional main-hands, so they wouldn’t be able to get 1.5x STR on a second two-handed weapon.
Right there is where I am disagreeing with you. Non-light weapons wielded in two hands get 1.5x Str bonus to damage. That is the rule. There is nothing requiring "main-hands" (which term isn't even a thing in the Pathfinder rules, presumably you mean "primary hands")... just two hands.
Meaning that without it, they could wield two two-handed weapons and get 1.5x STR on both. I’d want to find bestiary examples of creatures that do that. Upasundas come to mind, which include a spear in their stat block. They seem to be getting 1x STR mod on all of their attacks, not .5x, but also not 1.5x on the spear, despite it being two-handed.
Ummm... the Upasunda is the creature I linked in the post you are 'responding' to, and it has a +9 (1.5x +6 from 22 Str) damage bonus on the spear. Thus, it is getting +1.5x Str bonus damage while using a weapon in two OFF hands... we know the primary hand is wielding the longsword because they are getting iterative attacks with it.
Post script: I've discovered the reason for some of the confusion here. The Upasunda spear entry was corrected from +6 bonus damage from Str in the original printing to +9 in the second printing as seen here
|
|
Right there is where I am disagreeing with you. Non-light weapons wielded in two hands get 1.5x Str bonus to damage. That is the rule. There is nothing requiring "main-hands" (which term isn't even a thing in the Pathfinder rules, presumably you mean "primary hands")... just two hands.CBDunkerson - I’m not sure where you’re actually disagreeing with me. ...
Kasatha has a specific rule that grants them additional off-hands, not additional main-hands, so they wouldn’t be able to get 1.5x STR on a second two-handed weapon.
Then I guess we do have a small point of disagreement. The idea of a "main hand" comes from SKR's post (which you linked) where he says, "The most damage you can do without TWF is using a 1H or 2H weapon in two hands for x1.5 Str damage, and the most damage you can do with TWF is x1 in the main hand and x.5 in the off-hand (for a total of x1.5 Str added to your weapons), so optimally you're getting no more that x1.5 Str no matter which attack mode you choose." Which also breaks down main hand = 1x STR and off-hand=.5x STR. Since Kasatha specifies off-hands, it seems perfectly reasonable to consider those as adding .5x STR each (so maybe there's an argument it should be 1x STR instead of .5x). But if both of the Kasatha's extra arms are called out as "off-hands" and SKR says "the most damage you can do with TWF is x1 in the main hand and x.5 in the off-hand" it's not unreasonable to rule that the off-hand weapon only deals .5x STR, no matter how many hands you are wielding it with. Are you using TWF? Is it in your off-hand(s)? Then the most you can do is .5x STR. Are you using your iteratives and not TWF? Then you can deal 1.5x STR with either weapon if you're wielding them both in two hands.
But I can see the strict reading without taking the discussion into account (or writing it off as not applying to a multi-armed creature) ending up at 1.5x STR.
Post script: I've discovered the reason for some of the confusion here. The Upasunda spear entry was corrected from +6 bonus damage from Str in the original printing to +9 in the second printing as seen here
Ah, that's good to know. For some reason I missed that the attack sequence you listed was linked, and you never actually named the creature. PFSRD still has it listed with the +6 bonus. The next thing would be to find a multi-armed creature wielding two two-handed weapons and getting 1.5x STR on both. That would give more support to the idea. Or, better yet, a Kasatha doing so, since they have the added language that Upasundas don't. Player options being limited more than monster options isn't a new thing.
There is a Kasatha that has two chainsaws in an AP...
|
|
CBDunkerson - I’m not sure where you’re actually disagreeing with me. ...
Kasatha has a specific rule that grants them additional off-hands, not additional main-hands, so they wouldn’t be able to get 1.5x STR on a second two-handed weapon.Right there is where I am disagreeing with you. Non-light weapons wielded in two hands get 1.5x Str bonus to damage. That is the rule. There is nothing requiring "main-hands" (which term isn't even a thing in the Pathfinder rules, presumably you mean "primary hands")... just two hands.
Meaning that without it, they could wield two two-handed weapons and get 1.5x STR on both. I’d want to find bestiary examples of creatures that do that. Upasundas come to mind, which include a spear in their stat block. They seem to be getting 1x STR mod on all of their attacks, not .5x, but also not 1.5x on the spear, despite it being two-handed.Ummm... the Upasunda is the creature I linked in the post you are 'responding' to, and it has a +9 (1.5x +6 from 22 Str) damage bonus on the spear. Thus, it is getting +1.5x Str bonus damage while using a weapon in two OFF hands... we know the primary hand is wielding the longsword because they are getting iterative attacks with it.
Post script: I've discovered the reason for some of the confusion here. The Upasunda spear entry was corrected from +6 bonus damage from Str in the original printing to +9 in the second printing as seen here
Maybe you are missing a piece of the Upasunda statblock:
Multiweapon Mastery (Ex) An upasunda takes no penalties when fighting with multiple weapons.
So, not the best of the examples as no player character has that ability.
Naturally, we can discuss for hours if "no penalties when fighting with multiple weapons" mean that "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." is a penality and the Upasunda use the full strength bonus or if it isn't a penalty.
Iron Gods, I think.
|
|
The idea of a "main hand" comes from SKR's post (which you linked) where he says, "The most damage you can do without TWF is using a 1H or 2H weapon in two hands for x1.5 Str damage, and the most damage you can do with TWF is x1 in the main hand and x.5 in the off-hand (for a total of x1.5 Str added to your weapons), so optimally you're getting no more that x1.5 Str no matter which attack mode you choose."
None of which is relevant here because he specifically (and repeatedly) stated that those were the limitations for "1st-level standard-race" creatures. That is, creatures with two arms, no natural attacks, and no other attack options beyond those listed.
It was never a limitation on creatures that DO have more attack options due to extra hands, natural attacks, iterative attacks, et cetera. Only an explanation of how and why the existing rules work for creatures limited to melee weapon attacks using two arms.
But I can see the strict reading without taking the discussion into account (or writing it off as not applying to a multi-armed creature) ending up at 1.5x STR.
Yes, as that SKR post does not apply to multi-armed creatures (since none of the "standard-race" types have that feature) we are left with the clear rules text saying that (non-light) melee weapons wielded in two hands get +1.5x Str bonus to damage and examples confirming that.
Maybe you are missing a piece of the Upasunda statblock:
Multiweapon Mastery (Ex) An upasunda takes no penalties when fighting with multiple weapons.So, not the best of the examples as no player character has that ability.
Naturally, we can discuss for hours if "no penalties when fighting with multiple weapons" mean that "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." is a penality and the Upasunda use the full strength bonus or if it isn't a penalty.
I don't see how text about penalties can possibly be read as determining what bonus to apply. Put another way, the text is clearly talking about attack penalties because those are the only penalties which exist for multi-weapon fighting. Trying to apply "no penalties" to Str bonuses to damage, which have nothing to do with multiweapon fighting, leads nowhere.
For the record, the dual chainsaw wielding Kasatha is Metweska from AP 90. Unfortunately, she only has a 12 Str (making both 1x Str and 1.5x Str come out to +1 after rounding) and her stat block doesn't add up (e.g. she has +3 damage from weapon training, +2 from weapon specialization, +1 from magic weapons, and total damage bonuses less than 6 on both).
Thus, she is evidence that creatures CAN use two 2-handed weapons (with ITWF no less), but doesn't really contribute anything to the 'debate' over how that impacts Str bonuses to damage.
|
|
The idea of a "main hand" comes from SKR's post (which you linked) where he says, "The most damage you can do without TWF is using a 1H or 2H weapon in two hands for x1.5 Str damage, and the most damage you can do with TWF is x1 in the main hand and x.5 in the off-hand (for a total of x1.5 Str added to your weapons), so optimally you're getting no more that x1.5 Str no matter which attack mode you choose."None of which is relevant here because he specifically (and repeatedly) stated that those were the limitations for "1st-level standard-race" creatures. That is, creatures with two arms, no natural attacks, and no other attack options beyond those listed.
It was never a limitation on creatures that DO have more attack options due to extra hands, natural attacks, iterative attacks, et cetera. Only an explanation of how and why the existing rules work for creatures limited to melee weapon attacks using two arms.
It's relevant, because nowhere is it ever defined how it does work for creatures with more than 2 arms, so a GM has to apply their best judgement based on the rules we do have. For example, nowhere defines what penalty you take when Two-Weapon Fighting with a Two-handed weapon in your off-hand. Upasunda isn't something we can look at for figuring out what that penalty should be, since they have Multi-Weapon Mastery. But the existence of Multi-weapon Mastery on the Upasunda should make it clear that they would take some attack penalty without it. Meaning they aren't completely ignoring the rules for Two-Weapon Fighting. So a GM has to use their best judgement, which for me would be the same penalty as having a 1-handed weapon in the off-hand, because there's nothing else defined.
But I can see the strict reading without taking the discussion into account (or writing it off as not applying to a multi-armed creature) ending up at 1.5x STR.Yes, as that SKR post does not apply to multi-armed creatures (since none of the "standard-race" types have that feature) we are left with the clear rules text saying that (non-light) melee weapons wielded in two hands get +1.5x Str bonus to damage and examples confirming that.
That's your opinion that it doesn't apply, not what he said. He said the rule was intended to represent TWF for a standard race, not that no rules apply to a race with more than two arms. He also said 1st level character. Does that mean as soon as a character hits 2nd level they can completely ignore the rule? No, it means that abilities above 1st level might not follow that guideline. Just like abilities that a multi-armed creature has might not follow that guideline. But the abilities still need to state how they do work, otherwise nothing changes with the way it operates.
Do you happen to know what attack penalties the Kasatha is taking on the chainsaws? That could help answer the other longstanding question of what attack penalty applies to a THW in the off-hand.