Dubious Scholar wrote: No, you can parse that sentence to allow two weapons pretty easily.
Does either hand contain something beyond the items on this list?
1)A single-one handed weapon
2)Other implements (this is awkwardly worded, the most logical interpretation is that it puts weapon implements under 1, but that isn't entirely clear)
3)Esoterica
Sure. But my point is that you can also parse that sentence to not allow two weapons pretty easily as well.
Are you holding anything in your hands - either of them - that is not on the list?
1) No more than one one-handed weapon
2) Implements
3) Esoterica
This isn't some sort of obscure reading of the language that only makes sense if you squint just right.
The 'either hand' bit means that you are looking at both hands together, not just the hand holding the weapon you are attacking with. Without saying 'either hand'
modified wrote: You don't gain the benefit of implement's empowerment if you are holding anything in your hand other than a single one-handed weapon, other implements, or esoterica, and you must be holding at least one implement to gain the benefit. it could very easily be interpreted to mean that you only look at the hand making the Strike and the other hand can be holding whatever you want.
Who has even ever seen a player character in this system wield two weapons in 1 hand without houserulimg?
John R. wrote: Who has even ever seen a player character in this system wield two weapons in 1 hand without houserulimg? chakri. Its a technicality, but the wrist is part of the hand
Easl wrote: Dubious Scholar wrote: If I'm holding a sword in each hand, it's a true statement that "neither hand is holding anything but a single one-handed weapon", which would appear to satisfy the condition for Empowerment. That may be a true statement, but "neither hand is holding anything but a single one-handed weapon" is not what the rules say, The rules say "You don't gain the benefit of implement's empowerment if you are holding anything in either hand other than a single one-handed weapon..."
They are different statements, and yours is not equivalent to Paizo's.
The negation of either is neither.
If (you are holding in either hand something that is not (A/B/C)) then (no implement's empowerment)
You pull out a negation to get If not (you are holding in neither hand something that is not (A/B/C) then...
They're logically equivalent statements.
The problem is that either is being used imprecisely. Either hand breaks down to "either your left hand or your right hand". So if we break this down further, the predicate is:
If (your left hand is holding something that is not A/B/C or your right hand is holding something that is not A/B/C).
In order to get to what you're proposing Paizo is saying, you need a logical construct along the lines of:
If (your left hand is holding something that is not A/B/C or your right hand is holding something that is not A/B/C or (your left hand is holding A and your right hand is holding A)).
And before you raise the "how can a hand be holding more than one one-handed weapon" I'm going to point out the issue of bayonets. Attached weapons are their own can of worms with Implement's Empowerment.
Anyways, there's some other issues with it beyond that - it's not actually explicit that you can't count a weapon implement as bucket B to avoid violating it under your proposed ruling. It also doesn't handle the case of two weapons that are both implements (fun fact - swords are traditionally counted as regalia in the real world, for obvious reasons. There's a common rebuttal that it should be limited to ornamental swords, but tell that to King Arthur)
Edit: For what it's worth, I went back and did some more math to continue tearing apart the whole thing about functionally weilding two 2h weapons being overpowered. Under the same assumptions as my prior post, striking twice with a longsword gets 19 average damage, compared to double slice with two longswords doing... 19.9. If you want to argue that's overpowered I just don't know what to say to it.
Dubious Scholar wrote: Anyways, there's some other issues with it beyond that - it's not actually explicit that you can't count a weapon implement as bucket B to avoid violating it under your proposed ruling. It also doesn't handle the case of two weapons that are both implements (fun fact - swords are traditionally counted as regalia in the real... I think you're neglecting the adjective "single" which logically implies that the other hand (whichever one it is) has the status of "empty-handed."
I agree about swords and regalia, which also extends to maces...
Dubious Scholar wrote: The negation of either is neither. Sure, but flipping the either/neither while it modifies "single" and while flipping gain/don't gain all together does not result in the logically identical statement. And I pointed this out with my teddy bear example. "You get $20 if neither hand is holding anything but a single teddy bear" simply does not mean the same thing as "You don't get $20 if you are holding anything in either hand other than one-handed teddy bears."
It seems pretty clear to me that these sentences are not logically equivalent, like you claim: they lead to different payouts when someone is holding a one-handed teddy bear in each hand. So likewise, your rephrasing of the RAW is not logically equivalent to it.
Quote: Anyways, there's some other issues with it beyond that - it's not actually explicit that you can't count a weapon implement as bucket B to avoid violating it under your proposed ruling. Agreed. The thaumaturge class abilities are overly complex, IMO. I think they did it to try and really match a theme concept, which is fine. But as I said above, my personal preference would've been for a simpler power even if it meant sacrificing some detail in envisioning how a thaumaturge swings a sword, wields a (usually) separate implement, and pulls esoterica out of her bag to create a weakness all at the same time. Plus also maybe carries a shield, occasionally uses their doctor bag to slap a patch on someone, and/or pull scrolls out of a satchel to read them.
(In a way, this is just an aspect of a bigger issue, which is that PF2E sometimes wants hand use to be semi-realistic, and sometimes wants it to be unrealistically game-useful, and those two goals often clash.)
It takes both single and "other implements" to completely rule out dual wielding under that interpretation. (because weapons as implements)
Moving away from how the rules parse - I think the narrative intent of Empowerment is clear. You wave your implement around in hand A, to empower a strike performed with hand B. (unless your implement is a weapon, in which case it boosts itself, but).
The interpretation forbidding dual wielding runs into issues with that, because it would forbid waving a sword around to empower the crossbow you really want to shoot some flying jerk with because they won't come into range. Why can't I wave the sword or knife or whatever around but I can wave around a banner or a heavy book in this case? It imposes a major drawback on weapon implement that's not explicit in the text. (and, because Empowerment isn't an action, you'd still need to Swap the implements with an action even after level 5 giving you another implement that can empower your backup weapon)
My opinion of the debate is that it's better to interpret the ability permissively, because it avoids issues like the above with backup weapons. I prefer not to tell players that "well, technically, X+Y don't work together so your character idea is broken". And it doesn't seem like it's defensible beyond "that's how it was written" since it doesn't appear to actually cause any balance issues when I work through the math.
Even then, it desperately needs some clarification for how it interacts with some other rules (attached weapons, bows with the remaster rules, etc).
Hopefully some errata will be forthcoming when PC2 drops. Although, taken together with ongoing issues folks have with Gunslinger a notional PC3 appearing next year wouldn't be the worst thing. If nothing else it would gather the rest of the original 2E classes into a single reference book.
Dubious Scholar wrote: Moving away from how the rules parse - I think the narrative intent of Empowerment is clear. You wave your implement around in hand A, to empower a strike performed with hand B. (unless your implement is a weapon, in which case it boosts itself, but).
Agreed. The wall of text is trying to create that playstyle, while also shutting the door on what the devs considered overpowered or at least unwanted use of 'exploit vulnerability.'
Quote: The interpretation forbidding dual wielding runs into issues with that, because it would forbid waving a sword around to empower the crossbow you really want to shoot some flying jerk with because they won't come into range. Why can't I wave the sword or knife or whatever around but I can wave around a banner or a heavy book in this case? It imposes a major drawback on weapon implement that's not explicit in the text. Sort of agree. "I have only a melee weapon implement and want to use exploit vulnerability on a ranged weapon" probably doesn't occur all that often. I expect most Thaums are melee builds, with Cha/Str rather than Cha/Dex. So firing a ranged weapon isn't gonig to be their go-to attack. In a Cha/Dex build, you probably aren't taking weapon implement. And lastly, by the time flying critters are a regular thing, you will have two implements (level 5) so even if you did start with weapon implement, by that time you can sheathe the sword and use the amulet or whatever.
I'm just wondering about how much damage a teddy bear does. Like, if the eyes are buttons, and the buttons are adamantine, that thing could really, and I mean...really! hurt.
Plus, I have successfully wielded up to...well at least two teddy bears successfully in more...heated pillow fights. Until the deeply contested (and some would say fraudulent) "no teddy bears with button-eyes" ruling of 2017...
LandSwordBear wrote: I'm just wondering about how much damage a teddy bear does. Like, if the eyes are buttons, and the buttons are adamantine, that thing could really, and I mean...really! hurt. Yeah, those awakened one-handed teddy bears could be really mean.
LandSwordBear wrote: I'm just wondering about how much damage a teddy bear does. Like, if the eyes are buttons, and the buttons are adamantine, that thing could really, and I mean...really! hurt. Depends on how many dice they roll, doesn't it? ;)
Theadora rocks in Stuffed Fables.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
John R. wrote: Who has even ever seen a player character in this system wield two weapons in 1 hand without houserulimg? Literally the premise of the bayonet/reinforced stock.
Recent threads in General Discussion
|
