Can you make ranged Strikes with Twin Takedown?

[Ravingdork]

The feat has the requirement "You are wielding two melee weapons, each in a different hand."

However, the main body says "Make two Strikes against your hunted prey, one with each of the required weapons." Note that it doesn't specify that they must be melee Strikes.

Therefore, can I use thrown melee weapons to make ranged Strikes with this feat?

You might be thinking that, once you throw one weapon, you no longer meet the requirements. What if I put the returning rune on each weapon (or make use of some similar item or ability)? By the time I make that second ranged Strike, the first has already returned to my hand and I again meet the requirements in time for the second Strike.

The feat for reference: Twin Takedown

[HammerJack]

No. Since they're ranged weapons while being thrown, you don't meet the requirements while trying to do this, regardless of returning runes. You could try to say "what if I'm wielding two pistols with bayonets, can I shoot twice?" and make a "but technically..." claim.

But it would be far enough from an honest reading that expecting it to actually fly would be pretty silly. (It would be wrong for a different reason, of the pistol and attached melee weapon not being the same, anyway).

[Trip.H]

I doubt it was intended, but as technically written, I would say yes.

You are fulfilling the prerequisite of holding two melee weapons, and then do as the ability instructs.

The ability text almost nullifies your exploit/specific use-case by saying the Strikes need to be made with the two weapons, but it fails to specify "melee Strike." So, as long as you make the throws with genuine melee weapons via the thrown trait, like spears or daggers, it technically follows the rules.

However, if someone wanted to object and say throwing was unintended, I would agree with that.

But, from a balance perspective I have no issue with your usage.

Not only is this on a Ranger and requires H Prey to be locked in, but it still has IMO way too many restrictions and caveats. Two weapons that are both 1-H limits the weapon selection while also demanding both hands be dedicated, it is flourish, and it has no MAP avoidance.
To use it via throwing nearly mandates the use of Returning runes, which is a slot that cannot be spent on damage.

If a player asked, I would 100% let them use Twin Takedown w/ throwing weapons.

[Bluemagetim]

What would be the difference between a dual throwing ranger using twin takedown and the same ranger using hunted shot instead (given set up required)?

[Lightning Raven]

Ravingdork wrote:

The feat has the requirement "You are wielding two melee weapons, each in a different hand."

However, the main body says "Make two Strikes against your hunted prey, one with each of the required weapons." Note that it doesn't specify that they must be melee Strikes.

Therefore, can I use thrown melee weapons to make ranged Strikes with this feat?

You might be thinking that, once you throw one weapon, you no longer meet the requirements. What if I put the returning rune on each weapon (or make use of some similar item or ability)? By the time I make that second ranged Strike, the first has already returned to my hand and I again meet the requirements in time for the second Strike.

The feat for reference: Twin Takedown

From the [Thrown] trait: "You can throw this weapon as a ranged attack;it is a ranged weapon when thrown."

This bit here contradicts this notion. That's why the Dual-Weapon warrior has the feat "Dual Thrower". The feat is designed to work with Double Slice, however the requirements for Takedown and Double Slice is the same.

Or, to be more succinct, Paizo hates thrown-weapon builds with all their might.

[Theaitetos]

Lightning Raven wrote:

it is a ranged weapon when thrown."

Being a ranged weapon does not change the fact that it is also a melee weapon. There's no binary either-melee-or-ranged rule anywhere in the books.

[Lightning Raven]

Theaitetos wrote:

Lightning Raven wrote:

it is a ranged weapon when thrown."

Being a ranged weapon does not change the fact that it is also a melee weapon. There's no binary either-melee-or-ranged rule anywhere in the books.

The thing is that part of the trait is there to curb exactly this type of reading.

Twin Takedown is meant for melee only. That's RAI and, as I've demonstrated, RAW.

It is weird to wrap your head around? Yes. Do I wish it were different? Also yes. But the Thrown trait precludes that usage and your best bet is to use Dual Thrower or just house rule that Twin Takedown can be used with thrown weapons, which, IMO, should've been like that in the first place.

[Theaitetos]

Quote:

That's RAI

Yes, no doubt about that.

Quote:

as I've demonstrated, RAW

You didn't.

You would have to demonstrate that it is not a melee weapon.
You merely demonstrated that it is (also) a ranged weapon.
Again, there's no binary rule.

Quote:

The thing is that part of the trait is there to curb exactly this type of reading.

How do you know what this trait is there to curb? Where can I read that up?

[Lightning Raven]

Theaitetos wrote:

Quote:

That's RAI

Yes, no doubt about that.

Quote:

as I've demonstrated, RAW

You didn't.

You would have to demonstrate that it is not a melee weapon.
You merely demonstrated that it is (also) a ranged weapon.
Again, there's no binary rule.

Quote:

The thing is that part of the trait is there to curb exactly this type of reading.

How do you know what this trait is there to curb? Where can I read that up?

You just did. If you intend to throw the weapons, you automatically isn't wielding melee weapons, therefore, you do not meet the prerequisites of Twin Takedown. Again, as a said, it is weird to think about things because this is purely a mechanic thing and not a "logic" thing.

You can infer that I am correct by the existence of Dual Thrower, which works with Double Slice, a feat that has the exact same requirement and the same reference to Strikes in its text.

Paizo's taxman is unreasonably merciless when it comes to thrown weapon builds.

[Trip.H]

Bluemagetim wrote:

What would be the difference between a dual throwing ranger using twin takedown and the same ranger using hunted shot instead (given set up required)?

Hunted Shot wrote:

Requirements You are wielding a ranged weapon with reload 0

You take two quick shots against the one you hunt. Make two Strikes against your prey with the required weapon. If both hit the same creature, combine their damage for the purpose of resistances and weaknesses. Apply your multiple attack penalty to each Strike normally

Hmm. Do thrown weapons count as being reload 0?

It seems RaI it might get a pass, but as written it looks less supportable to consider a thrown spear to be compatible with Hunted Shot than Twin Takedown.

Reload rules wrote:

While all weapons need some amount of time to get into position, many ranged weapons also need to be loaded and reloaded. This entry indicates how many Interact actions it takes to reload such weapons or draw certain thrown weapons, like shuriken. This can be 0 if drawing ammunition and firing or throwing the weapon are part of the same action.[...]An item with an entry of “—” must be drawn to be thrown, which usually takes an Interact action just like drawing any other weapon.[...]

I think by default thrown weapons get that "-" entry for their reload, which... is not reload 0.

Ugh.

[thenobledrake]

Theaitetos wrote:

You merely demonstrated that it is (also) a ranged weapon.

Again, there's no binary rule.

There is, though.

Not in an explicit "a weapon is either melee or ranged, never both" statement, but in the treatment of every statement made about weapons, including the way the tables are set up in regards to weapons.

Most notable in the passages that show that the authors are working on the assumption (whether it's flawed or not) that everyone will understand a weapon is either melee or thrown but never actually both, is the explanation of damage rolls.

"Damage rolls for melee weapons and unarmed attacks typically add your Strength attribute modifier."

"Damage rolls for ranged weapons typically don’t add an attribute modifier, though you add your Strength modifier to damage rolls for thrown weapons or half the modifier to damage rolls for ranged weapons with the propulsive trait."

If we're supposed to read melee weapons with the thrown trait as being always a melee weapon and sometimes also a ranged weapon it wouldn't be worded the way it is. There also probably wouldn't be any thrown weapons on the ranged weapon tables (example: darts) if adding thrown was meant to confer dual status to a weapon because having some thrown weapons be a both-at-once weapon and others only ranged.

And the strongest possible argument against the argument you are making which equates to "the rules don't say I'm wrong"; the rules don't actually say you're correct, either. Nowhere does anything say a weapon can be both a ranged weapon and a melee weapon at the same time.

Since the way that rules work is to explain what things do rather than list all the things that they don't there's just no reason but wishful thinking to believe that the clause in the thrown trait is meaning in addition to remaining a melee weapon rather than instead of.

[Gortle]

Theaitetos wrote:

Lightning Raven wrote:

it is a ranged weapon when thrown."

Being a ranged weapon does not change the fact that it is also a melee weapon. There's no binary either-melee-or-ranged rule anywhere in the books.

I agree. There are some extra complexities.

A Combination Weapon, such as a Rapier Pistol, is one weapon with two usages. Switching between usage modes cost an action. That is unclear to if it qualifies to me

An Attached weapon, such as a Bayonet on a Dueling Pistol, is two different weapons that could both be held in the one hand. So the clause "one with each of the required weapons" would force you to use the actual bayonets. So that doesn't work.

[Bluemagetim]

Ill bring in the dual weapon warrior archtype as a comparison. Double slice has very similar wording but cant be used with throwing weapons until you take dual thrower to explicitly allow it.

[Theaitetos]

thenobledrake wrote:

Since the way that rules work is to explain what things do rather than list all the things that they don't

Exactly.

And the rules say it's a melee weapon.

All I'm asking is for you to show me a rule that says that this melee weapon suddenly is no longer a melee weapon.

I don't care what you say about ranged weapons.

If you claim that this melee weapon is somehow not a melee weapon, then you need to show that. That's how the rules work.

[Taja the Barbarian]

Theaitetos wrote:

Lightning Raven wrote:

it is a ranged weapon when thrown."

Being a ranged weapon does not change the fact that it is also a melee weapon. There's no binary either-melee-or-ranged rule anywhere in the books.

Actually, this is (or at least was) 'binary': There was a clarification that these weapon categories were mutually exclusive early in PF2e (which largely came up in regards to the thief's 'dex to dmg with melee weapons' ability)...

[Lightning Raven]

Theaitetos wrote:

thenobledrake wrote:

Since the way that rules work is to explain what things do rather than list all the things that they don't

Exactly.

And the rules say it's a melee weapon.

All I'm asking is for you to show me a rule that says that this melee weapon suddenly is no longer a melee weapon.

I already did. When you are throwing a weapon, you are holding Ranged Weapons. Not melee weapons.

The Thrown trait explicitly has that clause precisely because of that. So much so, that Thrown Weapon feats say "Ranged Strike" such as Rebounding Toss, Ricochet Stance and Flinging Charge, for example.

Again, here's the thrown trait: https://2e.aonprd.com/Traits.aspx?ID=711&Redirected=1

[shroudb]

The rule is simple:

Quote:

You can throw this weapon as a ranged attack; it is a ranged weapon when thrown

It doesn't say "it is ALSO a ranged weapon" just "it IS a ranged weapon".

There's no "melee" anywhere while you throw it.

So, RAW you fully replace the melee part with ranged. You dont "add" the ranged to the melee.

[Ravingdork]

A cavern elf doesn't lose their elven low-light vision just because they gained darkvision from their heritage. This is much the same.

I'm not convinced of the binary claims. For a melee weapon to no longer be a melee weapon, a rule would need to explicitly state as such.

[thenobledrake]

Theaitetos wrote:

thenobledrake wrote:

Since the way that rules work is to explain what things do rather than list all the things that they don't

Exactly.

And the rules say it's a melee weapon.

All I'm asking is for you to show me a rule that says that this melee weapon suddenly is no longer a melee weapon.

I don't care what you say about ranged weapons.

If you claim that this melee weapon is somehow not a melee weapon, then you need to show that. That's how the rules work.

The burden here is that you need to find a place where the rules say a weapon can be both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon simultaneously.

Because as I already mentioned everywhere in the rules that talks about the classifications does so with separate language.

So you need to prove that "it is a ranged weapon when thrown." is carrying an implied "also" rather than an implied "instead of a melee weapon." Because it does not say "it is also a ranged weapon when thrown" or even "it counts as a ranged weapon when thrown."

Especially because the language in the combination trait continues the trend of making it clear that things are either a melee weapon or a ranged weapon, not actually both simultaneously, by not just saying "a combination weapon is both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon." and instead making a big deal out of keeping the separation.

[Ravingdork]

I do so hate it when the burden of proof falls to someone and, not having a strong case, they counter with "the burden of proof is on you."
It never gets anyone anywhere, nor furthers the discussion productively.

[shroudb]

Ravingdork wrote:

I do so hate it when the burden of proof falls to someone and, not having a strong case, they counter with "the burden of proof is on you."

It never gets anyone anywhere, nor furthers the discussion productively.

Only in this case we do have strong language saying that an action changes a parameter of a weapon, plus, every single instance of mention of a melee, or a ranged, parameter in the game is referenced as something different to each other, while there are zero evidence, or language, that even remotely suggests that at any point you could have a weapon being simultaneously both melee and ranged.

It's less of a matter of burden of proof and more of a matter of trying to ruleslawyer around very explicit language to try to make it that something very obviously not RAI (since Dual Thrower is a thing) is somehow maybe RAW.

At the very least, those claiming that, should provide a rule that points towards their reading.

[Lightning Raven]

Ravingdork wrote:

A cavern elf doesn't lose their elven low-light vision just because they gained darkvision from their heritage. This is much the same.

I'm not convinced of the binary claims. For a melee weapon to no longer be a melee weapon, a rule would need to explicitly state as such.

The issue here is that we have another entire feature that is designed to enable exactly what you want.

Double Slice is equal to Twin Takedown in terms of requirements and Strike wording. Both requirements are Melee Weapons in hand and call for a Strike (nor ranged or melee), although Double Slice expands upon that a little bit more.

So, with Double Slice in mind, we have the dual thrower feat:

Dual Thrower wrote:

You know how to throw two weapons as easily as strike with them. Whenever a dual-weapon warrior feat allows you to make a melee Strike, you can instead make a ranged Strike with a thrown weapon or a one-handed ranged weapon you are wielding. Any effects from these feats that apply to one-handed melee weapons or melee Strikes also apply to one-handed ranged weapons and ranged Strikes.

This feat's existences kinda lay down the discussion to rest, even if it exists to make Dual-Weapon Warrior's Double Slice work with thrown weapons, instead of Twin Takedown. But both TT and DS have the same requirements, which is what spawned the discussion on this thread.

I think, however, you should just house-rule that you can throw weapons and call it a day. I don't really know why Paizo has such a problem with thrown weapons in the first place. They really should have added "Melee or Thrown Weapons" from the get go, because right now, Thrown Weapon builds have a lot of hoops to jump through to even get off the ground.

[Taja the Barbarian]

Ravingdork wrote:

I do so hate it when the burden of proof falls to someone and, not having a strong case, they counter with "the burden of proof is on you."

It never gets anyone anywhere, nor furthers the discussion productively.

Perhaps you should ask this guy: https://paizo.com/threads/rzs43pft?Thrown-weapon-Thief-racket-from-rogue#5

[Ravingdork]

Taja the Barbarian wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

I do so hate it when the burden of proof falls to someone and, not having a strong case, they counter with "the burden of proof is on you."

It never gets anyone anywhere, nor furthers the discussion productively.

Perhaps you should ask this guy: https://paizo.com/threads/rzs43pft?Thrown-weapon-Thief-racket-from-rogue#5

(>_<)

Touché.

[thenobledrake]

Ravingdork wrote:

I do so hate it when the burden of proof falls to someone and, not having a strong case, they counter with "the burden of proof is on you."

It never gets anyone anywhere, nor furthers the discussion productively.

Yeah, that's why it's a real bummer that's all that props up the "it's both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon" argument.

Zero cited evidence, just "it doesn't say it doesn't" and a bad comparison to a feature that explicitly uses the word "gain" so there's not even ambiguity that the rules might be talking about a replacement.

[Trip.H]

If I approach the "is the weapon ranged vs melee categorization intended to be an either or binary" from a rules-archeologist perspective, I am afraid that I do end up agreeing with Lighting Raven.

All the surrounding context of melee versus ranged attacks, weapons, ect, is enough to convince me that it was intended for the categories to exclude one another.

While the Remaster was a huge missed opportunity to fix up and clarify the wording on on Feats like Twin Takedown, failing to do so is not really evidence in that direction.

IMO, it's just dumb that Rangers have no option for throwing weapons. I would be happy to let a player homebrew a Feat that explicitly enables a double-throw a la Hunted Shot (even w/ a single 1-H thrown weapon), with the tradeoff being that it is exclusive to thrown attacks.

Especially with the Propulsive trait being a thing, there really is not much of a balance concern. The lack of throwing support is just an absurd thing for the Ranger to deal with. Forcing the class to use bows for ranged as it does is just not cool.

[Lightning Raven]

Trip.H wrote:

If I approach the "is the weapon ranged vs melee categorization intended to be an either or binary" from a rules-archeologist perspective, I am afraid that I do end up agreeing with Lighting Raven.

All the surrounding context of melee versus ranged attacks, weapons, ect, is enough to convince me that it was intended for the categories to exclude one another.

While the Remaster was a huge missed opportunity to fix up and clarify the wording on on Feats like Twin Takedown, failing to do so is not really evidence in that direction.

IMO, it's just dumb that Rangers have no option for throwing weapons. I would be happy to let a player homebrew a Feat that explicitly enables a double-throw a la Hunted Shot (even w/ a single 1-H thrown weapon), with the tradeoff being that it is exclusive to thrown attacks.

Especially with the Propulsive trait being a thing, there really is not much of a balance concern. The lack of throwing support is just an absurd thing for the Ranger to deal with. Forcing the class to use bows for ranged as it does is just not cool.

I may be on the side of "Twin Takedown doesn't enable thrown weapons RAW" of this discussion. But I definitely would enable throwing weapons to work with it at my table for any player.

I like thrown weapon builds and I like the mid-level feats PF2e have for them, but I don't like how it's a playstyle that has to jump a bunch of hoops. Maybe Paizo is hellbent on protecting actual Ranged weapons, but I don't think they need it.

[graystone]

Trip.H wrote:

IMO, it's just dumb that Rangers have no option for throwing weapons.

They do have 2 options for thrown while using Hunted Shot: Chakri and Shuriken. They aren't particularly great options, but they are options.

[Powers128]

I believe there actually is one instance where a weapon is both ranged and melee simultaneously and it's mind smith weapons with the mind projectiles feat. I don't think it has any weird consequences though.

[shroudb]

Powers128 wrote:

I believe there actually is one instance where a weapon is both ranged and melee simultaneously and it's mind smith weapons with the mind projectiles feat. I don't think it has any weird consequences though.

Even that:

Quote:

You have learned to stretch your mind's influence further, releasing projectiles with a swing of your mind weapon. You can make ranged mind weapon Strikes; these are ranged Strikes with a maximum range of 30 feet that deal 1d6 damage of the same type as your mind weapon. Your ranged mind weapon Strike gains all the benefits of your mind weapon's runes as long as they still apply to a ranged weapon. For example, if your weapon had +1, striking, and spell-storing runes, you would get a +1 item bonus to hit with your ranged mind weapon Strike, and it would deal the additional damage from the striking rune, but it wouldn't be able to unleash a spell from the spell-storing rune, as that rune can be etched onto only melee weapons.

Clearly separates ranged and melee.

A weapon CAN be used as either melee or ranged, in different circumstances, but it functions and acts as it's used each time.

A hammer is melee, until you throw it, where it's ranged, and goes back to melee when you once more pick it up and swing it.

[Theaitetos]

Lightning Raven wrote:

I already did. When you are throwing a weapon, you are holding Ranged Weapons. Not melee weapons.

All you do is say that is now a ranged weapons, which nobody disputes.

But then you immediately go into a fictitious world of binary states "melee vs ranged", for which you cite no evidence whatsoever.

The rules say it's a melee weapon. And unless you can cite another rule that says it is no longer a melee weapon, it remains a melee weapon.

It doesn't matter if you cite rules that the weapon is now ranged, invested, thrown, catapulted, blue, sparkling, or declaring independence from Gorum.

All that matters is a rule that removes the melee weapon status that it already has.

No inferential guessed intentions of what someone could have meant without stating it. "The way that rules work is to explain what things do" (as you said), so let them speak now (on no longer being a melee weapon) or forever hold their peace.

[Kelseus]

Ravingdork wrote:

Taja the Barbarian wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

I do so hate it when the burden of proof falls to someone and, not having a strong case, they counter with "the burden of proof is on you."

It never gets anyone anywhere, nor furthers the discussion productively.

Perhaps you should ask this guy: https://paizo.com/threads/rzs43pft?Thrown-weapon-Thief-racket-from-rogue#5

(>_<)

Touché.

Hello, Police, I'd like to report a murder.

[Squiggit]

Theaitetos wrote:

The rules say it's a melee weapon.

Except when you throw it. Then it's a ranged weapon, hence the issue trouble.

[Lightning Raven]

Theaitetos wrote:

Lightning Raven wrote:

I already did. When you are throwing a weapon, you are holding Ranged Weapons. Not melee weapons.

All you do is say that is now a ranged weapons, which nobody disputes.

But then you immediately go into a fictitious world of binary states "melee vs ranged", for which you cite no evidence whatsoever.

The rules say it's a melee weapon. And unless you can cite another rule that says it is no longer a melee weapon, it remains a melee weapon.

It doesn't matter if you cite rules that the weapon is now ranged, invested, thrown, catapulted, blue, sparkling, or declaring independence from Gorum.

All that matters is a rule that removes the melee weapon status that it already has.

No inferential guessed intentions of what someone could have meant without stating it. "The way that rules work is to explain what things do" (as you said), so let them speak now (on no longer being a melee weapon) or forever hold their peace.

That's because I'm showing and quoting the rule and you're not understanding it. When you Throw the weapon, it is treated by the rules as a Ranged Weapon so that you make a Ranged Strike with it. That's why the Dual-Weapon Warrior Archetype has both Double Slice and Dual Thrower feats in its options, because Double Slice (which has the same requirements and similar Strike wording of TT, by the way) does not inherently work with Thrown weapons.

So, to make things it very clear:

The act of trying to throw a weapon in Pathfinder Second Edition makes it so that the weapon in question is treated as a ranged weapon for all its intents and purposes, and as such, you are no longer holding melee weapons, thus you are breaking the requirements for Twin Takedown (and Double Slice). Therefore, your daggers are Melee weapons when you're attacking with them upclose and they ARE Ranged (and only ranged) weapons when thrown.

The system does that precisely to create a hard division between melee, ranged and unarmed attacks. You'll find throughout the PF2e's rules that thrown weapons need to be explicitly written in features in order for things work with them and they have exclusive features as well.

[Gortle]

Lightning Raven wrote:

When you Throw the weapon, it is treated by the rules as a Ranged Weapon so that you make a Ranged Strike with it.

There are two problems here that the rules don't call out:

1) what stops a weapon from being both melee and ranged at the same time,
2) even if it did the weapon was melee whenever you check it for qualification for the action, even if it became ranged later. That is the point the melee restriction is on the wielding not the Striking.

Lightning Raven wrote:

That's why the Dual-Weapon Warrior Archetype has both Double Slice and Dual Thrower feats in its options, because Double Slice

Dual Thrower has a lot more scope than just Double Slice it modifies other feats as well. Your point is not especially pertinent.

[Guntermench]

The feats it can affect are Double Slice and Dual-Weapon Blitz. Two-Weapon Flurry has no requirement of using a melee weapon surprisingly. I guess Twin Riposte as well. "A lot more scope".

Both Double Slice and Dual-Weapon Blitz have the same requirement of wielding a melee weapon in each hand, and both specify to Strike with each weapon.

It's a very pertinent point.

[graystone]

Guntermench wrote:

Two-Weapon Flurry has no requirement of using a melee weapon surprisingly.

Not surprisingly as it allows attacks with "a one-handed ranged weapon" meaning you can use twin Coat Pistols, Gauntlet Bows or even Thunder Slings. It's just a misleading name, like how Flying Kick doesn't require your unarmed attack be a kick: you can't just go by the feat names.

[Ravingdork]

Gortle wrote:

...even if it did the weapon was melee whenever you check it for qualification for the action, even if it became ranged later. That is the point the melee restriction is on the wielding not the Striking.

I was going to bring up this point as well.

I searched for every instance of "Requirements" in Player Core and GM Core and found these on page 17 of PC:

Requirements Sometimes you must have a certain item or be in a certain circumstance to use an ability.

Requirements some actions require specific circumstances, listed here

Seems a bit ambiguous to me. The only thing I can think of that suggests you might need to keep maintaining the requirements throughout the full duration of the activity are Stances. Though since those are specifically called out, it could just as easily be argued that it is the exception that proves the rule.

It may also be worth noting that certain stances don't function as written if you need to constantly meet their requirements throughout the entire stance.

[HammerJack]

Ravingdork wrote:

It may also be worth noting that certain stances don't function as written if you need to constantly meet their requirements throughout the entire stance.

"If"? The Stance rules are explicit that the requirements continue to apply and the stance ends if they are violated. It's common enough knowledge that Arcane Cascade was written wrong and took quite a long time to be officially fixed, but what other stances do you mean?

[Ravingdork]

HammerJack wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

It may also be worth noting that certain stances don't function as written if you need to constantly meet their requirements throughout the entire stance.

"If"? The Stance rules are explicit that the requirements continue to apply and the stance ends if they are violated. It's common enough knowledge that Arcane Cascade was written wrong and took quite a long time to be officially fixed, but what other stances do you mean?

Mountain Stance and the many debates surrounding walking, running, and jumping come to mind.

[Castilliano]

Ravingdork wrote:

HammerJack wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

It may also be worth noting that certain stances don't function as written if you need to constantly meet their requirements throughout the entire stance.

"If"? The Stance rules are explicit that the requirements continue to apply and the stance ends if they are violated. It's common enough knowledge that Arcane Cascade was written wrong and took quite a long time to be officially fixed, but what other stances do you mean?

Mountain Stance and the many debates surrounding walking, running, and jumping come to mind.

I've seen disappointment and a desire to alter Mountain Stance, but it's seemed clear to me. PF2 has neither walking nor running, just Strides which don't require one to leave the ground, whereas jumping obviously does, ending the Stance. Seems that's functioning as written.

That said I find Point Blank Shot awkward for throwers. You could hold a broken bow in your spare hand and retain the Stance while throwing with your other, but if you set that bow down, you lose the Stance as soon as you release to throw or perhaps more pertinent to this discussion, as soon as you weren't throwing it so it became a melee weapon. (Not that I'd necessarily enforce that, but I do wish to know RAI re: PBS & thrown weapons.)

[thenobledrake]

Castilliano wrote:

That said I find Point Blank Shot awkward for throwers. You could hold a broken bow in your spare hand and retain the Stance while throwing with your other, but if you set that bow down, you lose the Stance as soon as you release to throw or perhaps more pertinent to this discussion, as soon as you weren't throwing it so it became a melee weapon. (Not that I'd necessarily enforce that, but I do wish to know RAI re: PBS & thrown weapons.)

It's true that it is a bit awkward that the stance works just fine if you're holding a dart you never intend to throw in one hand and doing all your throwing with the other hand, but if you're trying to use a variety of thrown weapon that isn't on the ranged weapon table things grow far more complicated.

[Theaitetos]

Lightning Raven wrote:

The act of trying to throw a weapon in Pathfinder Second Edition makes it so that the weapon in question is treated as a ranged weapon for all its intents and purposes, and as such, you are no longer holding melee weapons, thus you are breaking the requirements for Twin Takedown (and Double Slice).

Ah I see now! So when you throw a Dagger with an Extending rune, the Extending rune falls off, right? I mean, the moment you throw the Dagger, it is no longer a melee weapon, and thus breaks the necessary requirement for having an Extended rune etched on it. So the rune falls off mid-flight.

Will I get a refund for the rune, then?

[graystone]

thenobledrake wrote:

It's true that it is a bit awkward that the stance works just fine if you're holding a dart you never intend to throw in one hand and doing all your throwing with the other hand, but if you're trying to use a variety of thrown weapon that isn't on the ranged weapon table things grow far more complicated.

The thing to do is wear a Black Powder Knuckle Dusters, a Gauntlet Bow or a Wrist Launcher: as Free Hand weapons you'll always have a ranged weapon wielded, even if you throw with that hand.

[graystone]

Theaitetos wrote:

\Ah I see now! So when you throw a Dagger with an Extending rune, the Extending rune falls off, right? I mean, the moment you throw the Dagger, it is no longer a melee weapon, and thus breaks the necessary requirement for having an Extended rune etched on it. So the rune falls off mid-flight.

Will I get a refund for the rune, then?

Just look at the Shifting rune for what happens when runes no longer apply: "Any property runes that can't apply to the new form are suppressed until the item takes a shape to which they can apply." You JUST can't use the rune until you use it in a way they again makes it qualify. It's not like a shifting returning dagger has the returning fall off when it's shifted into a longsword... ;)

[Lightning Raven]

Theaitetos wrote:

Lightning Raven wrote:

The act of trying to throw a weapon in Pathfinder Second Edition makes it so that the weapon in question is treated as a ranged weapon for all its intents and purposes, and as such, you are no longer holding melee weapons, thus you are breaking the requirements for Twin Takedown (and Double Slice).

Ah I see now! So when you throw a Dagger with an Extending rune, the Extending rune falls off, right? I mean, the moment you throw the Dagger, it is no longer a melee weapon, and thus breaks the necessary requirement for having an Extended rune etched on it. So the rune falls off mid-flight.

Will I get a refund for the rune, then?

The rune won't fall off. It just won't work when you throw it, which makes sense, since the rune is supposed to give Reach to a Melee Attack.

Your mistake is in thinking that you can't inscribe useless runes into weapons. You can. It's just dumb.

[Theaitetos]

graystone wrote:

Just look at the Shifting rune for what happens when runes no longer apply: "Any property runes that can't apply to the new form are suppressed until the item takes a shape to which they can apply."

That's a special property of the Shifting rune, not a rule for runes in general.

The normal rules say you can only etch runes into the specific things the Usage entry specifies:

Rules wrote:

Each rune can be etched into a specific type of armor, shield, or weapon, as indicated in the Usage entry of the rune's stat block.

And, as everyone here repeatedly stated, the rules only say what you can do. Which means you cannot etch runes onto other things than those specified items (& runestones).

Again, I don't subscribe to that thinking of "being ranged removes the melee property". And more fundamentally, I don't subscribe to a way of thinking, that is based on trying to divine the intentions of people I've never met instead of just relying on what is written plainly in front of me. That's why I chose a silly example: According to their logic, the returning rune would fall off.

Silly, isn't it? But that's how they think about it. :)

And then they claim that rules only do what they say, yet immediately after switch to a tangential rule exegesis that would make theologians blush in embarrassment, all in order to try to claim there are rules for something, for which they have failed to provide a single actual quote, despite being asked for such a quote for days now.

I shall never be able to understand such "logic". The incoherence is just beyond me. Apart from the poor manners in trying to shift the burden of proof on others after making unsupported claims.

Quote:

Your mistake is in thinking that you can't inscribe useless runes into weapons. You can. It's just dumb.

Someone disagrees:

Quote:

the way that rules work is to explain what things do rather than list all the things that they don't

So no, you can't etch melee weapon runes into non-melee weapons. And a thrown dagger is, according to what you claim, not a melee weapon.

It's even funnier if a crafter tried to etch a ranged weapon rune on the dagger, because he has to constantly throw the dagger around during crafting without ever holding it in is hand, or it would no longer be a ranged weapon. Though maybe there are blacksmiths with the Juggler archetype for that?

And I'm really glad that the Barbarian's Friendly Toss doesn't make the tossed Wizard a ranged weapon, or he would no longer be a Wizard.

A final comment: You can end this entire debate with a single link/reference/quote of actual rules text that supports your claim that "becoming a ranged weapon removes being a melee weapon" or an equivalent rule that says "a weapon can only ever be either melee or ranged", upon which your entire argument is based. It's been three days since that claim was put forward. It's really not too much to ask to finally provide such a quote.

Quote, not divination. So for reference, this is a prime example of rules divination, i.e. not reading what is written down, but trying to divine things that are not written down through esoteric means:

Quote:

Because as I already mentioned everywhere in the rules that talks about the classifications does so with separate language.

So you need to prove that "it is a ranged weapon when thrown." is carrying an implied "also" rather than an implied "instead of a melee weapon." Because it does not say "it is also a ranged weapon when thrown" or even "it counts as a ranged weapon when thrown."

Especially because the language in the combination trait continues the trend of making it clear that things are either a melee weapon or a ranged weapon, not actually both simultaneously, by not just saying "a combination weapon is both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon." and instead making a big deal out of keeping the separation.

How can anyone say "continues the trend of making it clear" with a straight face and claim to stick to what's written in the rules?

This sounds like a teenage girl with a crush: "OMG, he looked over again. This continues the trend of making it clear that he loves me!"

Rules Lawyers >> Rules Thaumaturges

[graystone]

Theaitetos wrote:

graystone wrote:

Just look at the Shifting rune for what happens when runes no longer apply: "Any property runes that can't apply to the new form are suppressed until the item takes a shape to which they can apply."

That's a special property of the Shifting rune, not a rule for runes in general.

Ok, how about something non-magical: Combination Weapons: "A combination weapon has a ranged form or usage and a melee weapon form or usage." "Since a combination weapon is one weapon with two usages, both usages share any fundamental runes. You can put a property rune on a combination weapon as long as it's appropriate for either of the two usages, but if only one of the usages meets the property rune's requirements, the effects of the property rune only apply for that usage. For instance, a vorpal axe musket only applies the vorpal property rune when you're using it as an axe. Due to their complexity, combination weapons can't have another weapon, such as a bayonet or reinforced stock, attached to them."

I don't see how a thrown weapon, a weapon with 2 uses [melee and ranged], is fundamentally different than the combo weapons. For instance, in the example the vorpal rune doesn't fly off the axe musket when you make a ranged attack so why would it on a thrown dagger?

[OrochiFuror]

Are you trying to etch a rune into your dagger when throwing it?