Community

Oh, really? Nevermind, then, I'd like to retract that and vote for Deathblow.

I noted the problems with wielding a 2h weapon and IUS because it goes very, very much against the rules of fighting.

People naturally trot out that you don't need a hand free to use IUS. That is true enough. But you still have to assign primary and off hand when attacking with two weapons, and in this case, both hands ARE being used to wield a weapon...you don't have an 'off-hand' to assign, it's already in use. Attempting to claim that you don't need that hand isn't going to go over well with a lot of DM's. I'm sure a DM would allow you to swap 2H and IUS attacks, but 'add them in'?

Note that if you think you can do this, then you can also do it with Quickdraw and a light weapon, completing your attack sequence with your 2H weapon, letting go, drawing a dagger or something, and doing a second attack combo. 

I think it unlikely that a DM would allow this. If you do, then I firmly believe you are house-ruling an adjustment to the whole combat system.

And...it's another kick in the teeth to non-using 2H weapons.

Another variant is even simpler...I'm going to 2h this longsword through a full attack sequence, then drop off my primary hand and attack with it in my off hand. It's a free action, don't even need quickdraw. And it's just like IUS, I'm just using a weapon that's 'already there.'    

Snap kick doesn't require a free hand...it just says you get a single UA attack.  And given the name, I'm okay with that.

But there is NO clear support for using a 2H weapon AND getting TWF at the same time. You really have to inventively interpret the language to allow it...and if you do, then the other two examples I gave above also become perfectly valid, because now you're 'three-handing' it, and 'off-hand' has no meaning.

==Aelryinth       

No, I'm interpreting 'off-hand' as 'a second limb being assigned to attack with, in addition to your primary attack'. Which is, I believe, the correct interpretation, because not all secondary attacks are with 'hands'.

Your secondary limb/off-hand is already being committed when using 2h weapons. You actually picked the second limb, and it wasn't 'the rest of the body'. Its the hand grabbing the greatsword.

YOU are interpreting TWF as an 'off-hand' attack literally requiring a second hand, and then IUS getting around that restriction because it doesn't actually require a hand. That is not, I believe, the correct way to look at the rule. Furthermore, the IUS rule that you can be carrying something says nothing about already having limbs devoted to making primary and secondary attacks. Carrying a sack of flour in two hands is not the same as wielding a greatsword with both hands, and people know it, and while trying to argue that you can make a full attack sequence with your feet while carrying that load of flour will pass muster, arguing that you can make that full attack while spinning a greatsword around with both hands as your primary attack generally isn't going to. 'Carrying' and 'wielding' are two very different things.

And not incidentally, this preserves the uniqueness of each fighting style, instead of once again subsuming other styles into 2h uberness (like Wield Buckler did for sword and board).

==Aelryinth    


        

Nov 18, 2012 -- 3:44PM, aelryinth wrote:

Incidentally, there's someone on the Pathfinder boards asking about CoDzilla.

I found the quote, but whoever it was credited to was removed. Does anyone remember who it was?

on top of that, you know CoDzilla has its own Wikipedia entry? And on top of that, neither the original quote nor the original source are named in that. Someone should fix that, like, pronto. 

Oh, and in the Urban Dictionary, too.

I tried a search of these boards, as I know Tempest answered it for me once before, and came up dry. I would like to credit the proper party, can someone help me?

==Aelryinth

That'd be me, actually. The original discussion was on the Psionics boards, someone's DM was banning psionics point blank but letting core stuff pass unquestioned. I actually have refined my position on "bring in powerful characters to punish stupid DMs" since then (my current position is: don't do it) and dread the thought that this quote will be my great contribution to the Internet. Urban Dictionary? Wikipedia? REALLY?

Nov 18, 2012 -- 3:42PM, aelryinth wrote:

No, I'm interpreting 'off-hand' as 'a second limb being assigned to attack with, in addition to your primary attack'. Which is, I believe, the correct interpretation, because not all secondary attacks are with 'hands'.

Your secondary limb/off-hand is already being committed when using 2h weapons. You actually picked the second limb, and it wasn't 'the rest of the body'. Its the hand grabbing the greatsword.

YOU are interpreting TWF as an 'off-hand' attack literally requiring a second hand, and then IUS getting around that restriction because it doesn't actually require a hand. That is not, I believe, the correct way to look at the rule. Furthermore, the IUS rule that you can be carrying something says nothing about already having limbs devoted to making primary and secondary attacks. Carrying a sack of flour in two hands is not the same as wielding a greatsword with both hands, and people know it, and while trying to argue that you can make a full attack sequence with your feet while carrying that load of flour will pass muster, arguing that you can make that full attack while spinning a greatsword around with both hands as your primary attack generally isn't going to. 'Carrying' and 'wielding' are two very different things.

And not incidentally, this preserves the uniqueness of each fighting style, instead of once again subsuming other styles into 2h uberness (like Wield Buckler did for sword and board).

==Aelryinth    


        

Call it a limb, call it a hand, call it what you like. Two-handed weapons require two hands to wield. The rules don't state "wielding a two handed weapons occupies all your possible attack capability". They say it requires two hands and that's it. I simply grant more priority to the "any part of the body" line than you do.

It'll come down to the DM, of course, and you're totally justified in making that ruling if you're the DM. I don't see it as a balance threat. I don't even see it as subsuming other fighting styles into 2HF, any more than it's subsuming 2HF into the TWF style. Guy with a big sword kicking all over is a fantasy melee trope, it works flavour-wise. Guy with a big sword kicking all over doesn't do so much more damage as to be a threat to the game. I don't see a problem with it.

...heh, now I'm thinking of a 2HF/TWF/Sneak Attack/Power Attack build. Do ALL the melee damage!

post 74.

paizo.com/threads/rzs2p5yu&page=2?Cleric...


found the whole original quote on EnWorld, but they didn't bother to credit the maker. Bah!

Urban dictionary has what it means, but not the source quote.


and 1d4Chan has an explanation in its wiki, but not quote again. Feh!

Someone make a wikipedia entry for the term!!!!      

==Aelryinth