|
Could we get a clarification of the rules for Two Weapon Fighting concerning the order of the attacks?
I've been doing informal surveys and it's 60/40 (for methods 1/2 below) between the way people make the attacks. (BTW I have found no mention in the rules on how to make these attack rolls and no one has been able to point them out ot me either.)
Can we put it in the rules whether it is:
(R = primary weapon, L = secondary weapon)
1) R-L-R-L-R-L
or
2) R-R-R-L-L-L
I know some people are saying that it doesn't matter what order. When Weapon Swap came up it actually mentioned an order. (Yes, I see that Weapon Swap will be killed.) If you rolled the attacks in method #1 Weapon Swap would be pretty ridiculous, but it made sense if you used #2.
Thanks.
|
|
I would say it does matter... especially when the two weapons in question have different magical properties. If you are fighting undead and other type and your primary weapon has disruption then your secondary weapon has demon bane then the order would matter.
Unless the GM allows you to spread your attacks to whatever is within your reach...
K _ W
B P Q
_ X _
Targeting your attacks to K then X then Q then X then B then B is a bit ridiculous. (Even though it is very Bruce Lee like...)
So, if order doesn't matter can we have a ruling that a character can attack whatever is within reach in whatever order they wish?
I also think that it matters to others especially in the amount of arguments I have seen that involve attack order.
It would be nice to have it spelled out in the rules so that an argument will be avoided or the GM will say, "I do it X way in my game."
|
|
When doing a full attack, in my understanding of the rules, you can do them in any order you like. Thus it is usually unimportant which you do when as long as you keep track of which ones you have made.
Please source that for me. I'd love to see it. (I have not been able to find anything of the nature...)
Director of Game Design
|
Page 139 of the Beta, first paragraph. It states that you must take your attacks in order from highest to lowest, and that if you are wielding two weapons, you can choose which ones to attack with first. That makes it seem to me like you cannot swap back and forth between hands, and must choose one to attack with first, going from highest to lowest, before repeating this with the other hand.
That said, I am not really sure this is absolutely necessary.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
When doing a full attack, in my understanding of the rules, you can do them in any order you like. Thus it is usually unimportant which you do when as long as you keep track of which ones you have made.
It could make a difference if one of your attacks is a trip. E.g., you make a trip with an attack that you don't think will make a difference (like a wimpy natural weapon attack or your last iterative attack); if it succeeds, all of your subsequent (more powerful) attacks get a +4 to hit for attacking a prone target.
|
|
Jason,
Thanks for pointing that out. I had missed it. You rule!
It does seem to be highest to lowest using RLRLRL is what it says to me.
Can you use TWF with Vital Strike?
It seems that if you do, it is taking advantage of TWF... thoughts?
I'm not sure what the intent of Vital Strike was when it was created.
Page 139 of the Beta, first paragraph. It states that you must take your attacks in order from highest to lowest, and that if you are wielding two weapons, you can choose which ones to attack with first. That makes it seem to me like you cannot swap back and forth between hands, and must choose one to attack with first, going from highest to lowest, before repeating this with the other hand.
That said, I am not really sure this is absolutely necessary.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Thank you. I've been looking EVERYWHERE for this piece information; I knew I had seen it once, but I couldn't find it again. I looked at Two-Weapon Fighting rules p. 152, under the weapon rules p. 99, and also at the descriptions of Two-Weapon Fighting feats...
That being said, do you think this information could also be mentioned in the Two-Weapon Fighting rules section for handy reference?
Also-- I'm still confused at the rules for Two-Weapon fighting using the Improved Two-Weapon Fighting feat. It says you get a second attack with the off-hand weapon at -5. Is it -5 penalty on your highest BAB or your second, lesser BAB ? Does this -5 stack with other off-hand penalties ?
For example, my rogue/fighter Illustriel, 10th level, has BAB 8/3. She is wielding a short sword and a dagger and she has both Two-Weapon Fighting feats (-2/-2). The way I understand it, she gets 4 attacks. First two attacks (from highest BAB to lowest BAB) would be 6/1 (short sword/dagger) ; next two attacks would be... what? First attack is at full BAB -2 : 6 (short sword) but second (4th) attack at -5...? Full BAB or second attack BAB? Assuming it's the latter (which would make sense) then what is the penalty :
A) BAB 3-5 = -2 + -2 (off-hand) = -4
B) BAB 3 -5 (off-hand) = -2
C) BAB 3 -2 (off-hand) -5 (second off-hand attack) = -4
D) second off-hand attack is at -5 period.
I think A is the right answer (or C, which amounts to the same thing), but I think it would be nice if it was clarified.
Thanks Jason for giving us this great update to our favorite RPG !
Ok, your second offhand attack is at -5 from your first offhand attack.
On another note, I have a point that has been frustrating me to no end. Why does TWF require a feat? If I want to wield two shortswords, why must I be penalized? I do no more damage than my buddy with the greatsword. If everyone's concerned about the rogue getting his sneak attack twice a round, why can't we just make it a feat to get precision-based damage with offhand attacks?
Oh, well, how many characters do you see take those penalties? I'm not advocating meta-gaming, but when penalties are that high, it's restrictive. Might as well say you can't do it. I didn't ask the question for a discussion on semantics, I'm asking for play-balance reasons.