Theo Stern's page

No intention, just curiosity mostly

Ranged Spellstrike (Su)
At 2nd level, whenever an eldritch archer casts a spell that calls for a ranged attack, she can deliver the spell through a ranged weapon she wields as part of a ranged attack. Instead of the free ranged attack normally allowed to deliver the spell, an eldritch archer can make one free ranged attack with a ranged weapon (at her highest base attack bonus) as part of casting this spell. The attack does not increase the spell’s range.

If the spell can normally affect multiple targets, only a single missile, ray, or effect accompanies each attack; if the spell allows multiple attacks and the eldritch archer can make additional ranged attacks as part of a full-round action with spell combat, one additional ray, missile, or effect from the spell accompanies each subsequent ranged attack the eldritch archer makes in the same round until all attacks allowed by the spell are made. Unused missiles, rays, or effects remaining at the end of the eldritch archer’s turn are wasted.

This ability alters spellstrike.

How would this work with a scatter weapon? Would the ranged touch spell effect all targets in the cone of the scatter shot, or just one?

Thank you

I notice there is no map of the town of Thrushmoor in this Module. Does it exist somewhere in another Paizo product?

Thanks

Take a good look at the stealth rules -

If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth. Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth. If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth. While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place of some kind. This check, however, is made at a –10 penalty because you have to move fast.

What this means is that unless there is something to hide behind, you cannot use stealth. You cannot use stealth to cross any open space within site of someone unless you have HIPS. Stealth is way less effective then it used to be in older versions of D&D until you get to the point where you can have constant concealment, say though improved invis. Also, being stealthed does not grant an automatic coup de grace

Coup de Grace

As a full-round action, you can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace (pronounced "coo day grahs") to a helpless opponent.

opponents are not considered helpless against stealthed attackers

Actually, I don't see anywhere it says the caster level ever goes up at all, from what I see, it casts 3rd level Sorcerer's spells known/spells per day at 3rd caster level regardless of your level. In fact I don't think it even gets that, as that would imply you get to pick its spell list. I think it gets the spells listed at caster level 3 period.

Ah, that makes sense thanks

OK for Star Soul Bloodline Bonus spells the Advanced Players guide says

Bonus Spells: unseen servant (3rd), glitterdust (5th), blink (7th), call lightning storm (9th; dealing fire damage, damage increased outdoors at night), overland flight (11th), repulsion (13th), reverse gravity (15th), greater prying eyes (17th), meteor swarm (19th).

What does

(9th; dealing fire damage, damage increased outdoors at night) mean?

I can't seem to find it anywhere

Thanks

That was my thought. Though, there is a very limited list of things you can command someone to do in Pathfinder. Commanding a non-casting monster not to attack for 9 rounds is pretty much a win, as is commanding a mage not to cast for 9 rounds, though they could probably still get away and come back later

So, they both last for 1 round per level yet Command greater says-

"At the start of each commanded creature's action after the first, it gets another Will save to attempt to break free from the spell. Each creature must receive the same command."

And Forbid Action Greater has no such text. Is that intentional, that if you fail your save it effects you for the entire duration, or was it omitted?

well wind walk says

Normally, a wind walker flies at a speed of 10 feet with perfect maneuverability. If desired by the subject, a magical wind wafts a wind walker along at up to 600 feet per round (60 mph) with poor maneuverability.

is the 10 feet a typo that is supposed to say 100 feet?

No one else? As good a summon as this is I thought for sure it would have come up before now.

except is says

In humanoid form, it cannot fly or use its whirlwind blast. In wind form, it functions as if under the effects of a wind walk spell.

Its the "Functioning as if under the effect of a wind walk" that seems contradictory

Ok the Bralani Azata reads

In humanoid form, it cannot fly or use its whirlwind blast. In wind form, it functions as if under the effects of a wind walk spell.

Its fly speed is listed as fly 100 ft. (perfect)

The Wind walk spell reads

You alter the substance of your body to a cloud-like vapor (as the gaseous form spell) and move through the air, possibly at great speed. You can take other creatures with you, each of which acts independently.

For the last minute of the spell's duration, a wind walker in cloud form automatically descends 60 feet per round (for a total of 600 feet), though it may descend faster if it wishes. This descent serves as a warning that the spell is about to end.

So which is it? does it fly at 100' perfect? Or 10 feet with perfect maneuverability. If desired by the subject, a magical wind wafts a wind walker along at up to 600 feet per round (60 mph) with poor maneuverability. And what about the other Wind walk abilities, can it take others with it? can it push its speed to 600' round with poor?

Theo Stern wrote:

if either the caster or the recipient has DR, how does this spell interact with the DR?

JJ Says when an incorporeal creature has DR, you apply DR after the damage is halved.

So I would say split the damage, then apply DR, resistances, etc.

Good reasoning thanks

Ok the Shield Other spell basically splits damage between two people. See below:

My question is if either the caster or the recipient has DR, how does this spell interact with the DR?

Say Joe casts the spell on Bob. If Bob gets hit for 16 damage and Joe has 5 DR would Bob take 8 damage and Joe 3?

What if Bob had the 5 DR, would you apply the DR first and then split the damage? so they would both take 5? or would you split it and then apply the DR to Bob only resulting in 3 points to Bob and 8 to Joe?

If they both have DR do they both take only 3?

I find it funny that most people do either 15 or 20. I was tossed up for my campaign so I went with 17

I don't love the word of recall thematically. All of the other abilities seem less magical and more like just abilities

Theo Stern wrote:

OK I did a quick search and did not find this anywhere. I apologize if it has been asked before.

The fascinate condition reads:

A fascinated creature is entranced by a supernatural or spell effect. The creature stands or sits quietly, taking no actions other than to pay attention to the fascinating effect, for as long as the effect lasts. It takes a –4 penalty on skill checks made as reactions, such as Perception checks. Any potential threat, such as a hostile creature approaching, allows the fascinated creature a new saving throw against the fascinating effect. Any obvious threat, such as someone drawing a weapon, casting a spell, or aiming a ranged weapon at the fascinated creature, automatically breaks the effect. A fascinated creature's ally may shake it free of the spell as a standard action.

So it says drawing a weapon breaks it, what if characters already have weapons drawn? By RAW the way I read it unless they approached the fascinated creature it wouldn't break, and approaching just grants another save. I am not sure why standing with a weapon already in hand does not breaks it and drawing a weapon does. It seems even healing yourself with a spell breaks it as that is casting a spell. Has this been clarified anywhere that I missed?

Bold mine.

The key phrase to this condition is Obvious Threat. This the the part of the description you need to focus on when determining when the fascinated condition is broken. Someone coming at you with weapon drawn is an obvious threat, so it would break the condition even though it is not listed in the description. Keep in mind, the examples after the text are just that - examples. They are not considered to be an all-inclusive list.

On the flip side, a healing spell is NOT an obvious threat, so this would not break the condition.

Well, I guess I don't see how someone drawing a weapon is a more obvious threat then someone standing there with one already drawn.

OK I did a quick search and did not find this anywhere. I apologize if it has been asked before.

The fascinate condition reads:

A fascinated creature is entranced by a supernatural or spell effect. The creature stands or sits quietly, taking no actions other than to pay attention to the fascinating effect, for as long as the effect lasts. It takes a –4 penalty on skill checks made as reactions, such as Perception checks. Any potential threat, such as a hostile creature approaching, allows the fascinated creature a new saving throw against the fascinating effect. Any obvious threat, such as someone drawing a weapon, casting a spell, or aiming a ranged weapon at the fascinated creature, automatically breaks the effect. A fascinated creature's ally may shake it free of the spell as a standard action.

So it says drawing a weapon breaks it, what if characters already have weapons drawn? By RAW the way I read it unless they approached the fascinated creature it wouldn't break, and approaching just grants another save. I am not sure why standing with a weapon already in hand does not breaks it and drawing a weapon does. It seems even healing yourself with a spell breaks it as that is casting a spell. Has this been clarified anywhere that I missed?

If you want a Wizard that can cast some spells from other lists, the Pathfinder Savant is actually a decent PRC. Check it out.

Note, however, that any with a duration of one round will expire right before your next turn. Which is lame.

It is lame. We house ruled that a Cleric can use it on themselves as a swift action, but its a standard to use them on anyone else

Awesome, thanks Sean. I was actually with the other school, but mostly because I worried about how complex it would become if it was allowed during a round when TWF was used. You resolved that as well. Well done and thanks again

Theo Stern wrote:

TClifford wrote:

Theo Stern wrote:

KrispyXIV wrote:

Theo Stern wrote:

So if as you say "If the first attack let you choose any available weapon, so should the second." Then why shouldn't the bonus attacks granted by Two Weapon fighting??

Oops, you're actually right here. But only because Improved Two Weapon Fighting specifically calls out the extra attack having to come from the same weapon.

Note: to clarify, ITWF calls out gaining a second attack with your off hand weapon. So you couldn't change that weapon.

so, two weapon fighting says

If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way.

And your argument is that the trigger for two weapon fighting is getting the extra attack, not wielding the weapon ion your off hand. By that argument aren't I wielding a weapon in my off hand regardless of whether I take the penalty or not? And if am, then aren't I changing which is my primary and off hand if I attack once with the right and once with the left without two weapon fighting?

Think about it. Why would you take this MASSIVE penality, just because you had a weapon in your off hand?

So you are saying, that if I have a Longsword in my primary hand and a Dagger in my off-hand, that even if I don't attack with the Dagger at all, that attacking with the Longsword is -6?

Mind you that same off-hand could be holding a Shield and you would have no penality to the attack. Or actually anything in that hand and per the rules, you would have no penality...but if you have a weapon the primary attacks are -6

I am not saying that at all. , only if you attack with the dagger would you get the penalty in my book

But there is nothing in the rules that state that. Yours and other peoples entire defense of the...

Actually what I am saying is you can't have it both ways, either there is a primary and and off hand weapon and you have to stick with them for the whole round regardless of whether you use Two Weapon Fighting or not, or they are completely interchangeable regardless of whether you use Two weapon fighting or not. The idea that you only have to pay attention to a primary hand and off hand with regards to which is which only when you are Two weapon fighting not any other time, is inconstant and I don't find any definitive support for that in the rules.

Theo Stern wrote:

That is a decent argument, but I think applying the concept of on and off handedness only when applying two weapon fighting is dumb and inconsistent and while you argued it elegantly, I still think its only one of two possible interpretations. To further clarify, does that mean if I have three attacks per round and am declaring two weapon fighting and have knee spikes a sword and an axe, I could not attack once with my sword as primary, once with mt knee spikes as primary, another with my sword as primary and then once with my axe as secondary,...

I do not know why not. As long as your off hand remains set (ITWF and GTWF seem to think its singular) you should be able to treat your normal set of attacks normally... all of them taking the appropriate penalties for TWF of course (though they should be primary hand).

I will say this: I grow more and more convinced that the system is woefully unclear on dealing with the fact that a level 6 fighter can easily have 4 modes of attack available for each attack at any given time (sword, shield, armor spikes, unarmed strikes). It seems that the system only really assumes you're going to want to use the Sword and the Shield, though with the varying types of DR and damage type triggered effects floating about, thats not really a great assumption.

So you have to declare you off hand, but not your primary hand? Doesn't having an offhand imply you have a primary hand? even more confusing :)

And yea I agree with the woefully unclear comment. Hopefully it will get clarified a bit

Theo Stern wrote:

If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way.

And your argument is that the trigger for two weapon fighting is getting the extra attack, not wielding the weapon ion your off hand. By that argument aren't I wielding a weapon in my off hand regardless of whether I take the penalty or not? And if am, then aren't I changing which is my primary and off hand if I attack once with the right and once with the left without two weapon fighting?

No, the trigger for two weapon fighting is wielding two weapons then deciding to fight with those two weapons in order to gain an extra attack. Doing this makes you subject to the restrictions and penalties of Two Weapon Fighting. This includes adding additional restrictions to how you make your attacks, such as a primary and off hand.

If you make a normal Full Attack, you are making a series of normal attacks which are no more related to one another than making an attack this round and a different one the next, beyond the fact that your bonus to hit decreases incrementally. Attack #1 can be with a different weapon from Attack #2, regardless of whether attack 1 happens in the same action as attack 2 or on the next round.

That is my argument.

That is a decent argument, but I think applying the concept of on and off handedness only when applying two weapon fighting is dumb and inconsistent and while you argued it elegantly, I still think its only one of two possible interpretations. To further clarify, does that mean if I have three attacks per round and am declaring two weapon fighting and have knee spikes a sword and an axe, I could not attack once with my sword as primary, once with mt knee spikes as primary, another with my sword as primary and then once with my axe as secondary, because by the very nature of declaring Two weapon fighting I had to lock in my primary and secondary weapons?

Theo Stern wrote:

KrispyXIV wrote:

Theo Stern wrote:

So if as you say "If the first attack let you choose any available weapon, so should the second." Then why shouldn't the bonus attacks granted by Two Weapon fighting??

Oops, you're actually right here. But only because Improved Two Weapon Fighting specifically calls out the extra attack having to come from the same weapon.

Note: to clarify, ITWF calls out gaining a second attack with your off hand weapon. So you couldn't change that weapon.

so, two weapon fighting says

If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way.

And your argument is that the trigger for two weapon fighting is getting the extra attack, not wielding the weapon ion your off hand. By that argument aren't I wielding a weapon in my off hand regardless of whether I take the penalty or not? And if am, then aren't I changing which is my primary and off hand if I attack once with the right and once with the left without two weapon fighting?

Think about it. Why would you take this MASSIVE penality, just because you had a weapon in your off hand?

So you are saying, that if I have a Longsword in my primary hand and a Dagger in my off-hand, that even if I don't attack with the Dagger at all, that attacking with the Longsword is -6?

Mind you that same off-hand could be holding a Shield and you would have no penality to the attack. Or actually anything in that hand and per the rules, you would have no penality...but if you have a weapon the primary attacks are -6

I am not saying that at all. , only if you attack with the dagger would you get the penalty in my book

Theo Stern wrote:

So if as you say "If the first attack let you choose any available weapon, so should the second." Then why shouldn't the bonus attacks granted by Two Weapon fighting??

Oops, you're actually right here. But only because Improved Two Weapon Fighting specifically calls out the extra attack having to come from the same weapon.

Note: to clarify, ITWF calls out gaining a second attack with your off hand weapon. So you couldn't change that weapon.

so, two weapon fighting says

If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way.

And your argument is that the trigger for two weapon fighting is getting the extra attack, not wielding the weapon ion your off hand. By that argument aren't I wielding a weapon in my off hand regardless of whether I take the penalty or not? And if am, then aren't I changing which is my primary and off hand if I attack once with the right and once with the left without two weapon fighting?

I dont know. My left hand is pretty pathetic when it comes to hand-eye coordination, while my right has is blessed by some deity.

Theo:Does everyone(95% or better) do better TWF'ing in real life or do some people do better?

Oh my left is much weaker then my right hand also, when I two weapon fight, I get far more kills with my right hand, but the threat of an attack from my left that has to be responded to with a block, makes my right far more likely to land.

I would not say most people do better TWF because their defense is severely limited by not having a shield. We are a "One stout shot to the head" kills you group, so missing even one block can loose you the fight, often too big a disadvantage to overcome even for the offensive benefit. There are people extremely talented at two weapon fighting, but they are not in the majority.

Moglun wrote:

When it comes to switching attacks between them without actually taking any extras, as I've said before I don't think you can do that.

Important question: why are we using the term 'switching' here?

Its a series of independant normal attacks at a decreasing attack bonus; its no different from attacking one round with one weapon and a different one the next, other than the interval between the attacks.

You aren't 'switching' weapons; you're making an attack with weapon X, and then you are making a different subsequent attack under identical restrictions you had for the first attack. If the first attack let you choose any available weapon, so should the second.

You aren't 'switching' weapons unless you're quickdrawing a new one, and its not indicated anywhere that this would be at all questionable.

So if as you say "If the first attack let you choose any available weapon, so should the second." Then why shouldn't the bonus attacks granted by Two Weapon fighting??

Ingenwulf wrote:

Moglun wrote:

why would you choose to interpret it as "wielding=penalties" and not "extra attack=penalties"? Is it game balance, fluff, precedent, or what?

The reason I read it as wielding, rather than attack, is actually from personal experience.

Ingenwulf,

Thank you for answering why you feel the rules work as you have been saying. Seriously.

IRL, attacking with a weapon in each hand is difficult, which I think is where the original TWF/penalty idea came from.

Not true at all, IRL attacking with two hands is easier, defending yourself while doing it is harder

Moglun wrote:

Ingenwulf wrote:

At least you have a valid form of arguement, I still don't agree with that reading however.

Okay... why? Do you agree that the sentence is not absolute and its meaning must be inferred? If so, why would you choose to interpret it as "wielding=penalties" and not "extra attack=penalties"? Is it game balance, fluff, precedent, or what?

The reason I read it as wielding, rather than attack, is actually from personal experience.

I have enjoyed Fencing (swordplay rather than home improvement) and also Live Roleplaying (latex swords hurt so much less). I have found that merely the attempt to use more than one weapon at a time hinders effacity of the weapon in the main hand. Practice can help alleviate this, and a short weapon in the off hand makes it a little easier.

My reading of the rules accords with personal experience....
...and I guess the OP's attempt to lose the off hand penalty to strength bonus also lead me to look at the real world aspect of the situation.

Edit: I do not claim to be an olimpic class fencer. I'm sure that many other people on this thread who also have swordplay experience, and that they may read the text differently and have different physical experiences to me.

Heh totally, first of all let me say that having a discussion of "real life" fighting as it pertains to this game is fairly useless, this game is a very abstracted simulation. I do SCA heavy fighting in full armor, I am a knight and have been doing it for almost 25 years, so I am pretty good and know what I am talking about. I used to fight quite a bit of two sword and I can tell you, that the Pathfinder two weapon fighting system is nowhere close to accurate. First of all, when you wield two weapons you generally have a better chance to hit someone, not a worse chance. Why? because your opponent now has to deal with attacks form more angles, so the -2 to hit on all attacks, is not realistic at all, its a game mechanic. I reality, you gain quite a bit of offense and give up defense over a shield. Also, in Pathfinder if we attack with only one weapon during a round we get full strength bonus, in reality for like 90% of the population, one arm is stronger then the other, so not having handedness is inaccurate, if simpler for gaming

Theo Stern wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

Theo Stern wrote:

Well for one thing, I think if you accept the arguments made for swapping weapons when not two weapon fighting, you have to accept them when you are as I have seen nothing to indicate one is valid and the other is not, at which point you have to accept that its ok to substitute your primary weapon in for your secondary on the extra attacks, that would be a big benefit

I have seen no arguments for swapping weapons when not TWF'ing. What benefit am I gaining?

that's exactly what people have been arguing, that you can take iterative attacks with any weapon you are holding right? If you can do that why can't you do the same with the iterative attacks granted by the TWF feat?

I am still lost and see no benefit.

IIRC "people want the benefits without the penalties", is what was said.

I want you to pretend I am 5 years old and explain to my what my benefit is for using two weapons if I don't take the extra attack.

My bad, I did not explain it well. The benefit I was describing does not apply to when your not two weapon fighting, it applies to when your Two Weapon fighting as a function of ruling that you can switch weapons when you are. I think if you rule you can switch weapons when you are not two weapon fighting, by logical extension, you need to rule you can do so when you are as well, and that is where I see the big issue. Because if you can switch when you are, you could take the penalty, gain the extra attack and take all of the attacks with one weapon

Theo Stern wrote:

Ok, but if I can declare either hand my primary hand during an attack sequence, why can't I declare either hand my secondary at any point during the sequence?

As I mentioned before, if you are not using the Special Attack of Two-Weapon Fighting, then you don't have an off-hand. If you do, then you must declare which weapon is your primary and which is your off-hand. I also mentioned in a previous post that, as GM, I would have you declare an off-hand if you wanted to switch between weapons even if not using the Special Attack of Two-Weapon Fighting.

right but where does it say in the RAW that I have to declare a primary and secondary hand if I am using Two Weapon fighting and I don't if I am not using Two Weapon fighting?

Theo Stern wrote:

Well for one thing, I think if you accept the arguments made for swapping weapons when not two weapon fighting, you have to accept them when you are as I have seen nothing to indicate one is valid and the other is not, at which point you have to accept that its ok to substitute your primary weapon in for your secondary on the extra attacks, that would be a big benefit

I have seen no arguments for swapping weapons when not TWF'ing. What benefit am I gaining?

that's exactly what people have been arguing, that you can take iterative attacks with any weapon you are holding right? If you can do that why can't you do the same with the iterative attacks granted by the TWF feat?

Theo Stern wrote:

Bob_Loblaw wrote:

Theo Stern wrote:

So, to those advocating being able to switch which hand is primary and which is off in the middle of a full attack action, can I do the same during a Two weapon fighting action? If so, it would follow I could change which hand is off as well right? Then I could have only one really nice weapon and use it for all my attacks including the extra ones gained by two weapon fighting and just hold a crappy dagger in my off hand that I never actually attack with, or better yet a shield I never attack with. I will just hold a shield declare a two weapon fighting attack and substitute in more sword attacks instead of the shield for my off hand weapon attacks. So who says you have to invest in two nice weapons?

That's not what anyone is advocating. If you are using the Two-Weapon Fighting Special Attack, then you will have one weapon as your primary weapon and the other as your off-hand. That is clearly part of the description of the Two-Weapon Special Attack.

What is being said is that if you have a heavy steel shield in one hand and a sword in the other, as a level 13 fighter, you can attack with your sword at +13, your shield at +8, and your sword again at +3. Several people have pointed out that this is normally going to be a sub-optimal way to fight.

What is also being said is that you could choose to attack with your sword three times and your shield once, gaining you an additional attack, but you now have +7/+2/-3 with your sword and +3 with your heavy steel shield. Or you could have +7/+2/-3 with your heavy steel shield and +3 with your sword. If you want to change those penalties and get even more attacks, then you would have to also take the appropriate feats.

See my post above, I fail to see where it says you are locking in a primary and secondary hand when you activate two weapon fighting and not when you don't

I never said that you have a primary and off-hand attack when not using the Special Attack of...

Ok, but if I can declare either hand my primary hand during an attack sequence, why can't I declare either hand my secondary at any point during the sequence?

HangarFlying wrote:

Bob_Loblaw wrote:

HangarFlying wrote:

Please reference my post to Asiel where I pointed out that the rules only allow you to choose which weapon to use for the first attack. The rules do not allow you to choose which weapon to use for the second, third, or additional attacks.

Of course people are going to pick an option that allows them to gain a benefit without paying the price. That doesn't change the fact that RAW states there is a price to be paid for using that benefit.

You are arguing why your house rule is better than RAW. Until you point to me a rule that shows that your house rule is RAW, it remains a house rule, and therefore has no bearing on the "Rules Questions" thread.

What's the real benefit for using two-weapons without gaining an additional attack? If you are using the same type of weapon (let's say daggers) in each hand, then you aren't really going to see much difference between alternating weapons. If you are using two different weapons, you are probably not going to have a bunch of feats to make both weapons roughly equivalent so you aren't getting much of a benefit.

If someone has built their character to take advantage of being able to use both weapons without taking the Two-Weapon Fighting tree, they are probably getting some benefits but at the same time, they invested to get those benefits. Why should they be penalized more? They aren't getting the benefit of the extra attack, so they shouldn't get the penalty associated with that extra attack. The rules for the Special Attack of Two-Weapon Fighting support this with the opening sentence.

Because the rules say they should be penalized. You are pointing out the crux of the issue: people want the benefit without paying for it. That's fine as a house rule, but is not RAW.

As another poster asked, but was never answered, with a lot more detail than I am about to-->What is the benefit? I am maintaining two weapons without using TWF'ing.

Well for one thing, I think if you accept the arguments made for swapping weapons when not two weapon fighting, you have to accept them when you are as I have seen nothing to indicate one is valid and the other is not, at which point you have to accept that its ok to substitute your primary weapon in for your secondary on the extra attacks, that would be a big benefit

I think an important point that has not been mentioned so far:

Even IF by RAW using two weapons in two different hands in the same turn incurs the penalties, it really shouldn't.

It generally offers no advantage and is actually disadvantegeous most of the time.

But: its cool.

Slam with the shield, hit with the sword, kick in the nuts - awesome. Much more interesting than "I hit him three times with my sword".

And in the rare circumstances where it reall makes sense (whip for tripping in one hand, sword in the other, mace an sword vs skeletons & zombies), its simply a good, interesting tactic that is in no way too powerful.

While I agree that it is not allowed by my interpretation of the RAW, I also agree that it is not overpowered. I think its more of a complexity issue, especially if you allow it during a two weapon fighting round, which I see no reason not to allow, if you allow it in general

Theo Stern wrote:

So, to those advocating being able to switch which hand is primary and which is off in the middle of a full attack action, can I do the same during a Two weapon fighting action? If so, it would follow I could change which hand is off as well right? Then I could have only one really nice weapon and use it for all my attacks including the extra ones gained by two weapon fighting and just hold a crappy dagger in my off hand that I never actually attack with, or better yet a shield I never attack with. I will just hold a shield declare a two weapon fighting attack and substitute in more sword attacks instead of the shield for my off hand weapon attacks. So who says you have to invest in two nice weapons?

That's not what anyone is advocating. If you are using the Two-Weapon Fighting Special Attack, then you will have one weapon as your primary weapon and the other as your off-hand. That is clearly part of the description of the Two-Weapon Special Attack.

What is being said is that if you have a heavy steel shield in one hand and a sword in the other, as a level 13 fighter, you can attack with your sword at +13, your shield at +8, and your sword again at +3. Several people have pointed out that this is normally going to be a sub-optimal way to fight.

What is also being said is that you could choose to attack with your sword three times and your shield once, gaining you an additional attack, but you now have +7/+2/-3 with your sword and +3 with your heavy steel shield. Or you could have +7/+2/-3 with your heavy steel shield and +3 with your sword. If you want to change those penalties and get even more attacks, then you would have to also take the appropriate feats.

See my post above, I fail to see where it says you are locking in a primary and secondary hand when you activate two weapon fighting and not when you don't

Theo Stern wrote:

So, to those advocating being able to switch which hand is primary and which is off in the middle of a full attack action, can I do the same during a Two weapon fighting action? If so, it would follow I could change which hand is off as well right? Then I could have only one really nice weapon and use it for all my attacks including the extra ones gained by two weapon fighting and just hold a crappy dagger in my off hand that I never actually attack with, or better yet a shield I never attack with. I will just hold a shield declare a two weapon fighting attack and substitute in more sword attacks instead of the shield for my off hand weapon attacks. So who says you have to invest in two nice weapons?

Two weapon fighting is clearly an exception to the normal rules for full attacking.

That is the whole point here; if you aren't using that exception, use the normal rules for a full attack. Which dont restrict which weapons you may use for your attacks during your attack progression.

And that exception clearly only applies penalties when wielding two weapons, and choosing to take the extra attack which can be gained by doing so.

So your saying that as soon as you declare you are two weapon fighting, you are locking in a primary and secondary hand, and if you don't declare two weapon fighting you have no primary and secondary hand? Were does the RAW say that? That makes little sense to me at all

So, to those advocating being able to switch which hand is primary and which is off in the middle of a full attack action, can I do the same during a Two weapon fighting action? If so, it would follow I could change which hand is off as well right? Then I could have only one really nice weapon and use it for all my attacks including the extra ones gained by two weapon fighting and just hold a crappy dagger in my off hand that I never actually attack with, or better yet a shield I never attack with. I will just hold a shield declare a two weapon fighting attack and substitute in more sword attacks instead of the shield for my off hand weapon attacks. So who says you have to invest in two nice weapons?

@ Kegluneq: The benefit is getting to use any bonuses from special materials, enchantments, or damage types from multiple weapons. Ultimately, it's more costly to maintain those multiple weapons, but there's the benefit.

Reverting to the topic: I've seen a couple of convincing arguments from both sides. I've also seen a number of specious arguments on both sides. I'm going to attempt to sum what I see as the major supporting arguments of both sides up in an objective fashion below, but a close reading of the thread will reveal all points to a reader.

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **...

+1

This is a great summation. I agree, and also agree with your personal interpretation. What I like about your post is that you acknowledge the validity of both sides of the discussion. The people who or are saying "This is how it is, and those of you who don't agree are willfully ignoring the unarguable rule" are not helping at all. It IS arguable or we would not have so many people making excellent points on both sides. I am done posting in this thread, we are only rehashing the same positions over and over now Asuna thank you for your excellent summation.

HangarFlying wrote:

Ok, first let's pretend that the character declared at the beginning of his turn that he was going to be attacking with both the Battleaxe and the Scimitar.

Let's not assume he declared the scimitar attack up front because you get the option to decide to continue to attack by attack roll. You don't have to declare up front.

Quote:

Full Attack

If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.

The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step. You may take the step before, after, or between your attacks.

If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first.

I just noticed that last bold. It does not say when TWF'ing, which is called out in the first paragraph separately with regard to extra attacks, but for now we will just handle the axe issue. I just wanted that to be noted that they are separate in the full attack section.

Quote:

Second, let's pretend that the character declared at the beginning of his turn that he was going to attack with only the Battleaxe this turn. Because he is not wielding the Scimitar this turn, he is not applying the Two-Weapon Fighting rules. Once he drops the Battleaxe, he is able to "draw" his Scimitar as stated above, except in this case he isn't getting the extra attack for wielding two weapons.

Once again lets not because attacks can be declared independently....

If you don't declare it up front then how do you apply the two weapon fighting penalty, once you decide to use the scimitar retroactively?

Theo Stern wrote:

There are no provisions for modifying this choice in the Two Weapon Fighting rules, which means that its effective until those rules stop applying, at the end of your turn.

Yes but you have to decide at the beginning of the round if you are dual wielding or not, so you can apply the appropriate penalties and the way I read it and interpret it, if you are intending to attack with weapons in both hands your are dual wielding and have thereby declared a primary and secondary hand, though you get to choose at that time which is which

I dont see any reason to even reference the Two Weapon Fighting rules unless you are trying to use them for the extra attack. The normal rules for making attacks (which dont care about such silly things as handedness) cover the situation just fine.

Its complicating things to much to worry about 'Dual Wielding' or not; thats irrelevant. Whats relevant is whether you're making a Full Attack normally (which doesn't care about where the attacks are coming from normally) or using Two Weapon Fighting for extra attacks.

I get what your saying, I just disagree, the way I interpret it, if you attack with weapons in both hands, you are two weapon fighting regardless if if you take the extra attack or not. I also disagree about it being more complicated, I think its less complicated as the post I did above points out, but I guess we will just have to agree to disagree

Theo Stern wrote:

well there is no rule that says you can switch which hand is primary mid full attack either. The feat Quick draw would let you draw another with your primary hand, I think without the feat, you loose the rest of the attacks with the primary hand, you still get the offhand attacks of course, but that is the way I read it YMMV

You dont have a Primary Hand and an Offhand UNTIL you choose to use Two Weapon Fighting rules. At which point, when you make the first attack you have chosen that attack to be with your primary weapon.

There are no provisions for modifying this choice in the Two Weapon Fighting rules, which means that its effective until those rules stop applying, at the end of your turn.

Yes but you have to decide at the beginning of the round if you are dual wielding or not, so you can apply the appropriate penalties and the way I read it and interpret it, if you are intending to attack with weapons in both hands your are dual wielding and have thereby declared a primary and secondary hand, though you get to choose at that time which is which

Theo Stern wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

Theo Stern wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

HangarFlying wrote:

Gentlemen (and possible Ladies),

This has been definitely an interesting debate. I've never had an issue with the interpretation you're espousing (using both weapons in the same turn without incurring TWF penalties) being used as a house rule. I just don't believe it is supported by RAW. I don't think there is anything more that needs to be said, especially considering I would be just repeating myself. Suffice it to say, I believe I have adequately stated my position throughout this thread.

I do agree that it would be nice for Paizo to address this issue in the FAQ. As such, I would like to post (repost, maybe) the question so that it can be FAQ'd:

Question: While holding a weapon in each hand, can you attack with both in the same turn without incurring the Two-Weapon Fighting penalties (-6 for Primary Hand, -10 for Off Hand, 1/2 Strength to Damange for Off Hand - these penalties not accounting for Light Weapons or the Two-Weapon Fighting feat)? Can multiple attacks provided by high BAB alternate between the weapons in each hand without incurring the Two-Weapon Fighting penalties?

You never answered my question about the disarmed axe of did I miss it. That is the only scenario left not discussed. I may have missed it.

I did repost it to make it rules legal since I goofed the first time by using the wrong feats.

We have always played it, if you lost your weapon, you lost your remaining attacks with that hand, though I am not sure I can support that either way by Raw

No rules to back it up means it can't be valid. I will accept that.

Actually what I said is, I don't think the RAW supports or doesn't support my interpretation. I don't think by RAW, you can say definitively one way or the other. We can argue both sides of it and I think both sides will have valid arguments because the RAW is not definitive on it

My point was that you at...

well there is no rule that says you can switch which hand is primary mid full attack either. The feat Quick draw would let you draw another with your primary hand, I think without the feat, you loose the rest of the attacks with the primary hand, you still get the offhand attacks of course, but that is the way I read it YMMV

I had a fighter lose three masterwork weapons to a monsters corrosive slime once. He quickdrew a new weapon and continued his attack routine when the previous one was destroyed.

Sure, none of my characters have quick draw, if they did, that would be fine with the same hand.

Theo Stern wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

HangarFlying wrote:

Gentlemen (and possible Ladies),

This has been definitely an interesting debate. I've never had an issue with the interpretation you're espousing (using both weapons in the same turn without incurring TWF penalties) being used as a house rule. I just don't believe it is supported by RAW. I don't think there is anything more that needs to be said, especially considering I would be just repeating myself. Suffice it to say, I believe I have adequately stated my position throughout this thread.

I do agree that it would be nice for Paizo to address this issue in the FAQ. As such, I would like to post (repost, maybe) the question so that it can be FAQ'd:

Question: While holding a weapon in each hand, can you attack with both in the same turn without incurring the Two-Weapon Fighting penalties (-6 for Primary Hand, -10 for Off Hand, 1/2 Strength to Damange for Off Hand - these penalties not accounting for Light Weapons or the Two-Weapon Fighting feat)? Can multiple attacks provided by high BAB alternate between the weapons in each hand without incurring the Two-Weapon Fighting penalties?

You never answered my question about the disarmed axe of did I miss it. That is the only scenario left not discussed. I may have missed it.

I did repost it to make it rules legal since I goofed the first time by using the wrong feats.

We have always played it, if you lost your weapon, you lost your remaining attacks with that hand, though I am not sure I can support that either way by Raw

No rules to back it up means it can't be valid. I will accept that.

Actually what I said is, I don't think the RAW supports or doesn't support my interpretation. I don't think by RAW, you can say definitively one way or the other. We can argue both sides of it and I think both sides will have valid arguments because the RAW is not definitive on it

(

Even if you argue against the above, the ONLY negative impact is that a badly-written archetype loses a bit of effectiveness in one ability (not the first time they screwed one up, look at Pole-arm fighter and the recent Trip FAQ update). That's it. If you try to treat ALL use of multiple weapons as two-weapon fighting you are completely screwing people who have quick draw and a backup weapon and somehow lose their primary in mid full-round*, you're completely screwing thrown weapon users, and you're completely screwing those who possess multiple weapons for the purpose of DR. All three of these are flavorful and interesting character builds or strategies that do not in any way feel "cheesy" to me.

*

Why is it screwing quick draw and thrown weapon fighters? you loose your weapon, you draw another in the same hand and continue. You throw weapons you can throw your allotted number with your primary hand, or your allotted number with your primary hand plus your extra attacks with your secondary hand and take duel wielding penalties.I agree with the DR piece, I just think the complexity is not worth it for just that. Take this example:

HangarFlying wrote:

Gentlemen (and possible Ladies),

This has been definitely an interesting debate. I've never had an issue with the interpretation you're espousing (using both weapons in the same turn without incurring TWF penalties) being used as a house rule. I just don't believe it is supported by RAW. I don't think there is anything more that needs to be said, especially considering I would be just repeating myself. Suffice it to say, I believe I have adequately stated my position throughout this thread.

I do agree that it would be nice for Paizo to address this issue in the FAQ. As such, I would like to post (repost, maybe) the question so that it can be FAQ'd:

Question: While holding a weapon in each hand, can you attack with both in the same turn without incurring the Two-Weapon Fighting penalties (-6 for Primary Hand, -10 for Off Hand, 1/2 Strength to Damange for Off Hand - these penalties not accounting for Light Weapons or the Two-Weapon Fighting feat)? Can multiple attacks provided by high BAB alternate between the weapons in each hand without incurring the Two-Weapon Fighting penalties?

You never answered my question about the disarmed axe of did I miss it. That is the only scenario left not discussed. I may have missed it.

I did repost it to make it rules legal since I goofed the first time by using the wrong feats.

We have always played it, if you lost your weapon, you lost your remaining attacks with that hand, though I am not sure I can support that either way by Raw