cp's page

Quote:

Bestiary wrote:

Some fey, humanoids, monstrous humanoids, and outsiders do not possess natural attacks. These creatures can make unarmed strikes, but treat them as weapons for the purpose of determining attack bonuses, and they must use the two-weapon fighting rules when making attacks with both hands.

So we have two scenarios (let's put this at a high enough BAB to warrant additional attacks):

+6 Base Attack: Right hand +6, left hand +1
OR
+6 Base Attack: Right hand +2, left hand -2

Which one makes more sense?

Sense has nothing to do with it man. Read the damn rule:

they must use TWF rules when making attacks with both hands

Presuming that that the off hand weapon is light and your right hand was chosen as the primary attack, and they have the TWF feat it goes

Right hand 4, Left hand 4. And per James it doesn't matter if he takes the third attack at -1.

As for sense - yes, I have done TWF in LARP - and I absolutely think that if you are using two weapons you are not as accurate as if you are using one.

Again, your bestiary quote does not specify the time period in which you are considered two weapon fighting. Going by just that, if I made an attack with a dagger last week in my left hand and a sword this week in my right, thats two weapon fighting. THIS IS INCREDIBLY RIDICULOUS AND CLEARLY UNINTENDED.

Rather than making up a time period (whether its one round or one week), perhaps you should refer to the two weapon fighting rules to see how it works. These rules tell you exactly how long and when the penalties apply.

Again,

The only thing ridiculous is your willingness to make any specious argument to put forward your position.

Because rather than admitting that the rules say you can not attack with both hands in the same round without taking TWF penalties - you invent ever more contrived and ridiculous explanations.

cp wrote:

It doesn't say the hands are off-hands when TWFing. It doesn't say the hands are off-hands when gaining extra attacks.

It merely says that the hands are OFF-hands. Period.

No it doesn't. I don't agree with the timing portion of his position, but there is nothing that says the other weapon is off-hand unless you are using the Two-Weapon Fighting rules which come into play when you want an attack beyond what you are allowed by virtue of your Base Attack. That is the only instance when off-hand comes into play.

Quote:

Penalties for fighting with multiple weapons are reduced by –2 with the primary hand and by –6 with off hands.

Nothing about when gaining multiple attacks. The only requisite is ATTACKING WITH MULTIPLE WEAPONS.

You skipped the first sentence under Two-Weapon fighting and then the next sentence that states "when you fight this way..." This was covered a while ago and you may have missed it. There is a clause in there about gaining additional attacks and it is the opening portion of the Special Attack.

Nooooo you are just suffering an inability to read. I'm quoting multiweapon fighting.

Multiweapon Fighting (Combat)

This multi-armed creature is skilled at making attacks with multiple weapons.

Prerequisites: Dex 13, three or more hands.

Benefit: Penalties for fighting with multiple weapons are reduced by –2 with the primary hand and by –6 with off hands.

Normal: A creature without this feat takes a –6 penalty on attacks made with its primary hand and a –10 penalty on attacks made with all of its off hands. (It has one primary hand, and all the others are off hands.) See Two-Weapon Fighting.

Special: This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms.

People in your camp are saying that TWF penalties apply only when an extra attack is made.

READ.

The parenthetical expression says the creature has one primary hand and all other hands are off hands.

Nothing about extra attacks.

Read the benefit - penalties for fighting with MULTIPLE weapons are reduced.

cp wrote:

Quote:

Bestiary wrote:

Some fey, humanoids, monstrous humanoids, and outsiders do not possess natural attacks. These creatures can make unarmed strikes, but treat them as weapons for the purpose of determining attack bonuses, and they must use the two-weapon fighting rules when making attacks with both hands.

I don't think this can be repeated enough. Some humanoids... do not posses natural attacks.

they must use the two-weapon fighting rules when making attacks with both hands.

Let's see how many of those creatures have a high enough Base Attack bonus ....[more blather]

Completely choosing to ignore the point.

Advance any of these creatures so they have BAB 11. Or ignore them and use pfs legit character races.

So BAB 11. You swing with weapon one and weapon two.

Lets quote from the bestiary again.

and they must use the two-weapon fighting rules when making attacks with both hands.

Attack 1: I swing with my sword.

Attack 2: I swing with my flail.

I have made two seperate individual attacks.

If I use a full attack action, it happens in one round. If I use two attack actions, it happens in two. Both should be legal.

The assumed restriction that using both hands in one round constitutes making attacks with 'both hands' is arbitrary (because no time period is ever specified) and conjured from somewhere other than the written rules.

Yes, you've attacked with both hands. But at what point does it reset? When am I safe to use my left hand? The next round? A minute? An hour? The rules dont actually say; they do note that you take penalties if you use the specificly provided TWF rules though.

The assumed restriction..... {snicker}

So - by your assumption you can choose any arbitrary time period you want.

So, if you want TWF penalties to apply the time period can be 41.7 years. If you don't want it to apply it can be 4.2 seconds.

We all get to choose!

Yes your interpretation is awesome! Why do you even bother to roll dice, you might as well just assume you hit!

And you have vorpal weapons!

And you can cast 23 spells in a round.

Why, I don't know why we need rules at all when I can make words mean whatever I want them to!

It all depends on what the meaning of *is* is!

I did not have sex with that girl!

cp wrote:

KrispyXIV wrote:

cp wrote:

they must use the two-weapon fighting rules when making attacks with both hands.

And the only time you're actually doing this is when you're using the two weapon fighting rules.

Oh no.. you're not wiggling away that easy.

I am an elf with a flail in one hand and a sword in the other making iterative attacks. (according to your very clear, repeated posts)

'splain to me lucy how the clear language.. "when making attacks with both hands" does not apply.

ie

Quote:

Bestiary wrote:

Some fey, humanoids, monstrous humanoids, and outsiders do not possess natural attacks. These creatures can make unarmed strikes, but treat them as weapons for the purpose of determining attack bonuses, and they must use the two-weapon fighting rules when making attacks with both hands.

Attack 1: I swing with my sword.

Attack 2: I swing with my flail.

I have made two seperate individual attacks.

If I use a full attack action, it happens in one round. If I use two attack actions, it happens in two. Both should be legal.

The assumed restriction that using both hands in one round constitutes making attacks with 'both hands' is arbitrary (because no time period is ever specified) and conjured from somewhere other than the written rules.

Yes, you've attacked with both hands. But at what point does it reset? When am I safe to use my left hand? The next round? A minute? An hour? The rules dont actually say; they do note that you take penalties if you use the specificly provided TWF rules though.

cp wrote:

So there is a 5 handed demon, Str 100. It has the multi-weapon fighting feat, and is armed with 5 long swords.

So I guess you're ignoring the multi-fighting text that says "one hand is primary and all others are off-hand?".

So by your example, you're going to let this demon get NO attack penalties and full strength bonuses, hmm?

Despite the clear text that say "ALL OTHERS ARE OFF-HAND?"

I'm not sure how this is relevant.

If it takes the Multi Weapon Fighting action, it obviously gets it iterative attacks with its primary hand with TWF penalties, then its off hand attacks in addition.

If it takes a normal full attack, it only gets a number of attacks based on its BAB. This is because you never refer to the Two Weapon Fighting rules, because they are not relevant to making a series of normal attacks. Which can be with any combination of available weapons.

Only because you're being willfully obtuse.

It doesn't say the hands are off-hands when TWFing. It doesn't say the hands are off-hands when gaining extra attacks.

It merely says that the hands are OFF-hands. Period.

Quoting:

This multi-armed creature is skilled at making attacks with multiple weapons.

Penalties for fighting with multiple weapons are reduced by –2 with the primary hand and by –6 with off hands.

Nothing about when gaining multiple attacks. The only requisite is ATTACKING WITH MULTIPLE WEAPONS.

cp wrote:

they must use the two-weapon fighting rules when making attacks with both hands.

And the only time you're actually doing this is when you're using the two weapon fighting rules.

Oh no.. you're not wiggling away that easy.

I am an elf with a flail in one hand and a sword in the other making iterative attacks. (according to your very clear, repeated posts)

'splain to me lucy how the clear language.. "when making attacks with both hands" does not apply.

ie

Bestiary wrote:

Some fey, humanoids, monstrous humanoids, and outsiders do not possess natural attacks. These creatures can make unarmed strikes, but treat them as weapons for the purpose of determining attack bonuses, and they must use the two-weapon fighting rules when making attacks with both hands.

So there is a 5 handed demon, Str 100. It has the multi-weapon fighting feat, and is armed with 5 long swords.

So I guess you're ignoring the multi-fighting text that says "one hand is primary and all others are off-hand?".

So by your example, you're going to let this demon get NO attack penalties and full strength bonuses, hmm?

Despite the clear text that say "ALL OTHERS ARE OFF-HAND?"

fretgod99 wrote:

"If you attack with both hands in the same round, you're TWF"

Except it does.

Quoting again...

Bestiary wrote:

Some fey, humanoids, monstrous humanoids, and outsiders do not possess natural attacks. These creatures can make unarmed strikes, but treat them as weapons for the purpose of determining attack bonuses, and they must use the two-weapon fighting rules when making attacks with both hands.

The Bestiary trumps ANYTHING written in the Player handbook.

Humans, elves, dwarves etc are humanoids without natural attacks. they must use the two-weapon fighting rules when making attacks with both hands.

cp wrote:

How do you explain that the penalties for TWFing do not persist until his next turn - contrary to all other examples, like power attacking, combat expertise, fighting defensively, etc. which do?

Because unlike Power Attack, Combat Expertise, etc, he's no longer benefiting from TWF outside his turn either.

So you're saying your interpretation of the rules makes more sense because it sets up yet another contradiction in the pathfinder rules.

Whereas my interpretation follows a standard interpretation that penalties last until my next round.

And, in fact your interpretation creates several OTHER rule problems.

So, initiative is rolled. The TWF fighter is flatfooted but has combat reflexes. An opponent walks by, drawing an AoO.

Your saying my penalties depend on whether or not I win initiative rather than the fact I am wielding two weapons?

Fighter 5 is twfing with a +1 longsword (primary) and a +1 silver dagger, against a golem.

A Dr/10 silver lycanthrope walks past, and provokes an AoO.

What happens?

If you play by RAW, the fighter may choose either hand to make an AoO with. He attacks with the offhand dagger with a -2 to the attack.

This is how the game is intended to be played.

Now, if you play by the TWF-penalties-only-apply-when-you-gain-extra-attacks-silliness then

How do you explain that the penalties for TWFing do not persist until his next turn - contrary to all other examples, like power attacking, combat expertise, fighting defensively, etc. which do?

Check the table here: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/two-weapon-fighting-combat

The table (RAW) doesn't say that you have TWF penalties when taking an extra attack.

It says:

"Off-hand weapon is light and Two-Weapon Fighting feat"

Bestiary wrote:

Some fey, humanoids, monstrous humanoids, and outsiders do not possess natural attacks. These creatures can make unarmed strikes, but treat them as weapons for the purpose of determining attack bonuses, and they must use the two-weapon fighting rules when making attacks with both hands.

I don't think this can be repeated enough. Some humanoids... do not posses natural attacks.

they must use the two-weapon fighting rules when making attacks with both hands.

to wield is to use

We quite agree. Wielding the weapon is independent of whether extra attacks are made - it is merely defined by whether or not the weapons are used.

So, here's comes along the ability:

Equal Opportunity (Ex)

At 13th level, when a two-weapon warrior makes an attack of opportunity, he may attack once with both his primary and secondary weapons. The penalties for attacking with two weapons apply normally.

Its not the character's turn. He is wielding a sword and dagger because last turn he attacked a mage with both sword and dagger.

So, a rogue provokes an AoO.

Now, on his last turn (by some interpretations) he is NOT TWFing because he didn't use extra attacks on his last attack.

But... he is wielding two weapons. Strange.

So, even though he *isn't* TWFing - he has a primary and a secondary weapon. How strange. Especially since the rules fairly plain say he may attack with primary and secondary weapons.

Suppose a 6th level ranger with the two weapon fighting style and is equipped with two daggers. He has no other weapons.

He elects to fight TWF.

Unfortunately he is fighting a remorhaz.

Case A). He attacks with his first dagger, using the penalties for TWF. He hits, but sadly, his dagger melts. He continues his attacks with the second dagger. He rolls a 20 - but fails to confirm.

And sadly - this dagger also melts.

So, for those that say TWF penalties only apply because of the added attacks - what should we do? Should his crit confirm - because he didn't make additional attacks?

Case B). Again announces TWF attacks. Again hits with the dagger, using TWF penalties. Again the dagger melts.

He switches the dagger to his other hand. Should he now be able to choose NOT to make TWF attacks? So you're saying the player should recalculate his attacks mid routines?

Case C). Said ranger is fighting two reyalfdnim. reyalfdnim, hanging back, readies a stun blast after the rangers first attack.
Ranger attacks hits. Reyalfdnim blasts him and he fails his stun save, and drops everything in his hands. Uber Party member as a swift action removes the stunned condition.

So the ranger at this point has made one attack of a full attack action. Both his daggers are at his feet -but learning from his last encounter he has a backup weapon - a Sword and the Quickdraw feat.

He draws his sword.

Now you tell me:

a). Do Two weapon fighting penalties apply?

Case D:

Ranger is STILL living. After running up and hitting a mage with a 2h great spear (reach) a rogue sashays by. Does the Ranger get an AoO for wielding armor spikes?

Mark Moreland (and JB) says no.

Wielding is using not just holding so in order to wield two weapons you must use two weapons, however wielding two weapons does not constitute two weapon fighting as it is written in the combat chapter.

If wielding is just holding then a fighter holding a shield and a longsword has to take penalties since a shield is also a weapon.

Three rounds of combat. Fighter is TWFing, with a long sword and ax.

Next round - fighter runs at a mage.

Per double strike he has the ability to attack with a primary and an offhand weapon, as part of a standard action.

Run through the qualifications to use the feat. Can he invoke a std action. Yep.
Does he have a primary and off hand weapon. ABSOLUTELY. Does he have to use them - no.

"At 9th level, a two-weapon warrior may, as a standard action, make one attack with both his primary and secondary weapons". The GM is therefor obliged to allow him to use the feat.

The designation of primary and secondary occurs before any attacks are made.

Suppose the fighter has a silver short sword and an iron dagger, as well as the power attack feat, and the mage has DR10/silver.

The designation of the primary weapon before any attacks are rolled - and its critical. It affects strength bonus and DR penetration. Even if the blade is melted or sundered (remoraz) the TWF penalties apply for the duration of the turn, regardless of the number of attacks.

Ashiel - but I have shown SEVERAL examples where no attacks are involved in the definition of primary and offhand weapons. You are right that there are no left handedness or right handedness. But there is primary and off hand.
Here's another example:

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/magus/archetypes/paizo---magus -archetypes/spellblade

Spell summons a force dagger to his offhand. No reference made to extra attacks.

Attempting an abbreviated summary of both arguments, omitting quite a few ... odd points:

a. Attacking with a weapon in the 'off hand' alone should incur the penalties .... It is backed by a statement made by a staff member and an ability for the shield fighter

Also backed by the ability of rondelero pistol wielder, the doublestrike feature of the two weapon fighter,

Two weapon rend:

(Striking with both of your weapons simultaneously, you can use them to deliver devastating wounds.

Prerequisites: Dex 17, Double Slice, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +11.

Benefit: If you hit an opponent with both your primary hand and your off-hand weapon, you deal an additional 1d10 points of damage plus 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier. You can only deal this additional damage once each round.

(Note: having a primary and off hand weapon has nothing to do with the number of attacks you choose to make. You can gain the feat even if you satisfy the twos hit requirement with a longsword and armor spikes.)

.. double weapons (double weapon is a special class of 2h weapon that can be treated as being a primary and an off hand weapon. That capacity of being a primary and off hand weapon exists independent of the intent to use it)...

the bestiary (you have one primary hand - all others are off hands)...

Force athame http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/magus/archetypes/paizo---magus -archetypes/spellblade (spell summons force blade to off hand REGARDLESS of whether the mage has a primary weapon or not; regardless if he is making attacks or not.

there is LOTS of other wording...

cp wrote:

The warrior has a primary and a secondary weapon regardless of whether he chooses to make the attack or not.

Primary and secondary is a function of wielding two weapons - not whether or not you make attacks.

You're going to have to back this up. Also, you've already been proven wrong... by the english language! *rad pose*

I'm afraid James Jacobs trumps your understanding of the English language.

James Jacobs wrote:
If you want to deliberately lower the amount of attacks you can make in a turn, I suppose you could do this. It's not very efficient, though, since you'd still suffer all the penalties for wielding two weapons at once, and once you started switching around weapons it can get overly complicated and muddled and annoying. It feels like needless and pointless complication, in other words, ultimately resulting in worse (as in fewer) attacks for the PC in question.

That wording is there to indicate that the second weapon is allowed in this case, and since this is an archetype focused on TWF'ing it is only natural they give benefits with regard to the second weapon. In order to balance it out they added the TWF penalties so you can choose to attack with a higher bonus or make an extra attack at a lower bonus just like -->>>Two Weapon Fighting or shall I say in the same way.

We agree on the mechanics - that misses the point.

The warrior has a primary and a secondary weapon regardless of whether he chooses to make the attack or not.

Primary and secondary is a function of wielding two weapons - not whether or not you make attacks.

cp wrote:

a). James Jacobs statement that TWF rules apply whether you accept an additional attack or not.

James Jacobs has indeed said that.

cp wrote:

B. Per RAW it is not possible to switch weapons freely between the primary and offhand.

James Jacobs also said that switching a held object from one hand to the other doesn't require an action in this post.

I agree, I also said that about 2 pages back. And thats how I house rule (multiple sequential weapons for iterative attacks is not twfing).

But their is a slight difference.

In the first case, he is confirming that the RAW say that TWF penalties apply regardless if an additional attacks are made.

In the second case he is saying it is a free action to switch objects between hands. However, the number of free actions in a round is subject to the GM - and subject to GM fiat.

So, while I personally allow iterative attacks to be used with any weapon in any hand it is subject to gm fiat

Your response here is once again related directly to two weapon fighting. Heck, it even refers you to two weapon fighting. There is no indication here that you have Primary or Off hands except when using these specific rules.

you dont have a main hand or an offhand outside of any round you TWF.

Of course there is no need to mention primary and secondary outside of these circumstances. If you're only attacking with one weapon, its primary.

If you have only one wife you don't call her a primary wife. She's just your wife.

Primary, by definition means first, foremost, main - ie., first out of MORE than one.

Some make the case from the wording of the TWF
'if you wield two weapons, you may gain an extra attack. Blah Blah penalties apply'.

The penalties apply from the wielding of two weapons - not from the choice of gaining extra attacks.

Here's another edgecase example:

At 9th level, a two-weapon warrior may, as a standard action, make one attack with both his primary and secondary weapons. The penalties for attacking with two weapons apply normally.

Notice that the two-weapon warrior may make attack with his primary and secondary weapons.

The ability to attack with a primary and a secondary is NOT a condition of choosing to make the attack. He has primary and secondary weapons regardless of whether he chooses to make a double strike or not.

Primary and secondary is SOLELY a function of wielding two weapons.

If the scimitar was in a sheath when the axe was disarmed, and it had to be quick drawn(which is legal by the rules) would you also say that it still can't be used?

By the way - I'm not really sure what your disagreement is?

Certainly you may quick draw a weapon into your primary hand.

Wielding multiple weapons in succession is not dual wielding.

cp wrote:

For those just joining the conversation

A. TWF rules apply anytime a character wields two weapons.
The evidence for this is:

a). James Jacobs statement that TWF rules apply whether you accept an additional attack or not.
b). Examples of the Rondelero class, (and others) which states the same: that a penalty is imposed when wielding two weapons.

Please refer to those statments (and previous discussion) before making an unsupported argument saying it only applies when making an extra attack.

B. Per RAW it is not possible to switch weapons freely between the primary and offhand.

Evidence for this is
a). The wording from double weapons, which says that a double weapon weilded in 1 hand, or a double weapon wielded in both hands can only use one of the two weapons.

To the above discussion I would add that so much of the discussion focuses on assigning an improper meaning to wield .

When a surgeon wields a scalpel - he is cutting.
When a woodsmen wields an ax against a tree - he is hacking the tree with the ax.

When you wield a sword - you are using the sword as a tool - and in the context of combat - that means attacking with.

When you wield two weapons - means therefore when you attack with two weapons.

Ignore what CP just said. All of this has had counter interpretations. He is not presenting unbiased points.

Rather than just ignoring it - why don't you counter it with *actual rules*. Its perfectly OK to make a summation of any counterpoints.

But so far I haven't seen *any* quotes from developers, any rules from any source that says the rules only apply when extra attacks are used.

Can to find me a reference in Pathfinder to the 3.0 concept of Handedness/Ambidextry? Because as far as I know, this whole idea has been gone since 3.5; you dont have a main hand or an offhand outside of any round you TWF.

The question is unrelated to handedness. You do not choose to be right handed or left handed.

In pathfinder, you have one primary hand. All other hands are "off".

The definitive rule source (most recent) is the bestiary.

Quoting:

Multiweapon Fighting (Combat)
This multi-armed creature is skilled at making attacks with multiple weapons.

Prerequisites: Dex 13, three or more hands.

Benefit: Penalties for fighting with multiple weapons are reduced by –2 with the primary hand and by –6 with off hands.

Normal: A creature without this feat takes a –6 penalty on attacks made with its primary hand and a –10 penalty on attacks made with all of its off hands. (It has one primary hand, and all the others are off hands.) See Two-Weapon Fighting.

Special: This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms.

For those just joining the conversation

A. TWF rules apply anytime a character wields two weapons.
The evidence for this is:

a). James Jacobs statement that TWF rules apply whether you accept an additional attack or not.
b). Examples of the Rondelero class, (and others) which states the same: that a penalty is imposed when wielding two weapons.

Please refer to those statments (and previous discussion) before making an unsupported argument saying it only applies when making an extra attack.

B. Per RAW it is not possible to switch weapons freely between the primary and offhand.

Evidence for this is
a). The wording from double weapons, which says that a double weapon weilded in 1 hand, or a double weapon wielded in both hands can only use one of the two weapons.

To the above discussion I would add that so much of the discussion focuses on assigning an improper meaning to wield .

When a surgeon wields a scalpel - he is cutting.
When a woodsmen wields an ax against a tree - he is hacking the tree with the ax.

When you wield a sword - you are using the sword as a tool - and in the context of combat - that means attacking with.

When you wield two weapons - means therefore when you attack with two weapons.

What saddens me is my 6th level fighter can't throw two daggers in sequence, one from each hand, without massive penalties according to some people here.

A. If you want an ability, you have to purchase it. Thats called TWF.

B. If its just the ability to throw two daggers, Quickdraw gives you the ability to throw weapons at your full BAB.

So, if all you are trying to do is throw 2 daggers - quickdraw is all you need.

If you want to throw three daggers at 6th level - you need TWF.

Lets change the OPs' situation around a little, without changing how it plays with the rules. Instead of an axe and a scimitar, lets give him a quarterstaff.

How does this change things?

Does he now have to either always attack with the staff as a two handed weapon or take the penalties for it as if two weapon fighting?

When you have a double weapons, every round you will make an election. You will either use the weapons as a two handed weapons (no TWF penalties) or you will use it as a double weapon (TWF penalties apply).

It does not need to be a quarter staff, it could also have been a gnome hooked hammer. The OP could swap between hitting them with the pick end and the hammer end, and as long as they did not make more attacks than their standard BAB allows, they would not take the penalties.

Except you CANT:

You can use a double weapon to fight as if fighting with two weapons, but if you do, you incur all the normal attack penalties associated with fighting with two weapons, just as if you were using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. A double weapon can be wielded as a one-handed weapon, but it cannot be used as a double weapon when wielded in this way—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.

Additionally, you cut off the quote deceptively - the very next line categorically illustrates that you cannot.

The character can also choose to use a double weapon two-handed, attacking with only one end of it.

However, let's move this discussion forward...

1. I suggest you can use any wielded (equipped and ready to attack) weapon for your iteratives.
2. I suggest that when you do this you will not invoke TWF.

Wielded does not mean equipped. A backpack can be equipped - but it is not wielded. Nor does it mean ready.

"He wielded the sword with skill and all the saw it were amazed." It means used - as with a tool.

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.

So rewording this makes this a bit clearer.
If you attack with 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.

I suggest that this interpretation makes a great deal more sense than "when you have a second weapon equipped and ready to attack". Your interpretation requires the GM and players to know intent. And admits all kinds of strangeness to the rules.

Finally, notice the last line: WHEN YOU FIGHT IN THIS WAY . Not when you carry.

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.

Nothing interesting here. If you are attacking with two weapons you can choose either one to attack with first.

note, that there is no direct link from the iteratives part of the Full Attack paragraph to the Two Weapon fighting section.

You can make no inference of rules based on distance. Bestiary2 rules are rules despite that they are separated by several hundred pages of rules in the CRB, APG. The fact that the bestiary does not include combat rules does not mean that the Core Rules of combat do not apply.

If I wish to use magic - I am governed by the rules on magic.
If movement - but the rules on movement.
If I wish to wield (attack) with two weapons - I follow the rules on TWF.

So in a world of spell casters.. why did the jail not have some provision about spell casters?

but ignoring that - typically when you go to a jail you are escorted to a cell. The jailor is going to frisk you and make damn sure nothing happens.

And usually unless the jailor has motiviation - interactions with prisoners will be observed.

Ignoring that: If a jailor (or you) watching in the jailors stead sees a prisoner disappear two things should happen.

1. Lockdown. If the wizard has left - there is nothing you can do. However, if the wizard has polymorphed, illusioned, invisibled, charmed. Ie., if he HASNT gotten past the bars - the first thing to do is lock the cell down.

2. The second thing to do is scream for help. In matters of law - let a relevent authority to make a decision on what to do.

Using those two guidelines - I might not suspect invisibility but I would definitely lock it down, scream for help and then try to do what I could do that woulnd't get me blamed as an accessory.

Ie, search the cell. Detect magic. etc.

There are no rules that state I can only use one weapon if I don't TWF.

Sure, except the rules detail what you may do, so they generally wouldn't anyway.

You may take a full round action or a standard action and a move action.

You may take a five foot step, if you have made no movement, in a round.

When you are in a grapple you may attempt a full round escape artist to escape.

Generally speaking, you may:

a). Fight with 1h weapon. You may equip a shield if you wish and there are rules for shield usage.
b). Fight with a 2h weapon.
c). Fight with a weapon, drop it, and quickdraw it.
d). Wield two weapons - in which case you are two weapon fighting.
and accrue TWF penalties.

But, here's where things get weird. Since you can draw a weapon from a sheath as a free action (with quickdraw) - how can transfering a weapon from one hand to another not be a free action?

In which case, so long as you are not gaining the TWF additional attack - rather than making the player say "I'm using a free action to switch the second weapon to my primary hand" its just easier to allow iteratives from either hand, while not getting strength penalties to the second weapon.

So technically, you're wielding one weapon at a time, with multiple weapons.

quite a lot to an elephant?

I agree with you whole-heartedly, but you'd be shocked how many times I've been shot down by my DM because I wanted to do something a little interesting. For example, I wanted to make an Osirion Paladin with a large scorpion bonded mount (I'd prefer that over a camel as a desert-themed mount any day). Mechanically, it's quite possible (read ultimate magic animal companions and the rules for a paladin's divine bond). However, because it wasn't horse, pony, or a dog, he wouldn't allow it. What a fantastic, creative world we live in, right?

I wouldn't let you have it out of the box either unless you showed a rule that allowed it.

But I absolutely *would* allow it - and encourage it - as a plot development hook.

Want a scorpion mount? Go to the desert wasteland, to the sacred site of Ashkenazi, holy to the scorpion people. Do a signature task and be consecrated in the site of your God.

Survive the pit of scorpions and taste the kiss of your mount.

Survive and you will truly be chosen of Osirius...

Kinda what Cheapy said. I mean, heck, I'm even fine with pounce. You're still limited to the number of natural attacks you can have. Just as long as you don't create a 12 armed multi-weapon fighting monstrosity, all should be alright.

Wasn't the ruling on eidolon that the limitation applied to the total number of attacks, not just natural attacks?

And didn't JB's comment on Synthesist say that you and the eidolon become one creature?

My interpretation off the cuff without examining the rules would be that your total number of attacks is limited by the fact that you are merged with an eidolon.

So, a TWFing, sythesist with 12 arms, 2 weapons, and a bite attack via eldridtch heritage is still going to be capped by the eidolon limitation.

The rumor that there is no handedness goes on and on and on, no matter how many times squished.

Personally I think its a misapplication - primary hand and off hand is not tied to a left hand or right hand. But losing that certainly has not made the issue easier.

If you read the multi-weapon fighting feat it states that one hand is primary and all others are off-hand.

To my mind, it is clear that when you wield two weapons - you incur TWF penalties. However, in any turn you may elect to wield or carry it.

Essentially this is just making clear to your GM that you are or are not incurring TWF penalties.

As for having a hand, and therefore being able to make an unarmed strike: again (having, carrying) is not choosing to wield.
Its only when you choose to wield that you incur the penalties.

So an example.
1 handed reach weapon does not threaten adjacent.
dagger in hand.

On your turn you can:
TWF: accept TWF penalties, threaten 5&10.

Non TWF: Choose either reach weapon or dagger. Threaten appropriately.

Update: Although I suppose if you have Quickdraw much of this is moot. You can quickdraw at the end fo your attack routine and be wielding both after your attack routine has finished.

So you have no issue with balance or damage or with the definition of off-hand.

Correct.

However, in PF the size of the "primary" weapon has no bearing on TWF, the higher penalties are associated with the size of the off-handed or "secondary" weapon.

There's the rub. Let me quote it again

Thus, wielding a two-handed reach weapon would negate your ability to "wield" armor spikes. This isn't necessarily clear in the rules, but I just discussed it with Jason, and we're both on the same page about the intent.

You may ONLY gain TWF benefits when the weapon you wield in your primary hand is 1h or light.

What is your issue then? Do you view this as a cheap way of gaining more attacks?

I actually don't care if its cheap, if legit, I would applaud your cleverness. I may not let you play it in my home campaign (for balance reasons) but in a PFS campaign if everyone is having fun: Bravo.

To me its just a question of
a). What do the rules actually say.
b). I think that allowing this brand of cheese spoils versimilitude a bit - it encourages archers to wear spiked gloves (which they never did)
and 2h reach fighters (and wizards) to have armor spikes or gauntlets or...
c) Finally I think its important to try to build a common understanding of the rules.

Like giving your example.. why you can't spring and vital. Why you can't spell cast and charge. Why the attack at the end of a charge is NOT equivalent to a move and an attack action.

Alright, look, that build you posted is illegal for a few reasons. One: It uses a wand that cannot possibly be afforded before 7th level by normal rules. Two: You cannot use TWFing with flurry because flurry IS TWFing. Three: Even if you could, the shadow only has one natural weapon, meaning you don't have two weapons to fight with (flurry bypasses this). In the end you have 2 attacks (3 at 6th level, 4 with haste) that do 1d6 strength damage. In the mean-time the enemy cleric has begun commanding you because you're undead type, or possibly bursting positive energy to heal the damage your companions are dealing while killing you. Sure, the tactic somewhat deadly, but has nothing to do with the rest of the discussion because these are special attacks that cannot be combined with normal TWFing for extra doses of the effect. If they could, they'd work with a manufactured weapon and...

It was off the cuff - but it looks to me like you can get two attacks from iteration, one from TWF, one from ITWF, and one for haste which is 5 attacks. So, ignore the haste. A regular fighter makes 2 iteratives. the TWF fighter is going to make 4. And because of the twf - is going to kill you.

The point is that for TWFing its never the direct hitpoint damage you have to look at -- its edge case balance issues - like str dmg.

As for the rest of it - Good luck commanding me as a monk. Especially since I can easily use str as a dump stat. Good luck on the bursting too. 4d6 (avg 14(save for 7)) vs 75-ish hp.

As for "they cannot be combined with normal TWFing attacks" I dont' really know what your saying. Regarding only having one natural weapon - it doesn't matter. Monks can use the same hand 5 times - or a foot, an elbow, and feral lets them use their natural weapon.

As for the money issue. Ok - whatever level you want. But personally its WAY easy to be way over money in PFS. The mods are joke easy.

So, why are you taking issue with a two handed fighter having a kick attack? They are not likely to have a Wand of Shadow Projection.

Hey Stynkk. Like I said (often) if the question was asked if it was a balance problem the answer is no. Have fun.

Either way, not overpowering enough to worry about IMO.

The real utility of TWF comes from being able to land effects, not from hp damage.

So take something like:

Monk 2, R2, Fighter x. Be a half elf. Run around in shadow projection form(hours / level) (with the alternate racial ability you count as a mage for activating a wand).

Feral Combat training
TWF, ITWF, etc.
Flurry of blows.

Feral lets you Flurry with natural weapons. Shadows have strength drain as natural weapons.

Boost your dex; add weapon focus: natural weapons, finesse

You'll be hitting even with the flurry and twf penalties (which aren't much for light/light.

So instead of 6/1 around 7th level - you'll be doing something like what...five attacks - six with haste? With a 20 dex you are likely to hit 3/4 of them - or 14 points of str dmg. Even if you don't kill him.. you're going to nerf him to the point of irrelevence. At that point its likely he can't move do to his encumbrance - and besides having -7 to hit from strength loss - probably another -4 or more to encumbrance

Okay, seriously, stop quoting flavor text as evidence! That is above the feat's mechanical description for a reason: it's just there to make the feat sound cooler. Nothing in either the benefit or normal section, or the full Two-Weapon Fighting section of the combat chapter says that the primary hand or off-hand must actually be a hand, and several OTHER sources directly say it does not.

Make other arguments all you want, but the moment you pull in flavor text as a major piece of evidence you lose all credibility.

Stabbity, I dont' know where you get that its only flavor text. I know that for a spell, all parts of a spell are authoritative, (text, title, and stat block, and there were rules saying which took precedence.

But that really wasn't my reason to write back: "several OTHER sources directly say it (primary hand) does not."

Could you provide these sources, where they directly say that the primary hand attack when TWFing does not have to be? In 17 pages of twf discussions I have yet to see any such quotes, let alone several.

Are basing some of your opinion on the rules of natural attacks based on what is written in the core? The bestiary is the correct write up. Natural attack rules and two weapon fighting rules are two different things. Off-hand attacks do not require hands, there is no need to hold your foot to kick. As stated, you do not even need hands to two weapon fight.

If you read my lengthy posts above, you see that I have quoted the bestiary as the authoritative rules source several times.

The strictest interpretation of the RAW was that "when you fight with a weapon in each hand". However, the developers then agreed that you do not need an off hand weapon in hand - you may use armor spikes, for example.

The developers have not stated that you do not need a weapon in your primary hand.

Now, personally, I agree with you that it is not a bridge too far to allow characters to TWF with unarmed strikes kicks, head butts, what have you - that its a reasonable extension. So are armor boots. But that part is merely opinion.

However, the idea that a (non-double) weapon wielded in two hands can be TWF'd is also only opinion, and for me its a bridge too far. The devs have set up a lot of game rules on the basic structure of either a 1h / light or a light/light combination.

Double weapons. Primary/offhand weapons. Feat Text - not only of TWF, and Improved TWF and TWRend. DornDuergar mastery. All support that the idea of 1h/light or l/l.

I do see the developers moving toward paragraph 3, when they made new rules in the bestiary (as noted before). But I don't see any movement toward paragraph 4.

Personally, I *hate* games with no negative consequences.
I *love* games where each and every encounter you have to wonder - will we win.

Where you have to research your opponents.
Where running away is *often* the right course of action.

Where you build a team - and everyone knows his place in it. Knows the tactics each person will employ.

I couldn't *stand* to play in the situation the OP described - where death has no negative consequences. So like Spalding said I do think there is a difference in expectations.

Here's my suggestion to the OP.

Really make each character unique - tailor it to what that player likes. The differences don't have to be overpowering - they just have to matter to the player.

Let the paladin finish a quest that gives him the ability 1/per game session to call down the light of azatoth to make him standfast.

Or if the player is a mentalist a gem that lets them do jedi mind tricks.

To do this you
a). Have to know what makes your players tick (what they want)
b). Have to create opportunities for them to earn it (give the paladin a quest
c). Give them a sense of accomplishment when they do.

Then that light of azatoth will have 'meaning' and the player (perhaps) won't be so quick to risk losing it to death.

cp wrote:

Should a character using boot blades on ice roll to fall? Have penalties to attack?

This is rediculous. Does a character roll to fall *ever* when kicking? No. Does a character that has foot talons or claws roll to slip? No. Does PF even take this into account? No. Not even when standing in a puddle of Grease.

For the record, I don't think you get I wasn't advocating having to roll to fall.

I was saying "once you change the rules for what seems reasonable to you, it might go to places like rolling to fall."

As for there are no "secondary unarmed strikes" - there are also no secondary armed strikes. The terms are primary and off-hand. Unarmed strikes are treated as light weapons.

Unarmed strikes count as shed light (for purposes of two-weapon attack penalties and so on).

As for Dragon disciples and others treating a bite as primary - I agree. For which they have paid the feat tax. They've met the requirements of the class, so they get the benefits thereof which may well include bite as primary.

The issue is with people that want the bite to be primary without paying the feat tax.
Ie., the progression goes like this:
I should be able to TWF with any limb.
Therefore I should be able to use a bite as my primary.

You have just removed (some of) the incentive to be a dragon disciple.

A player can two weapon fight with a blade boot and armor spikes, all while holding a greatsword. In fact, the player does not even have to have arms, an amputee pc who two weapon fights. It is all about choosing to gain an extra attack, with a penalty. As long as we can drop the "hands" issue of the two weapon fighting rules, we can move on and produce something viable.

Well, purely by the rules, he cannot. However, personally, I think it is a reasonable extrapolation to say one 'limb' becomes primary.

So, agreed, so long as the primary weapon were a boot blade and off hand were armor spikes I would agree in principle that he could gain the benefits of TWF.

However it is a bit of a slippery slope. Is it then OK to make a bite the primary weapon? Where is the differentiation between Multi-attack and multi-weapon fighting?

Should a character using boot blades on ice roll to fall? Have penalties to attack?

It is not at all as cut and dried as you would like to make it. For example - horses (light) are not terribly proficient at fighting with their feet. Despite having no primary attack, the hooves are treated as secondary.

Previous versions of dnd applied penalties for kicking; wouldn't surprise me if the rules for humanoids didn't have that buried somewhere.

You obtain the benefits of the TWF feat when you use:

A). A weapon in your primary hand & and an off hand weapon.
B). A double weapon - which affords you the opportunity to TWF or not at your election. If so it counts the same as A.

A weapon in your primary hand *means* that it is a weapon allowed to be wielded one handed - usually a 1h or light weapon. (See the definition of wielding).

Additionally per the bestiary and comment natural weapons & monk strikes etc may be treated as weapons.

Turgan wrote:

I am not sure if that has already been mentioned: If you want to play an oracle of battle and wear at least medium armor, there is almost no reason not to take the dual-cursed archetype and use lame as your second curse (the one that does not improve with levels). As encumbrance never slows you down, you still have 20ft. of movement.

O.k., there might be a reason. Your first three mystery spells change. Losing "Enlarge Person" might hurt some builds.

For Battle it's probably a really good choice. Hell, for nearly any oracle it's the strongest archetype. Keep in mind that dual cursed oracles have to take two curses, and one of them never provides any of the benefits of the curse.

Your idea here would have the oracle running with a 15' land speed (assuming medium). That's pretty rough.

Dual cursed ain't bad - but its not green or blue. Healing oracles, heaven oracles get no real benefit from dual cursed.

@CP: It's obvious to me you're not going to budge on the point that the use of the term "hand" isn't literal, so I'm just going to give up convincing you here. Have fun making your monks throw their foot at the bad guys to kick.

You obviously haven't read a single thing I post.

Time and time again I have said that Pathfinder (like 3.5 before it) uses off-hand to describe weapons that are not wielded in a hand.

We agree completely on that point - so to continue repeating it just reinforces the fact that you are not making an effort to understand the argument.

cp wrote:

While a soundburst cannot be persistent (nothing instaneous can be)...

What.

Can you substantiate this somehow? Nothing at all in the description of Persistent Spell mentions durations of spells or even any restriction at all on how the feat can be applied.

I certainly can. Complete and utter brain fart. Please disregard this. I was a stark raving lunatic.

cp wrote:

Here's the quote from Mark Moreland

Quote:

Armor spikes are treated as light weapons for the purpose of threatening adjacent squares. Light weapons require the use of limbs, so you would only be able to make attacks with them if you have a free hand. Thus, wielding a two-handed reach weapon would negate your ability to "wield" (and thus threaten with) armor spikes. This isn't necessarily clear in the rules, but I just discussed it with Jason, and we're both on the same page about the intent.

Sigh.

0: Except that Jason chimed in shortly thereafter, and had the opportunity to repudiate and did not. Said they would revisit the issue of AoO's - but said *nothing* about handedness.

1). From the section on armor spikes:
"You can't also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa."

The OP's idea is to attack with a 2h weapon, and to be able to make additional TWF attacks with armor spikes.

Ignore, for the moment that he is using both his primary and an off-hands in the attack. Ignore for the moment that we do not know what penalties to apply to a weapon that use both hands in a TWF attack.
(Primary penalties - off hand penalties, both? average? who knows?)

The OP scenario is using his "off hand" to make an attack with the 2h sword.

Armor spikes specifically says that you *can not* use armor spikes once you've made an off hand attack with another weapon.

2). http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/dorn-dergar-master-combat

Without the feat requires two hands to wield. With the feat you can weild it one handed.

The pre-requisite is TWF.

The whole POINT of this feat is to allow you to use the weapon to fight TWF.

If you believe that you can TWF with ANY 2h weapon - this entire feat is pointless. In fact its worse than pointless - as it imposes a long delay on changing reach.

Also significant is the fact that it is made as part of the TWF feat tree. IE - we will let you TWF with this ONE 2h weapon, if you burn a feat AND pay the feat tax of already TWFing.

Again, which the OP is trying to get for free.

3) You continue to opine that "primary" and offhand are legacy terms which we can substitute any meaning we wish, without any FAQ or ruling that backs this up.

I have continued to show that THIS IS NOT CORRECT. Pathfinder has consistently used the terms primary hand and offhand, and the meanings are well defined.

The wording in question for TW Rend is

Quote:

Striking with both of your weapons simultaneously, you can use them to deliver devastating wounds.

Prerequisites: Dex 17, Double Slice, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +11.

Benefit: If you hit an opponent with both your primary hand and your off-hand weapon, you deal an additional 1d10 points of damage plus 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier. You can only deal this additional damage once each round.

Lets see - how many ways does this contradict your theory.

a). Specifically says both of your weapons. (not one). Identifying that, yes, two weapon fighting means fighting with two weapons.
b). Specifically says "with both your primary hand and your off-hand weapon". Ie that you have a primary hand weapon and an offhand weapon.'

4. Please read this point carefully. There is no question that there are a category of weapons that fit into the category of 'off-hand' weapons that are not wielded in hand. Toe spikes, armor spikes, glabrezu beards, double weapons, monks unarmed strikes. For example.

The fact that they are "off-hand" weapons affects a number of things - for example the application of strength damage.

The category of being an off hand weapon, however, is necessary but not sufficient to be used for TWFing.

You also must abide by all the prescriptions of TWFing. Now a purists ruling would be that you must TWF with a weapon in each hand. (According to the description).

However you could also TWF with a longsword, (shield in off hand) and armor spikes. Your attack would be longsword primary, and armor spikes off-hand.

5. Exactly. Double weapons are the ONLY class of 2h weapon you can gain the benefits of the TWF chain with, at least without a feat.

The fact that they count as one weapon for the purpose of feats is a red herring - and irrelevent. You could TWF with shortswords and it still be tightly feat focused.

Again, there is *no* ruling, no example in Paizo authored mods, no FAQ that says you may TWF with a (non double) 2hw.

6. Well you have amazing powers of mind reading when you can discern the intent ABSENT ANY RULES OR FLAVOR TEXT TO SUPPORT YOUR INTERPRETATION. I happen to think the words mean what they say.
"You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands."

7. Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6. See Two-Weapon Fighting.
Notice the key phrases: primary hand. Two weapons.

Again, you keep saying that primary hand has no meaning absent ANY EVIDENCE. I point to the bestiary multiweapon fighting where it clearly states: primary hand, again with all other hands being off-hand.

Hell man - it even changes the core rules for natural weapons / iteratives - with the developers CONFIRMING the bestiary rules take precedence over the core rulebook, saying that they become treated like TWF rules.

The developers said that Jason was struggling with the rules up until the last moments (core). You'd think that if they were going to confirm the bestiary rules - they might want them to actually mean what they say!

And they do.

Reread my section #4 to explain what off hand means. Reread Mark's quote. Man, there is a direct quote from a developer saying you're *wrong*.

8. You have the correct FAQ and the correct entry - you're just not understanding it.

As for overpowered - it absolutely is not. The question asked was does the RAW allow this, not whether there are any concerns with balance.

No balance issues exist. But essentially everyone will have armor spikes or gauntlet spikes or shield spikes to get the AoO - so it does seem kind of cheesy.