The rules dont cover it, they dont give any explanation as to what the drawback would be, there are no rules for penalties for having one foot, or rules for prosthetic limbs, etc.
The Skull and Shackles Players Guide does have a neat chart on page 4 titled Peg Legs & Eye Patches. Though the first thing it says is that its an optional rules system... it does give drawbacks for exactly those kind of things.
Ah see Killsmith I see it the complete opposite. If you've got all that complexity going with wielding the two weapons and then on top of that complexity you see an opening and get a "free" swing (or 3 or 5 free swings) I don't see how MORE attacks in that 6 second round would be SIMPLER.
Ahorse, you're close to my point. What I'm trying to say is that on your turn you choose to attack with two weapons (ie full attack action), and have accepted the penalties that go with that. Therefore until your next turn when you can choose to only attack (single attack or full attack) with one weapon you're still taking those TWF penalties.
How are you humoring me? You didn't answer my question. And I'd appreciate you dropping your snark.
If you don't apply the penalty to the first attack and the player hits on the number or by 1 and drops the foe he doesn't need the second attack, but if he doesn't drop the enemy he wanted to swing again, but then retroactively his first attack actually didn't hit. Or maybe after 'dropping' the first guy he wants to then step and swing at a second foe instead of rushing to his buddy. But then again his first attack wouldn't have hit so you have a big headache retconning what should have, could have happened.
Its much easier to apply the penalties to the first attack (choosing to TWF at the beginning of his turn) and then letting the chips land where they may.
Spring Attack and Whirlwind Attack aren't good comparisons because neither gives you a penalty while performing those actions/during your turn.
In fact, the rules for a full-attack explicitly state that you can attack once, see how it turns out, and then decide whether to continue as a full-attack or to call it a standard action and then still have a move action to make.
Since you brought that up let me ask you how you would rule the following:
A player has a BAB less than 6 but has the TWF feat. They say I hit 'the enemy' and if he doesn't go down I'll hit him again otherwise I'll rush over to my fallen ally. Do you apply the TWF penalty to the first attack or not?
Ok, where is that stated in the rulebook?
You're right that you don't choose to stop TWF. On your next turn you choose to either continue to TWF or to do something else.
None of that is specifically spelled out that way in the TWF section. Granted the first two leaps of logic make perfect sense but that last part is where you make your interpretation. And I don't think that opinion is RAW. RAI maybe, but I disagree.
To me its a shorter leap that the penalty lasts the entire round.
When do you choose to TWF? At the start of your turn. When do you choose to stop TWF? On your next turn. It doesn't matter what else you do on your turn. That round you chose to TWF, therefore you chose to take those penalties for that (entire) round.
This is interesting. I’ve always (and will continue to) rule it that “at your full normal attack bonus” to mean you use your full BAB, as opposed to an iterative attack bonus, and that any and all modifiers that you incur during a round last the entire round. That’s the benefit that using initiative based rounds gives us, a time for your previous choices/consequences to end and a start for your next choice/consequence.
There’s nothing in TWF that states that it takes a full round action. What it says is “When fighting in this way” you take these penalties. Why wouldn’t they last the entire round?
If your argument is that you use your ‘normal attack bonus’ for AoOs then what about if you’re flanking the enemy that provokes. Do you get your flanking bonus or not? You’re not normally flanking, just like you’re not normally TWF. What if you’re dazzled, shaken or sickened?
I think this has already been mentioned but I'd like to see potion belts, wand/rod sheaths and scroll organizers that offer the same draw advantage as weapons (move action or combined with move action if character is moving and has a BAB of +1 or more).
Attacking with a weapon (or single body part) multiple times with a flurry of blows (from Ultimate Equipment discussion)
I'm playing a halfling dawnflower dervish (str 6, dex 19) in our Jade Regent game we're just starting. At 1st (and now 2nd) level its been fun to make everyone else do all the 'heavy lifting' while at the same time being the main damage dealer for the party (at least for now).
Before I want high level 20+ player material (which I do), I'd like adventureS (capital S for plural) that take you all the way up to level 20, not just 15~18. Right now it's slim pick'ns.
Evil Lincoln wrote:
The way I've always played it is that if the spell effect makes you roll dice you multiply the dice roll by 1.5 then add any other modifiers.
Doesn't matter if its damage, healing, the number of monsters summoned or something else. For +2 spell levels, you're already not casting a higher level, potentially more powerful spell.
My 2 cents.
What age groups is this targeting? Is this intended to introduce kids (under age 10 or so) to gaming or more for the preteen/teenage crowd?
I got my email about my AP shipping sometime this week and I then ordered the new condition cards. The AP says pending but the other says its in the sidecart. Is there any chance I can get the condition cards this month with AP #42 or has that one already been packaged?
for example the 3 Int Girrilon with a missing limb has: kukri/kukri/kukri/blade boot/blade boot/barbazu beard/unarmed strike/bite and his BAB need not even be 6+ nor does he even need the multiweapon fighting feat.
I don't know what makes you think a Girallon could do all that.
However say your gimped Girallon (missing limb) were to attack with kukris, blade boots and a barbazu beard (I wouldn't allow the unarmed strike as you're out of extremities, I also wouldn't allow the bite because the barbazu covers your face).
Without multi-weapon fighting he'd get 6 attacks:
With multi-weapon fighting - 7 attacks:
Anything else is a sever bending of the RAW.
It sounds like what you're trying to do is get (or allow) more attacks per round and the rules just arn't going to back you up there.
If you're attacking with a manufactured weapon or unarmed strike (i.e. not a natural weapon) then your number of attacks per round is limited by your BAB. Your 'off-hand' attack is limited to 1 per round unless you have the improved and/or greater two-weapon fighting feats.
The only other way to get extra attacks per round is through magic.
I see where you're coming from but this is an instance where the game rules diverge from reality for ease of play and balance issues.
Well the way I rule it (and I believe RAW backs me up) is that your standard creature* can attack with any 2 given manufactured weapons (or unarmed strikes) in any given round, regardless of how many that they actually wield. One is your 'primary hand'** and one is your 'off-hand' and rules from BAB and two-weapon fighting (feats) affect the number of attacks you can make with either one.
Example you have a fighter with a longsword in his 'primary' hand a dagger in his 'off-hand' and a boot blade. The fighter can attack with his 'primary' weapon, the longsword, based on his BAB and can make 'off-hand' attacks with either his dagger OR his boot blade (not both).
*there are certain creatures that break this general rule by having more 'arms' than is normal and the multiweapon fighting feat is specifically for them. i.e. this is an exception to the general rule.
**this isn't to be confused with natural attacks in which some are 'primary' and some are 'secondary', to which the multiattack feat addresses.
Limbs do not add attacks, rather each weapon does, and when there is more than two, that you can effectively wield, you are multiweapon fighting. No matter the limbs.
Actually I think its neither limbs or weapons that add attacks. The number of attacks come from your BAB and feats such as two-weapon fighting. Just because you can equip yourself with 3 (or 30) weapons doesn't mean you have the capability to use them all in the same round. That comes from experience and training which is what BAB and feats (like TWF) represent.
Or, shouldn't you be able to just start your subscription with the new AP, order the GMG with the discount applied after your AP subscription is active, and then activate your RPG subscription?
True but then I miss out on the free PDF version. I'll probably end up doing something similar, like getting the PDF with the discount and then decide if I really want the hardcover later.
It seems like everyone is dropping their subscriptions after Kingmaker ends. I'd like to do the opposite and start a subscription with the first Serpent's Skull.
I'd also like to start my RPG subscription back up (with the advantage discount) to get the GameMastery Guide.
It seems your current setup is to be able to sign up for either the 'current' or 'next' product of each line. Will I be able to sign up for both lines before the APG becomes the 'current' product for the RPG?
I'm not sure how to do this with all the Gen Con shipping wonkyness.
I've been running an eberron game since the pathfinder rules came out. The PCs are currently 6th level and its going pretty smoothly.
My eberron specific house rules are:
Changelings gain a +2 bonus to Charisma and Linguistics is always a class skill.
I'm using the Artificier from Adamant's Tome of Secrets and the psionic playtest stuff from Dreamscarred.
I've also tweaked action points. I've got my own list of what they can be used for in addition to the book stuff and I've changed it so the PCs get so many per session instead of per level.
Other than the Shield bonus and the weight, is there any real mechanical difference between the two?
With a light shield you can hold another item (torch, weapon while casting, etc) in your shield hand.
Since both shield descriptions say "You strap a shield to your forearm and grip it with your hand." and then the light shield goes on to clarify that its its weight that lets you hold other items, then I'd allow a mithral heavy shield to be treated as a light shield.
Richard Weaver wrote:
How about letting them roll twice, taking the higher value? That would tend to lessen the chance of an extremely low hit point totals, but still retain the randomness of the die rolls.
Thats what I usually have my group do. Another way is to let them roll but you can't get less than half the die. That way they can roll to try and beat average but won't ever have crappy hp.
Right now my campaign uses max HP per die + Con SCORE at first level and then best of two rolls plus Con Mod after.
Multiattack works the same as 3.5 in that it lessens the secondary attack penalty from -5 to -2.
What Pathfinder did was changed which attacks were considered primary and secondary. Now a monster can have more than one 'primary' attack.
Its all covered on Pg 302 of the Bestiary.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Preview #6 wrote:
She can bond with a horse, which acts like an animal companion (using the paladin's level as her effective druid level),
This is why I have so much respect for the Paizo folks.
Did we need another rule for a paladin's mount when the druid's compainion rules were already spelled out, No. To me this is just another example of Pathfinder taking 3.5 and cleaning it up in a nice simple way.
Nice job guys.
Now my question is will there be rules for a more fantastic mount like a unicorn or pegasus?
Disciple of Sakura wrote:
Honestly, one of the things I want to see for psionics in Pathfinder is an at will ability for the manifesters the way casters now have 0th level spells and special lasers and what-not. Because without them, parity is even further away. And because it's a nice little thing.
One of the good things from the 3.0 psionics IMO was their method for 0-level powers. So many free per day and then 1pp after that.
The 3.0 0-level power list could easily be brought back for Pathfinder without much work at all (as I believe its open source) and made into at-wills.
My houserule is that casting defensively (in addition to the skill roll) increases the casting time by one step. Similar to spontaneous casters applying metamagic feats to their spells.
And then the Combat Casting feat gets rid of the extra time (making it take the normal amount of time to cast defensively) and doesn't give a skill bonus. The feat always seemed pointless before when you could just take skill focus for a +3 bonus all the time instead of +4 only for defensive casting.