|
| 12 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
What happens wheen I make an off-hand attack? I'm not talking about two-weapon fighting, I'm talking about "I attack the goblin with a shield bash".
Do off-hand weapons take penalties to hit, even if I'm not two-weapon fighting?
Also: If I have 6 BAB, and therefore are entitled to two attacks, can I make one with a primary hand and the next one with an off-hand weapon? Again, I'm not two-weapon fighting (which would give me three attacks, not two). I'm just attacking with two different weapons.
What penalties do I take, if any? Looking for RAW answers, here.
Thoughts?
When I make an off-hand attack? I'm not talking about two-weapon fighting, I'm talking about "I attack the goblin with a shield bash".
Do off-hand weapons take penalties to hit, even if I'm not two-weapon fighting?
Also: If I have 5 BAB, and therefore are entitled to two attacks, can I make one with a primary hand and the next one with an off-hand weapon? Again, I'm not two-weapon fighting (which would give me three attacks, not two). I'm just attacking with two different weapons.
What penalties do I take, if any? Looking for RAW answers, here.
Thoughts?
1) There are currently no rules for ambidexterity, so I'd say you can get by with attacking someone with your off-hand just fine, unpenalized.
2) You get 2 attacks at +6 BAB, not +5.
3) The moment you use your primary hand and then your off-hand, you're two-weapon fighting. I think that was the consensus of a recent thread; like it or not, you have used a weapon from each hand. "Attacking with two different weapons" is still fighting with 2 weapons. Two-weapon fighting weapons apply.
Not sure where the last thread on this went....
agree and also suggest offahnd attacks always only get 1/2 STR mod bonus
|
|
1) There are currently no rules for ambidexterity, so I'd say you can get by with attacking someone with your off-hand just fine, unpenalized.
2) You get 2 attacks at +6 BAB, not +5.
3) The moment you use your primary hand and then your off-hand, you're two-weapon fighting. I think that was the consensus of a recent thread; like it or not, you have used a weapon from each hand. "Attacking with two different weapons" is still fighting with 2 weapons. Two-weapon fighting weapons apply.
Not sure where the last thread on this went....
Fixed the BAB in my original post - thank you.
So if I understand correctly, if I have 6 BAB, and I make my first attack with my sword, and my second attack with a shield bash - I am now two-weapon fighting, even though I am not making the extra attacks that normally go with two-weapon fighting.
I think the Shielded Fighter APG feature is starting to make sense.
1) There are currently no rules for ambidexterity, so I'd say you can get by with attacking someone with your off-hand just fine, unpenalized.
2) You get 2 attacks at +6 BAB, not +5.
3) The moment you use your primary hand and then your off-hand, you're two-weapon fighting. I think that was the consensus of a recent thread; like it or not, you have used a weapon from each hand. "Attacking with two different weapons" is still fighting with 2 weapons. Two-weapon fighting weapons apply.
Not sure where the last thread on this went....
Fixed the BAB in my original post - thank you.
So if I understand correctly, if I have 6 BAB, and I make my first attack with my sword, and my second attack with a shield bash - I am now two-weapon fighting, even though I am not making the extra attacks that normally go with two-weapon fighting.
I think the Shielded Fighter APG feature is starting to make sense.
This is assuming I'm correct, yes. I think in previous editions you could mix and match your iterative attacks, but we need to double-check to be sure.
Ugh, I hope thats not the case regarding when "two-weapon fighting" applies. What happens if I shoot a crossbow at enemy A, drop it, quickdraw my longsword, 5' step and attack enemy B with my second attack? Its two weapons, so do I take two-weapon fighting penalties? What about if I swing my sword at the first guy and then make an unarmed strike at the other guy, who I want to capture alive?
Hoping this is a case of fuzzy RAW not lining up with RAI.
My personal interpretation, which I admit is likely due to a combo of holdover from 3.5 and not reading every dotted "i" and crossed "t" of Pathfinder, would be the following in regards to your example:
Since it nowhere states in the Weapons section of the Equipment chapter that an off-hand weapon has any inherent penalties to hit, I see no hit penalties. It does state that off hand weapons receive only half STR bonus to damage, however.
Shields are stated to be one handed off-hand weapons for the purposes of penalties to attack rolls. So while the two-weapon fighting penalties would be severe, the only thing I see is that a person with an off-hand weapn "can" gain an "extra" attack with that weapon, but he must take the penalties for two weapon fighting to all his attacks. Since the use of the words "can" and "extra" imply that doing so is optional and above the normal number of attacks, I don't see why you couldn't attack with sword and board as you describe.
Could someone post a link to the thread that is implying otherwise? I'd like to see if I agree with the thought process.
|
By the rules, Shield Bash attacks are made as off-hand attacks. Always. Even if you forgo you Primary weapon attacks.
Shield Bash Attacks: You can bash an opponent with a heavy shield, using it as an off-hand weapon. See “shield, heavy” on Table: Weapons for the damage dealt by a shield bash. Used this way, a heavy shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon. For the purpose of penalties on attack rolls, treat a heavy shield as a one-handed weapon. If you use your shield as a weapon, you lose its AC bonus until your next turn. An enhancement bonus on a shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but the shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right.
There are some who will argue that point, but by RAW, Shield Bash is an Off Hand attack.
Shielded Fighter negates all Off Hand penalties (And even gives bonuses at higher levels). Fewer overall attacks, much higher chance to hit. Though at the cost of Weapon and Armor Training. A high price, but worth it to the right build.
Ugh, I hope thats not the case regarding when "two-weapon fighting" applies. What happens if I shoot a crossbow at enemy A, drop it, quickdraw my longsword, 5' step and attack enemy B with my second attack? Its two weapons, so do I take two-weapon fighting penalties? What about if I swing my sword at the first guy and then make an unarmed strike at the other guy, who I want to capture alive?
Hoping this is a case of fuzzy RAW not lining up with RAI.
In your case, I'd rule no penalties. Why? In your case, at no particular moment in your round are you fighting with 2 weapons. You fight with 2 different weapons, sure, but in succession. The sword-and-board example we've been discussing is using the "weapons" simultaneously. It's a case of semantics, but if I took a snapshot of the shield-bashing fighter, I'd see he has both weapons throughout his round ready, while if I looked at you, I'd see a crossbow, then a longsword. You don't have the implied awkwardness of a weapon in each hand to combat; you have a crossbow, shoot it, then a sword, and you swing it. The shield guy knows he's going to strike with the shield, so in addition to defense he has to line up his swing with the sword and then the shield, hence the penalties.
|
|
From what I see:Ugh, I hope thats not the case regarding when "two-weapon fighting" applies. What happens if I shoot a crossbow at enemy A, drop it, quickdraw my longsword, 5' step and attack enemy B with my second attack? Its two weapons, so do I take two-weapon fighting penalties? What about if I swing my sword at the first guy and then make an unarmed strike at the other guy, who I want to capture alive?
Hoping this is a case of fuzzy RAW not lining up with RAI.
My personal interpretation, which I admit is likely due to a combo of holdover from 3.5 and not reading every dotted "i" and crossed "t" of Pathfinder, would be the following in regards to your example:
Since it nowhere states in the Weapons section of the Equipment chapter that an off-hand weapon has any inherent penalties to hit, I see no hit penalties. It does state that off hand weapons receive only half STR bonus to damage, however.
Shields are stated to be one handed off-hand weapons for the purposes of penalties to attack rolls. So while the two-weapon fighting penalties would be severe, the only thing I see is that a person with an off-hand weapn "can" gain an "extra" attack with that weapon, but he must take the penalties for two weapon fighting to all his attacks. Since the use of the words "can" and "extra" imply that doing so is optional and above the normal number of attacks, I don't see why you couldn't attack with sword and board as you describe.
Could someone post a link to the thread that is implying otherwise? I'd like to see if I agree with the thought process.
Two-Weapon Fighting
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.
An attack with an 'off-hand' weapon is going to be an 'extra attack'. Not stating, but implying that you can not switch out iterative attacks. Dropping a weapon and quick drawing a second would not take the penalty. But attacking with your sword and punching with your empty hand would.
|
I would definatley put a penalty on it. Most;y for the reality of the situation. Off hand attacks are clumsy and no where the skill of a main hand attack unless you have specifically trained them to be (ie. TWF). In 3.0 there was a penalty. You needed ambidexterity to negate it In 3.5 I was under the understanding that they did not get rid of the penalty, but rather combined the feats TWF and ambi, so TWF did both, therefore you would need the feat to make attacks with your off hand without Penalty. I have followed the same with Pathfinder. It also adds up some interesting things. If a person is hurt, or chained to someone with their man hand, and have to fight off handed, etc.
As for shield bash, it is a special case that uses you off hand to make the attack, therefore no penalty.
just my opinion. It adds more that takes away I think.
|
We can put the whole argument to rest if you take the Shielded Fighter option from the APG. At fifth, instead of getting weapon training, you get a bonus to attacks with your shield and you can alternate attacks with your main hand and shield without taking TWF penalties. So in your case you could shield bash at +6 and attack with your sword at +1, or vice versa.
|
|
We can put the whole argument to rest if you take the Shielded Fighter option from the APG. At fifth, instead of getting weapon training, you get a bonus to attacks with your shield and you can alternate attacks with your main hand and shield without taking TWF penalties. So in your case you could shield bash at +6 and attack with your sword at +1, or vice versa.
Yeah, that works... for Fighters of a particular subset, who wish to BE Shielded Fighters. For everyone else, ( i.e. the vast majority of melee characters) the questions remain.
|
From what I see:An attack with an 'off-hand' weapon is going to be an 'extra attack'. Not stating, but implying that you can not switch out iterative attacks. Dropping a weapon and quick drawing a second would not take the penalty. But attacking with your sword and punching with your empty hand...Two-Weapon Fighting
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.
I would say the wording states that an off-hand attack CAN be an extra attack, not MUST be. The TWF rules only tell you that you can get an extra attack beyond your iterative attacks if you wield a weapon in your off-hand. They do not say you can't use both weapons for regular iteratives.
I would definatley put a penalty on it. Most;y for the reality of the situation. Off hand attacks are clumsy and no where the skill of a main hand attack unless you have specifically trained them to be (ie. TWF). In 3.0 there was a penalty. You needed ambidexterity to negate it In 3.5 I was under the understanding that they did not get rid of the penalty, but rather combined the feats TWF and ambi, so TWF did both, therefore you would need the feat to make attacks with your off hand without Penalty. I have followed the same with Pathfinder. It also adds up some interesting things. If a person is hurt, or chained to someone with their man hand, and have to fight off handed, etc.
As for shield bash, it is a special case that uses you off hand to make the attack, therefore no penalty.
just my opinion. It adds more that takes away I think.
The problem is thee are no longer rules for being right or left handed. Any given character (by raw) wields a longsword exactly the same whether its in his right or left hand. Its only when weilding a second weapon at the same time that any penalty applies.
Creative Director
|
| 11 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tracking right or left handedness isn't something we bother with in Pathfinder. The ONLY time an attack is considered an off-hand attack is when you make an attack with a second weapon in the same round you make an attack with a first weapon.
If you have a longsword in your right hand and a shield in your left, and you only attack with a shield bash in a round, that shield bash is NOT considered an off-hand or secondary attack for that round.
It's a relatively easy bit of house rules to institute handedness, though, if you're looking for that level of additional detail... but that's not a level of detail we want to assume for the core game.
Tracking right or left handedness isn't something we bother with in Pathfinder. The ONLY time an attack is considered an off-hand attack is when you make an attack with a second weapon in the same round you make an attack with a first weapon.
If you have a longsword in your right hand and a shield in your left, and you only attack with a shield bash in a round, that shield bash is NOT considered an off-hand or secondary attack for that round.
It's a relatively easy bit of house rules to institute handedness, though, if you're looking for that level of additional detail... but that's not a level of detail we want to assume for the core game.
So how would this apply if I chose to wield two weapons without going for the extra attack provided by TWF, and just used the second weapon for an itinerant attack?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
So how would this apply if I chose to wield two weapons without going for the extra attack provided by TWF, and just used the second weapon for an itinerant attack?Tracking right or left handedness isn't something we bother with in Pathfinder. The ONLY time an attack is considered an off-hand attack is when you make an attack with a second weapon in the same round you make an attack with a first weapon.
If you have a longsword in your right hand and a shield in your left, and you only attack with a shield bash in a round, that shield bash is NOT considered an off-hand or secondary attack for that round.
It's a relatively easy bit of house rules to institute handedness, though, if you're looking for that level of additional detail... but that's not a level of detail we want to assume for the core game.
That is the question posed by the OP.
|
Creative Director
|
So how would this apply if I chose to wield two weapons without going for the extra attack provided by TWF, and just used the second weapon for an itinerant attack?Tracking right or left handedness isn't something we bother with in Pathfinder. The ONLY time an attack is considered an off-hand attack is when you make an attack with a second weapon in the same round you make an attack with a first weapon.
If you have a longsword in your right hand and a shield in your left, and you only attack with a shield bash in a round, that shield bash is NOT considered an off-hand or secondary attack for that round.
It's a relatively easy bit of house rules to institute handedness, though, if you're looking for that level of additional detail... but that's not a level of detail we want to assume for the core game.
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.
My recommendation: If your character is dual wielding, it's easiest to pick one weapon as the primary and one as the secondary and not mix things up. Your GM will likely thank you.
So how would this apply if I chose to wield two weapons without going for the extra attack provided by TWF, and just used the second weapon for an itinerant attack?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.
My recommendation: If your character is dual wielding, it's easiest to pick one weapon as the primary and one as the secondary and not mix things up. Your GM will likely thank you.
But a more probable scenario (assuming quickdraw and high BAB say +6 BAB) is:
1) you full attack. You attack a foe in melee and down it with your first attack at +6 BAB. No other foes are within reach.2) Now you can only move up to 5 feet. Another foe is 15' away. You quickdraw your dagger and throw it at him with your second attack at +1 BAB.
Do you suffer penalties for fighting with two weapons? You have gained no benefit as per actual two-weapon fighting.
|
|
Tracking right or left handedness isn't something we bother with in Pathfinder. The ONLY time an attack is considered an off-hand attack is when you make an attack with a second weapon in the same round you make an attack with a first weapon.
If you have a longsword in your right hand and a shield in your left, and you only attack with a shield bash in a round, that shield bash is NOT considered an off-hand or secondary attack for that round.
As always, I appreciate your imput, James - you have qualified exactly when an off-hand attack occurs... but this doesn't tell me what happens when I make an off-hand attack.
Let's say I have +6 BAB and I attack with my longsword in my right hand, as you described.
The attack resolves, and damn... the critter is resistant to slashing weapons. I then decide to make this a full-attack action, and I take my second attack with the shield in my off-hand. Like you said, this second attack is an off-hand attack, because I'm using a different weapon in a different hand.
Which means that... what?
Mind you, I'm not two-weapon fighting. I didn't take any penalties on my first attack because, heck, I didn't even know what weapon I'd be attacking with next when I made the first one. In fact, by RAW I don't even need to decide if I am full-attacking or not until after my first attack resolves.
After the first attack did resolve, I decided that my second attack would be a shield bash. As you pointed out, this is an off-hand attack. So... what is the rule for what happens when I make an off-hand attack? The closest rule I can find is the rule for two-weapon fighting, which says that my primary and secondary attacks incur penalties, but I get an extra attack for my trouble.
Problem is, I wasn't taking penalties to my first attack. Does this mean I simply can't make an attack with an off-hand weapon this round because I didn't take the two-weapon fighting penalties on my primary hand? Does it mean I take the off-hand penalty on my second attack and I don't take a third one for two weapon fighting as the "price" for switching up weapons?
What is an off-hand attack?
|
So how would this apply if I chose to wield two weapons without going for the extra attack provided by TWF, and just used the second weapon for an itinerant attack?Tracking right or left handedness isn't something we bother with in Pathfinder. The ONLY time an attack is considered an off-hand attack is when you make an attack with a second weapon in the same round you make an attack with a first weapon.
If you have a longsword in your right hand and a shield in your left, and you only attack with a shield bash in a round, that shield bash is NOT considered an off-hand or secondary attack for that round.
It's a relatively easy bit of house rules to institute handedness, though, if you're looking for that level of additional detail... but that's not a level of detail we want to assume for the core game.
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.
My recommendation: If your character is dual wielding, it's easiest to pick one weapon as the primary and one as the secondary and not mix things up. Your GM will likely thank you.
So can we consider this an official clarification that two-weapon fighting does NOT just refer to gaining an additional attack, but rather to any time you use more than one weapon in a round?
So if you hold two weapons and full-round attack with only the main hand (no extra attacks) do you take penalties?If you don't take penalties in the above example, do you if you attempt to use your off-hand attack for AoOs?
What about a Monk of the Four Winds that gets 3 standard action attacks in a round alternating weapons (right hand weapon, left hand weapon, left foot)?
(See also Garden Tool's post above, which gives a much better example than mine.)
PS: There was another thread about this a few days ago which died with a conclusion of "Too vague to call without official clarification."
|
Creative Director
|
Not until Jason chimes in. He and James don't always rule the same.
So can we consider this an official clarification that two-weapon fighting does NOT just refer to gaining an additional attack, but rather to any time you use more than one weapon in a round?
In which case I guess I'll use my time to work on the big Inner Sea poster map instead.
AKA: Jason is on an airplane going to Gen Con. He can't answer EVERYONE'S questions. Folks who only want his rulings are self-selecting for disappointment and frustration, sadly.
|
|
The attack resolves, and damn... the critter is resistant to slashing weapons. I then decide to make this a full-attack action, and I take my second attack with the shield in my off-hand. Like you said, this second attack is an off-hand attack, because I'm using a different weapon in a different hand.
I don't like rule debates at the table, so if this happened in my home game, I'd be inclined to rule that you couldn't take that second attack with the off-hand weapon. The justification would be that you're already resolved your primary attack without the appropriate 2-weapon penalties, so you shouldn't be allowed to switch attack modes mid-turn.
I think the lesson here is that if you carry a weapon in each hand and plan on making a single attack with each one, you might as well take that 3rd attack as well. You're already paying the penalties for it and it might hit. :|
-Skeld
|
|
Not until Jason chimes in. He and James don't always rule the same.
So can we consider this an official clarification that two-weapon fighting does NOT just refer to gaining an additional attack, but rather to any time you use more than one weapon in a round?
In which case I guess I'll use my time to work on the big Inner Sea poster map instead.
AKA: Jason is on an airplane going to Gen Con. He can't answer EVERYONE'S questions. Folks who only want his rulings are self-selecting for disappointment and frustration, sadly.
I suppose this means that you won't be telling us what penalties an off-hand attack carries, then? : /
Way to go, OmegaZero. : P
In my game that I'm running, I'll rule that dual-wielding weapons is not the same as two-weapon fighting. If you're just getting a single set of iterative attacks (+6/+1 or +11/+6/+1, etc.) then you may use your right hand for the +6 strike and your left hand for the +1 strike with no penalty to either on attack rolls. The "offhand" will only get 1/2 STR bonus to damage, however.
I read two-weapon fighting as gaining the benefit of making an extra attack, and not merely the usage of your "offhand." Since there is no handedness in Pathfinder, that works well enough for me.
Now, having said that, it does seem to say that shield bashing with a shield is always considered an "offhand" attack, so you only get 1/2 STR bonus to damage (and the lowest Power Attack bonus as well) when bashing with a shield.
That's my take on it at least.
|
|
I'd be inclined to rule that you couldn't take that second attack with the off-hand weapon. The justification would be that you're already resolved your primary attack without the appropriate 2-weapon penalties, so you shouldn't be allowed to switch attack modes mid-turn.
I think the lesson here is that if you carry a weapon in each hand and plan on making a single attack with each one, you might as well take that 3rd attack as well. You're already paying the penalties for it and it might hit.
This is my thought as well, which means that discovering the bad guy's DR/slashing after your first attack means you are unfortunately committed to making all the rest of your attacks with the same, useless blade.
O...kay? I'm sorry you need a developer to rule your game for you? ;)
Asking for clarification on a rule (so that I know what my PC's Shielded Fighter ability actually does for him) does not equal needing a developer to "rule my game".
The developers are already here. On these boards. They answer questions when they feel inclined. Given that theyre - you know - the developers of the game, one takes their word on the intent and meanings of various rules.
That the developers care enough to spend their own time answering MY questions... me being one little customer among an ocean of customers... is far and away one of the Pathfinder RPG's largest selling points, and it's the reason that I'm a subscriber (and the reason I am glad to give Paizo Publishing my money).
|
|
In my game that I'm running, I'll rule that dual-wielding weapons is not the same as two-weapon fighting. If you're just getting a single set of iterative attacks (+6/+1 or +11/+6/+1, etc.) then you may use your right hand for the +6 strike and your left hand for the +1 strike with no penalty to either on attack rolls. The "offhand" will only get 1/2 STR bonus to damage, however.
I read two-weapon fighting as gaining the benefit of making an extra attack, and not merely the usage of your "offhand." Since there is no handedness in Pathfinder, that works well enough for me.
Now, having said that, it does seem to say that shield bashing with a shield is always considered an "offhand" attack, so you only get 1/2 STR bonus to damage (and the lowest Power Attack bonus as well) when bashing with a shield.
That's my take on it at least.
While the game does not deal with 'handedness' the very existence of 'off hand' attacks does imply a dominant hand. Which hand that is doesn't matter from one PC to another. But since true ambidexterity is fairly uncommon, I don't think it unreasonable to penalize attacks made with the non-dominant hand.
Not until Jason chimes in. He and James don't always rule the same.
So can we consider this an official clarification that two-weapon fighting does NOT just refer to gaining an additional attack, but rather to any time you use more than one weapon in a round?
In which case I guess I'll use my time to work on the big Inner Sea poster map instead.
AKA: Jason is on an airplane going to Gen Con. He can't answer EVERYONE'S questions. Folks who only want his rulings are self-selecting for disappointment and frustration, sadly.
Most of us appreciate you, James. I do. And I value all your contributions, especially the ones that support what I've been saying all along - I really like those contributions.
As for self-selecting, I usually only self-select for hunger and for rampaging; I prefer to leave disappointment and frustration to lesser beings.
Sorry about the little scratches. Sometimes I don't know my own strength. You should have a cleric look at that.
I've seen enough depictions in popular media of either sword (or axe or mace) and board (or fist) where the character may strike one foe with his weapon and shield bash another, in what would appear to be the same "round" of combat. The characters are rarely ever the "dual-wielding" type, especially because they are often presented next to characters who most certainly are two-weapon fighters.
I can see an easy example of the tactic in fighting an enemy cleric and his skeleton minions. First attack with sword against cleric with decent armor, second attack with shield against skeleton with lower armor but DR/slashing. It makes sense to me, and while SCA experience is hardly real world combat (which is hardly D&D combat, but you get the point), my SCA experience was that a shield bash mixed in with normal sword strikes was far less complicated than actually trying to attack and defend with two swords.
What that translates into in terms of game mechanics is likely personal preference, but since 3.5 allowed mix-up of attacks (although the only examples I can explicity recall were of mixing ranged and melee, with an Elvencraft Longbow and throwing a dagger after running out of melee targets) in the interest of backwards compatibility and less headaches at my table, I'm going to allow it. I don't see it as much different from getting a claw attack at -5 with your off hand, if you are so equipped. Heck, the clawed swordfighter gets the claw AND his iteritive attacks.
|
|
In my game that I'm running, I'll rule that dual-wielding weapons is not the same as two-weapon fighting. If you're just getting a single set of iterative attacks (+6/+1 or +11/+6/+1, etc.) then you may use your right hand for the +6 strike and your left hand for the +1 strike with no penalty to either on attack rolls. The "offhand" will only get 1/2 STR bonus to damage, however.
I read two-weapon fighting as gaining the benefit of making an extra attack, and not merely the usage of your "offhand." Since there is no handedness in Pathfinder, that works well enough for me.
Now, having said that, it does seem to say that shield bashing with a shield is always considered an "offhand" attack, so you only get 1/2 STR bonus to damage (and the lowest Power Attack bonus as well) when bashing with a shield.
That's my take on it at least.
+R this is how I would rule it. Although sometimes I use the TWF penalties for more than just that (say my houserules for reach weapons), I still say that it works that way.
The one caveat I would add however is that if you attack with only one weapon (to avoid TWF penalties) when you make an AoO, the AoO has to be made with the same weapon. Either that or the other weapon is considered off hand.
|
|
In my game that I'm running, I'll rule that dual-wielding weapons is not the same as two-weapon fighting. If you're just getting a single set of iterative attacks (+6/+1 or +11/+6/+1, etc.) then you may use your right hand for the +6 strike and your left hand for the +1 strike with no penalty to either on attack rolls. The "offhand" will only get 1/2 STR bonus to damage, however.
I read two-weapon fighting as gaining the benefit of making an extra attack, and not merely the usage of your "offhand." Since there is no handedness in Pathfinder, that works well enough for me.
Now, having said that, it does seem to say that shield bashing with a shield is always considered an "offhand" attack, so you only get 1/2 STR bonus to damage (and the lowest Power Attack bonus as well) when bashing with a shield.
That's my take on it at least.
+Stabbitty. This is how I've always run it and will continue to run it.
I will add, though, that I do enforce handedness (in all situations) unless the player has double-slice. This is my way of enforcing the difference between hacking away with a main-hand weapon and alternating when not getting extra attacks. This also means that if you AoO with your off-hand weapon you only get 1/2 strength, though the (likely different) enhancements or damage type(s) of your offhand weapon might make it worth it.
I suppose this means that you won't be telling us what penalties an off-hand attack carries, then? : /
The Combat section on Two-Weapon fighting already gives us this answer.
The penalty for the off-hand weapon is always -4 worse than the primary hand, unless you have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, which teaches you how to fight effectively with your off-hand and eliminates the extra -4 penalty (as well as reducing the overall TWF penalty from -4 to -2, assuming a light secondary weapon).
So, clearly, off-hand is -4 to attack rolls.
Equally clearly, those trained to use their off-hand don't suffer that penalty and instead are -0 with their off-hand (this means they have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat).
We also know that off-hand attacks take a 1/2 STR damage modifier.
So, -4 to attack rolls and only 1/2 your STR damage modifier if you hit.
QED.
since a shield is always an off hand attack, no duel wielding shields, oh well, my friend will be disappointed.
It'm curious how this would be interpreted based on what we know about using 2 diferent weapons.
If i have a bite attack and also wield a great sword lvl 2 BAB 1 STR bonus 4. what is my attack modifier and penalty?
great sword +5?
bite +0?
would i get full str bonus on each?
edit: APG shield fighter lvl 5 ability helps shed light on this thread as well.
The simplest way to rule in this situation is to allow iterative attacks to not be considered "two weapon fighting" no matter where the second attack comes from. You should only take the penalties for TWF when you are actually gaining the bonus of an additional attack. It's simpler, it's easier, and it's quicker to adjudicate.
Tracking right or left handedness isn't something we bother with in Pathfinder. The ONLY time an attack is considered an off-hand attack is when you make an attack with a second weapon in the same round you make an attack with a first weapon.
If you have a longsword in your right hand and a shield in your left, and you only attack with a shield bash in a round, that shield bash is NOT considered an off-hand or secondary attack for that round.
It's a relatively easy bit of house rules to institute handedness, though, if you're looking for that level of additional detail... but that's not a level of detail we want to assume for the core game.
THANK YOU! We all have been waiting for a while for one of the devs to step in here about this. Let the dual shield madness commence.
Not until Jason chimes in. He and James don't always rule the same.
So can we consider this an official clarification that two-weapon fighting does NOT just refer to gaining an additional attack, but rather to any time you use more than one weapon in a round?
In which case I guess I'll use my time to work on the big Inner Sea poster map instead.
AKA: Jason is on an airplane going to Gen Con. He can't answer EVERYONE'S questions. Folks who only want his rulings are self-selecting for disappointment and frustration, sadly.
Most of us appreciate you, James. I do. And I value all your contributions, especially the ones that support what I've been saying all along - I really like those contributions.
As for self-selecting, I usually only self-select for hunger and for rampaging; I prefer to leave disappointment and frustration to lesser beings.
Sorry about the little scratches. Sometimes I don't know my own strength. You should have a cleric look at that.
AY AY! James, thank you for your time.
|
|
I suppose this means that you won't be telling us what penalties an off-hand attack carries, then? : /The Combat section on Two-Weapon fighting already gives us this answer.
The penalty for the off-hand weapon is always -4 worse than the primary hand, unless you have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, which teaches you how to fight effectively with your off-hand and eliminates the extra -4 penalty (as well as reducing the overall TWF penalty from -4 to -2, assuming a light secondary weapon).
So, clearly, off-hand is -4 to attack rolls.
Equally clearly, those trained to use their off-hand don't suffer that penalty and instead are -0 with their off-hand (this means they have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat).
We also know that off-hand attacks take a 1/2 STR damage modifier.
So, -4 to attack rolls and only 1/2 your STR damage modifier if you hit.
QED.
It is not so clear-cut. The combat section on TWF mentions penalties to the attack roll "when you fight this way". These few words refer to the sentence directly above in the text : "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon."
I believe that if you do not choose to get the extra attack, then you are NOT "fighting this way" and do not get the penalties to the attack roll.
The reduced damage modifier applies though.
Hence an additional clarification on what penalties an off-hand attack carries when NOT TWFighting (ie, no extra attack with the off-hand) would be a great thing that would lay this sempiternel debate to rest once and for all (and take some power away from the dread Forum Necromancers)
Edit : James, I also greatly appreciate your taking the time to provide us with valuable input. The official take on when an off-hand attack occurs is now quite clear to me (though not what I expected) ;-)
since a shield is always an off hand attack, no duel wielding shields, oh well, my friend will be disappointed.
It'm curious how this would be interpreted based on what we know about using 2 diferent weapons.
If i have a bite attack and also wield a great sword lvl 2 BAB 1 STR bonus 4. what is my attack modifier and penalty?
great sword +5?
bite +0?would i get full str bonus on each?
edit: APG shield fighter lvl 5 ability helps shed light on this thread as well.
Natural attacks are not the same as Two Weapon Fighting and have its own rules in the Combat Chapter. Just a note: The sentence that says that using a weapon and a natural attack in the same round is the same as TWF is an error (Clarified by James Jacobs iirc)
So you get you full attack and damage with the Great Sword. The bite works like a secondary natural attack: -5 attack, 1/2 Str bonus damage (just like the barbarian rage power!)
since a shield is always an off hand attack, no duel wielding shields, oh well, my friend will be disappointed.
It'm curious how this would be interpreted based on what we know about using 2 diferent weapons.
If i have a bite attack and also wield a great sword lvl 2 BAB 1 STR bonus 4. what is my attack modifier and penalty?
great sword +5?
bite +0?would i get full str bonus on each?
edit: APG shield fighter lvl 5 ability helps shed light on this thread as well.
Natural attacks are not the same as Two Weapon Fighting and have its own rules in the Combat Chapter. Just a note: The sentence that says that using a weapon and a natural attack in the same round is the same as TWF is an error (Clarified by James Jacobs iirc)
So you get you full attack and damage with the Great Sword. The bite works like a secondary natural attack: -5 attack, 1/2 Str bonus damage (just like the barbarian rage power!)
opk, ty thats how we ahve been handling it but wnated to make sure
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Tracking right or left handedness isn't something we bother with in Pathfinder. The ONLY time an attack is considered an off-hand attack is when you make an attack with a second weapon in the same round you make an attack with a first weapon.
If you have a longsword in your right hand and a shield in your left, and you only attack with a shield bash in a round, that shield bash is NOT considered an off-hand or secondary attack for that round.
It's a relatively easy bit of house rules to institute handedness, though, if you're looking for that level of additional detail... but that's not a level of detail we want to assume for the core game.
James, if I am actively dual wielding a sword and shield (getting extra attacks due to two-weapon fighting), does my shield bash HAVE to be my off-hand weapon like the shield bash rules seem to indicate? Or can it be my primary weapon with my sword being my off-hand weapon if I choose?
So can we consider this an official clarification that two-weapon fighting does NOT just refer to gaining an additional attack, but rather to any time you use more than one weapon in a round?
There got to be exceptions to this. Otherwise it would really suck to be, say, a master thrower.
There got to be exceptions to this. Otherwise it would really suck to be, say, a master thrower.
So can we consider this an official clarification that two-weapon fighting does NOT just refer to gaining an additional attack, but rather to any time you use more than one weapon in a round?
Agreed.
If it is ruled in Stabbity's favor, than the Master Thrower will go by the wayside much like the mobility fighter did.
If it keeps up no one will play anything but two-handers and dual-wielders.