Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

RPG Superstar 2015

Two-Weapon Fighting Question


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 56 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

I have a few questions on Two-Weapon Fighting and weapons used for it. Bear with me, these are a little odd.

1. Can a character use Two-Weapon Rend with a double weapon
(Two-Bladed Sword) or a bludgeoning Weapon?

2. Is there a such weapon as a sword gauntlet/short sword gauntlet?

3. Can the Two-Weapon Defense feat be improved in any way?

4. Can you sheath a weapon or two weapons as a free action with
the Quick-Draw Feat?

5. Can you both sheathe and unsheathe a weapon or two weapons in the
same round with or without the Quick-Draw feat?

6. If you have two-weapon fighting feats, do you throw daggers with
your off hand?

7. Is there any way to remove the -2 initial penalty to attack with
Two Weapon Fighting?


1: Yes, two-weapon rend does not specify what weapons can and cannot be used, so long as you hit with a primary weapon and an off hand weapon.
2: The closest thing I can think of in pathfinder would be a spiked gauntlet or a locked gauntlet. There are various clawed gauntlets in other sources.
3: Not in core pathfinder, in Complete Warrior (3.5) they had better two-weapon defense feats.
4: Not sure on this one, I would say, by Raw, no, quick draw only says you can draw a weapon faster.
5: Sheathing a weapon is a move action, therefore you could sheath 2 weapons as 2 move actions and draw any number of weapons as a free action with quick draw.
6: Yes, you can even two-weapon fight and rapid shot.
7: The two-weapon fighter archtype in the APG is the only way in pathfinder.


1. No and yes. The feat states that you must hit with your off-hand WEAPON, not attack. It does not specify weapon damage type, though.

2. No.

3. Not as of yet. If an improved version is produced later, then it will be.

4. RAW, no. I've always played and seen it played as the ability to draw or sheathe a weapon as a free action, though.

5. Yes.

6. You can, yes.

7. No, for good reason. The two-weapon fighter variant can reduce it, but that's it.


Hate to threadjack, but it is relevant, and it has been bugging me for a while.

I've noticed that TWF seems to be integral in a lot of Shield n' Sword Fighter builds.

Do you get any penalties to your main hand's attack roll by using a shield in your offhand?


Odentin wrote:
1. No and yes. The feat states that you must hit with your off-hand WEAPON, not attack. It does not specify weapon damage type, though.
Core Rulebook wrote:
A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons, but he incurs all the normal attack penalties associated with two-weapon combat, just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon.

Bold is mine, I would say yes.


Mahorfeus wrote:

Hate to threadjack, but it is relevant, and it has been bugging me for a while.

I've noticed that TWF seems to be integral in a lot of Shield n' Sword Fighter builds.

Do you get any penalties to your main hand's attack roll by using a shield in your offhand?

Only if you shield bash. If you don't use the shield to attack, then you don't incur the penalties. As soon as you slam it into someone's face, though...


Mahorfeus wrote:

Hate to threadjack, but it is relevant, and it has been bugging me for a while.

I've noticed that TWF seems to be integral in a lot of Shield n' Sword Fighter builds.

Do you get any penalties to your main hand's attack roll by using a shield in your offhand?

If you use it to attack, yes. BUT Shield Master negates the penalties.


That's a relief.

But by that basis, doesn't that mean I have to preemptively determine that I'm going to Shield Bash, since the main hand attack would suffer from the TWF penalties? Similarly, would that mean that making only one attack while wielding two weapons would not incur any penalties?

I may be forgetting how exactly Shield Bash works. XD


You get the TWF penalties for attacking with both weapons. If you are holding a longsword in one hand, and a short sword in the other, you only get the penalties if you attack with both (as part of the same full attack). You do have to declare that you are attacking with two weapons before you do so.


Mahorfeus wrote:

That's a relief.

But by that basis, doesn't that mean I have to preemptively determine that I'm going to Shield Bash, since the main hand attack would suffer from the TWF penalties? Similarly, would that mean that making only one attack while wielding two weapons would not incur any penalties?

I may be forgetting how exactly Shield Bash works. XD

Shield Mastery only negates the penalties for the attacks made with the shield. Main hand still suffers.

And yes, you have to declare that you're making attacks with both before you roll. Can't do a full attack with the sword and then with the shield. Its set up so that's they trade off.


Ah, I see what my problem is now, I'm mixing up the rules for iterative attacks and the extra attacks you get from TWF. Thanks for clarifying, it makes a lot more sense to me now.

Liberty's Edge

I see most of them, but two are still clear as mud to me. First where are the rules for sheathing weapons? Second, why would it NOT work for quick draw? Other than throwing daggers or similar weapons, it seems a wasteful feat.

Two-Weapon Rend is what's called a wording nightmare. You can argue yes or no all day, based on whether you want to emphasize that "the rules don't say yes" or "the rules don't say no".


dreddwulf1 wrote:

I see most of them, but two are still clear as mud to me. First where are the rules for sheathing weapons? Second, why would it NOT work for quick draw? Other than throwing daggers or similar weapons, it seems a wasteful feat.

Two-Weapon Rend is what's called a wording nightmare. You can argue yes or no all day, based on whether you want to emphasize that "the rules don't say yes" or "the rules don't say no".

Core 186: "Draw or Sheathe a Weapon"

Quick draw doesn't let you sheathe as a free action.

Two-Weapon Rend says if you hit with both primary and off-hand weapon.

Core 141: Double weapons says, "just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon (see page 202)."


dreddwulf1 wrote:

I see most of them, but two are still clear as mud to me. First where are the rules for sheathing weapons? Second, why would it NOT work for quick draw? Other than throwing daggers or similar weapons, it seems a wasteful feat.

Two-Weapon Rend is what's called a wording nightmare. You can argue yes or no all day, based on whether you want to emphasize that "the rules don't say yes" or "the rules don't say no".

Page 186


dreddwulf1 wrote:


2. Is there a such weapon as a sword gauntlet/short sword gauntlet?

It´s neither Core nor APG but yeah, there is:

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/weapons/weapon-descriptions/pata (exotic, light, 14 gp, 1d6 damage, crit x3, piercing)
and
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/weapons/weapon-descriptions/katar -tri-bladed
(exotic, light, 6 gp, 1d4 damage, crit x4, piercing)

however, my advise: just take a short sword, rules are about the mechanics and as long as the mechanics are not concerned, there is really no reason not to allow something stylish.

Liberty's Edge

Kierato wrote:


Page 186

Thank you, but not quite. It only details what it takes to draw or sheathe a weapon WITHOUT a feat.

Draw or Sheathe a Weapon

Drawing a weapon so that you can use it in combat, or
putting it away so that you have a free hand, requires a
move action. This action also applies to weapon-like
objects carried in easy reach, such as wands. If your
weapon or weapon-like object is stored in a pack or
otherwise out of easy reach, treat this action as retrieving
a stored item.If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you may
draw a weapon as a free action combined with a regular
move. If you have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, you can
draw two light or one-handed weapons in the time it would
normally take you to draw one.
Drawing ammunition for use with a ranged weapon (such
as arrows, bolts, sling bullets, or shuriken) is a free action.

Looking at the RAW, the draw and sheathe of a weapon takes the same amount of time, unless you have a +1 to attack. Quick Draw as written isn't any better. It only talks about draw, not sheathe.

Quick Draw (Combat)

You can draw weapons faster than most.

Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +1.

Benefit: You can draw a weapon as a free action instead
of as a move action. You can draw a hidden weapon (see the
Sleight of Hand skill) as a move action.
A character who has selected this feat may throw weapons
at his full normal rate of attacks (much like a character
with a bow).
Alchemical items, potions, scrolls, and wands cannot be
drawn quickly using this feat.
Normal: Without this feat, you may draw a weapon as a
move action, or (if your base attack bonus is +1 or higher)
as a free action as part of movement. Without this feat, you
can draw a hidden weapon as a standard action.

Other than rogues, this makes the feat almost worthless unless you are a Rogue looking to get in a sneak attack in the city.

The only reason it can be said that you would not be able to sheathe the weapon as quickly as you can draw it with the feat Quick Draw because it is not mentioned either way. This could be purposeful, or a simple not thought of as relevant by the writers. Who cares if you can SHEATHE the weapon quickly? Aren't you doing that when combat is OVER?

I was looking at D&D 3.5 for awhile, but doing so made me realise that the idea of "Backwards Compatibility" was more of a marketing strategy than truth. Things can be tweaked, but that can be done to ANY game. D&D is somewhat close, but not close enough.

That said.I would personally rule that you can, but I didn't post for my opinion alone, so chat away!


By RAW sheathing is a move action even with Quick Draw (Since it states that it is a move action on pg 186 and no where else does it state something that changes this to a free action).

Quick Draw is still useful though.
It allows iterative attacks/rapid shot/etc to be used with thrown weapons.
It allows you to switch weapons instantly if you're willing to drop the weapon you were previously holding (thus allowing a full attack).
It allows you to sheath a weapon and attack with the new weapon in the same round (just not full attack).

Without Quick Draw, sheathing your ranged weapon and drawing your melee weapon would be your entire action for that turn since it would take two move actions. With Cleave or Vital Strike this standard action attack with the melee weapon can be very significant.

Star Voter 2014

It's much easier to grab a handle and pull on a weapon to unsheath it than it is to grab the sheath, hold it still, aim the weapon at it, and slide it in. Likewise if you have belt loops the weapon is held in, or anything else. Think of snaps or zippers - they require much less coordination to open than to reclose.

Also, there's less need for quick sheathing mechanically. You can always drop the weapon as a free action, and now you can get weapon cords which let you recover them as a swift action.

Liberty's Edge

Finarin Panjoro wrote:

By RAW sheathing is a move action even with Quick Draw (Since it states that it is a move action on pg 186 and no where else does it state something that changes this to a free action).

Quick Draw is still useful though.
It allows iterative attacks/rapid shot/etc to be used with thrown weapons.
It allows you to switch weapons instantly if you're willing to drop the weapon you were previously holding (thus allowing a full attack).
It allows you to sheath a weapon and attack with the new weapon in the same round (just not full attack).

Without Quick Draw, sheathing your ranged weapon and drawing your melee weapon would be your entire action for that turn since it would take two move actions. With Cleave or Vital Strike this standard action attack with the melee weapon can be very significant.

Again the only argument FOR sheathing a weapon as a move action even with Quick Draw is that the rule does not mention that you can...or CAN'T. The idea seems to be simply neglected. "If you think about it" statements are not RULES, just opinions. I can argue the other way around with some of the same analogies and nothing would get done.

For example (Since it states that it is a move action on pg 186 and no where else does it state something that changes this to a free action) can also be used as (Since the Quick Draw feat states that you can draw a weapon as a free action and the feat doesn't mention that you can't sheathe that weapon in the same action, One may sheathe the weapon as a free action).

As it is there really isn't a game balance issue with allowing Sheathing with as a free action with the Quick Draw feat, nor is there a game balance issue with NOT allowing Sheathing as a free action with the Quick Draw feat.

Still opinion-based. Chat away!

Liberty's Edge

Bobson wrote:

It's much easier to grab a handle and pull on a weapon to unsheath it than it is to grab the sheath, hold it still, aim the weapon at it, and slide it in. Likewise if you have belt loops the weapon is held in, or anything else. Think of snaps or zippers - they require much less coordination to open than to reclose.

Also, there's less need for quick sheathing mechanically. You can always drop the weapon as a free action, and now you can get weapon cords which let you recover them as a swift action.

True enough, but if one trains to DRAW quicky, why not learn to SHEATE quickly, for the same reason you learn to draw? only in Iaijutsu have I seen any speed draw without speed sheathing and that's because the idea is to draw and strike with perfect force and accuracy. Even with this example, some schools also taught the practitioner to sheathe the weapon with the same lightning speed, to prepare for the next draw and attack sequence. The first blow didn't ALWAYS decide things, and fencing was not originally part of Japanese culture. The Katana was too expensive to lose or chip (even though it happenned more often than not when fencing became an option....

That leads nicely to my next point, weapons are EXPENSIVE. Maybe not to an adventurer always, but realistically it is! Whether you switch weapons or just need to get it out quickly you NEVER drop a weapon as a soldier, even to draw a new one. You might just need it later, and you are not guaranteed time to go get it. If I am training to draw with speed, I want to train to sheathe it at the same time.

Dark Archive

dreddwulf1 wrote:

Again the only argument FOR sheathing a weapon as a move action even with Quick Draw is that the rule does not mention that you can...or CAN'T. The idea seems to be simply neglected. "If you think about it" statements are not RULES, just opinions. I can argue the other way around with some of the same analogies and nothing would get done.

For example (Since it states that it is a move action on pg 186 and no where else does it state something that changes this to a free action) can also be used as (Since the Quick Draw feat states that you can draw a weapon as a free action and the feat doesn't mention that you can't sheathe that weapon in the same action, One may sheathe the weapon as a free action).

As it is there really isn't a game balance issue with allowing Sheathing with as a free action with the Quick Draw feat, nor is there a game balance issue with NOT allowing Sheathing as a free action with the Quick Draw feat.

Still opinion-based. Chat away!

The rules don't say that a lot of thing "can't" happen. Doesn't mean they do. There are no rules that I can't explode myself and then reform, so by the "can't" logic I must be able to, right?


I don't know if Pathfinder states this, but in 3.5 it was explicitly explained that the rules followed a "general rule" followed by exceptions to that rule approach. Essentially if a rule was stated it was always assumed to be true unless an explicit exception was made.

So in this case, sheathe a weapon is stated to be a move action. Until you find some condition, ability, piece of equipment, etc that explicitly states that it makes sheathing a weapon some other type of action, then it is always a move action.

Since Quick Draw does not explicitly state that it changes the general rule, we know that it doesn't.

Star Voter 2014

dreddwulf1 wrote:
Bobson wrote:

It's much easier to grab a handle and pull on a weapon to unsheath it than it is to grab the sheath, hold it still, aim the weapon at it, and slide it in. Likewise if you have belt loops the weapon is held in, or anything else. Think of snaps or zippers - they require much less coordination to open than to reclose.

Also, there's less need for quick sheathing mechanically. You can always drop the weapon as a free action, and now you can get weapon cords which let you recover them as a swift action.

True enough, but if one trains to DRAW quicky, why not learn to SHEATE quickly, for the same reason you learn to draw? only in Iaijutsu have I seen any speed draw without speed sheathing and that's because the idea is to draw and strike with perfect force and accuracy. Even with this example, some schools also taught the practitioner to sheathe the weapon with the same lightning speed, to prepare for the next draw and attack sequence. The first blow didn't ALWAYS decide things, and fencing was not originally part of Japanese culture. The Katana was too expensive to lose or chip (even though it happenned more often than not when fencing became an option....

I certainly won't say you couldn't have a feat to allow for quick sheathing - but by default, no matter how much you've practiced, it's going to be much harder to sheath in combat than it will be to draw. Too much chance of sheathing your sword in your leg instead of the sheath if you're not careful.

Liberty's Edge

Bobson wrote:
dreddwulf1 wrote:
Bobson wrote:

It's much easier to grab a handle and pull on a weapon to unsheath it than it is to grab the sheath, hold it still, aim the weapon at it, and slide it in. Likewise if you have belt loops the weapon is held in, or anything else. Think of snaps or zippers - they require much less coordination to open than to reclose.

Also, there's less need for quick sheathing mechanically. You can always drop the weapon as a free action, and now you can get weapon cords which let you recover them as a swift action.

True enough, but if one trains to DRAW quicky, why not learn to SHEATE quickly, for the same reason you learn to draw? only in Iaijutsu have I seen any speed draw without speed sheathing and that's because the idea is to draw and strike with perfect force and accuracy. Even with this example, some schools also taught the practitioner to sheathe the weapon with the same lightning speed, to prepare for the next draw and attack sequence. The first blow didn't ALWAYS decide things, and fencing was not originally part of Japanese culture. The Katana was too expensive to lose or chip (even though it happenned more often than not when fencing became an option....
I certainly won't say you couldn't have a feat to allow for quick sheathing - but by default, no matter how much you've practiced, it's going to be much harder to sheath in combat than it will be to draw. Too much chance of sheathing your sword in your leg instead of the sheath if you're not careful.

There is also a good chance of drawing so fast you throw it at the enemy, leaving yourself without a weapon. Then there's weather conditions that could make the blade stick, length and type of blade making a simpler or more difficult draw...

Of course it's more difficult if it is not practiced.

As for the "can't" post, you CAN blow yourself up. You'd just have to make a new character afterwards. As for reforming, that's up to your GM. I'd just let ya' die, smart guy.

Seriously, though, I'm not concerned just that a statement wasn't made against it, but that the idea of just dropping your weapon on the ground in ANY battle is a REALLY bad idea. There are too many ways to lose it, and there is no guarantee you will get it back. This seems like a concept that is not even CONSIDERED by most roleplayers who have not had experience in a real conflict, or even trained for it. I personally WOULD train to sheathe and draw quickly at the same time, to ensure that I didn't lose weapons in combat. Dealt with too many players that whined about losing weapons they dropped. Ho, you didn't think the bad guy would STEAL that pretty magic bow when you dropped it in front of him to draw your sword?

The way the section is worded, it looks like it just wasn't addressed as an option, rather than a stated inability to do so.

This is not D&D 3.5. Let the marketing strategy die. PLay Station 3 did.


dreddwulf1 wrote:

There is also a good chance of drawing so fast you throw it at the enemy, leaving yourself without a weapon. Then there's weather conditions that could make the blade stick, length and type of blade making a simpler or more difficult draw...

Of course it's more difficult if it is not practiced.

As for the "can't" post, you CAN blow yourself up. You'd just have to make a new character afterwards. As for reforming, that's up to your GM. I'd just let ya' die, smart guy.

Seriously, though, I'm not concerned just that a statement wasn't made against it, but that the idea of just dropping your weapon on the ground in ANY battle is a REALLY bad idea. There are too many ways to lose it, and there is no guarantee you will get it back. This seems like a concept that is not even CONSIDERED by most roleplayers who have not had experience in a real conflict, or even trained for it. I personally WOULD train to sheathe and draw quickly at the same time, to ensure that I didn't lose weapons in combat. Dealt with too many players that whined about losing weapons they dropped. Ho, you didn't think the bad guy would STEAL that pretty magic bow when you dropped it in front of him to draw your sword?

The way the section is worded, it looks like it just wasn't addressed as an option, rather than a stated inability to do so.

This is not D&D 3.5. Let the marketing strategy die. PLay Station 3 did.

Really? Can you show me the rule that says "characters may will themselves to blow up at any time?" What kind of action does it take? Do you have to fail a fort save, or does it just do a fixed amount of damage?

Yes, dropping weapons can be bad. So buy a weapon cord. Also, who cares if the bad guy picks up your bow when you have a sword out? He provokes for picking it up, giving you a free swing. Besides, you're either going to kill him (and take your bow back) or he will kill you (and take the rest of your stuff). I suppose he could run away, but chances are, you'd be willing to devote significant effort toward getting that bow back.

If you really care so much, take the move action to put your bow away, instead of dropping it. Or ask your GM to make a Quick-Sheathe feat, pre-req quick draw. You want your character to practice it, show it by taking it as a feat.

Star Voter 2013

I assure you you are not a unique snowflake. People have been asking this question for 10 years, and every time developers have responded, "yes quick draw cannot help you sheath. Yes, this is our intention. No, allowing it is not balanced for many many many reasons you don't pick up on until you allow it and something truly bizarre happens.". The feat is subtle and you may not notice the extra attacks and jams it gets you out of. I tend to over a campaign make notes in a journal of all the times a certain feat saved me or a party member and all the times I was boned because I didn't have it. There are a surprising amount of goofy feats you wouldn't think of as good that can get you out of a amazingly wide variety of trouble, quick draw is one.


I house rule quickdraw to allow sheathing as well as drawing weapons.

It's not game-breaking and it's cool.


I don't allow quick sheathing. It takes longer to sheathe a weapon than draw it in real life, so I like that the game takes it into account.

Even the samurai know for their quickdraw techniques, do not sheathe quickly. If you watch swordsman in movies and in real life, you learn that sheathing a weapon generally requires you to find the scabbard entry point, grasp it, then use your finger to slide your blade along and guide the point back into the sheathe. Much more time consuming than drawing it out.


Well, sheathing a weapon provokes an attack of opportunity, so perhaps the devs didn't want a free action that would do that.

Plus as Maddigan said, it makes sense for it to take more concentration than drawing a weapon.

Dedicated Voter 2013

Content is written to tell you what you CAN do outside of the written rules as presented.

Power Attack doesn't say you CAN'T leap fourty feet into the air and stab your foe with a free charge at the end of every five feet of movement, but common sense tells us that isn't what the feat is for.

Quick Draw doesn't say "And you may sheathe weapons for free as well", so you can't.

Don't fall into the trap of 'It doesn't specifically say you can't', that's not RAW.

Liberty's Edge

There is a difference between things that are ridiculous and things that can actually work. Sheathing a weapon quickly can actually work, I've seen it personally and I've done it personally. I have worked with swords in real life, so I KNOW it can be done. That's why I started talking about it. The movies are MOVIES, and even some of those have quick SHEATHING as well as quick drawing.

Equating sheathing a weapon with blowing yourself up is so COMPLETELY out there that the only reason someone would mention it is to illustrate the point that the rulebook is an infallible bible written by angels...an equally ridiculous proposition. The book is written by people who make mistakes and have their own viewpoints just like anybody else. This forum and your comments would not exist if that were not true.

It IS however possible to "blow yourself up" in some ways. For example, with spells if that book-smart mage doesn't check his distance before firing them. Try using a little imagination if you're going to be condescending. It sounds better when you do.

Most of the postings here prove that few would actually think of sheathing a weapon quickly as useful or possible. The usefulness of training with quick sheathing AND quick drawing is more important for someone in actual combat situations, instead of games. In such a situation you don't DROP your weapon...ever. Already talked about this.

The only difficult thing about quick sheathing is that few make the effort to practice sheathing a weapon. So many people try to find ways AROUND making an effort because it's a game. It's fantasy so I can understand the viewpoint, even though I think it's pretty lazy. It is harder to TRAIN to do anything than not to, that's why it's called TRAINING.

Power Attack doesn't say anything about movement because the feat doesn't cover movement at all. Stay on task, would you?

As for making a feat for it, that's not a terrible idea. So why didn't Pathfinder do it to begin with if the balance is so crucial and the balance of the game so insanely upset by it? Because the writers hadn't THOUGHT OF IT as relevant enough to create a feat.

As for a weapon cord, try doing that with a real weapon in combat. Better yet, do it in a training situation. When your enemy starts kicking your butt because you got tangled in the string or got hit by your own weapon when it swung back at you due to your own movements after losing grip on the weapon, I want to be there. The entertainment value would be priceless!

As for what developers say, Haven't seen too many of them actually personally TEST some of these theories. I have, and not in the SCA or with rules and foam sticks.

Not every RAW is RACS (Rules As Common Sense.) and after seeing some of these arguments, common sense is even LESS common than I thought. Oh well. It IS just a game in the end.

For those who are just mentioning their ideas, I have no quarrel. Thank you for the posting and I'll keep your thoughts in mind. Not everyone has to agree, but thank you for taking the time to discuss things. Your opinions will be valued.

The sarcasm is for those who want to spend time being condescending jerks rather than simply posting views. If it's really that much of an issue for you, send a personal message. That way you waste only MY time, and not everyone else who posts here.

From here on, I'll keep to the points of discussion. I ask that everyone else do the same. Flame reels go elsewhere and it wastes the time of those who want to actually DISCUSS rules rather than annoy others for fun.


dreddwulf1 wrote:

There is a difference between things that are ridiculous and things that can actually work. Sheathing a weapon quickly can actually work, I've seen it personally and I've done it personally. I have worked with swords in real life, so I KNOW it can be done. That's why I started talking about it. The movies are MOVIES, and even some of those have quick SHEATHING as well as quick drawing.

Equating sheathing a weapon with blowing yourself up is so COMPLETELY out there that the only reason someone would mention it is to illustrate the point that the rulebook is an infallible bible written by angels...an equally ridiculous proposition. The book is written by people who make mistakes and have their own viewpoints just like anybody else. This forum and your comments would not exist if that were not true.

It IS however possible to "blow yourself up" in some ways. For example, with spells if that book-smart mage doesn't check his distance before firing them. Try using a little imagination if you're going to be condescending. It sounds better when you do.

Most of the postings here prove that few would actually think of sheathing a weapon quickly as useful or possible. The usefulness of training with quick sheathing AND quick drawing is more important for someone in actual combat situations, instead of games. In such a situation you don't DROP your weapon...ever. Already talked about this.

The only difficult thing about quick sheathing is that few make the effort to practice sheathing a weapon. So many people try to find ways AROUND making an effort because it's a game. It's fantasy so I can understand the viewpoint, even though I think it's pretty lazy. It is harder to TRAIN to do anything than not to, that's why it's called TRAINING.

Power Attack doesn't say anything about movement because the feat doesn't cover movement at all. Stay on task, would you?

As for making a feat for it, that's not a terrible idea. So why didn't Pathfinder do...

One: You are Trolling.

Two: Weapon Cord, Ive seen it done in a LARP, in combat, without being hit by the weapon. No entertainment value if you know what you are doing, and it doesn't take much practice.

Liberty's Edge

I am not sure what 'trolling' is supposed to be, so try to make your statement plain and understandable, please. Such jargon only speaks of rudeness and an elitist attitude.

There is little difficulty in acquiring the skill of quick sheathing if you actually make an effort. I also said 'In combat' and 'in a training situation'. I also stated that this is done in a COMBAT training environment. LARPing with foam sticks is not a viable source of information. There are too many rules in it to create a proper simulation of a battle, which has no rules.

However, to be fair I have LARPed at one time, myself. I watched my opponent use the string tactic. I also mopped the floor with him when the aforementioned situation presented itself and he hit himself with his own weapon. I also stopped due to the fact that it was not a truly viable training atmosphere for practical combat simulation. It can be fun and was for a time, but it is a game, one that is not geared for combat training, therefore got boring pretty quickly for me.

I would also ask that you e-mail ME instead of putting personal attacks on the board. It wastes space that can be used by others to place opinions, rules and content that allows sharing of information on two weapon fighting. From here on in, that is what I will be doing.

The final point I would make as to LARP is that the weapons are not designed to draw or sheathe as an actual weapon would. They are designed not to hurt anyone, which is a contradiction to the concept of a weapon. I'm not saying it is a bad thing to LARP, just that using it as an example for combat situations is not logical.

Again, I apologise to those who are posting to share actual info on this subject. I felt the need to deal with this one publicly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

dredd, its pretty easy. By RAW you cannot sheathe a weapon as a free action with the quick draw feat. Ask your GM if you can have a quick sheathe feat. (Or create it if you are the GM).

Star Voter 2014

Tarantula wrote:
dredd, its pretty easy. By RAW you cannot sheathe a weapon as a free action with the quick draw feat. Ask your GM if you can have a quick sheathe feat. (Or create it if you are the GM).

I second this. Everything you describe about it screams "Make a new feat" - it requires special training, it's not necessarily trained together with drawing quickly, and it's possible to do. Therefore I present you the feat you're looking for:

Quote:


Quick Sheathe (Combat)
You can sheathe weapons faster than most.

Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +1, Quick Draw

Benefit: You can sheathe a weapon as a swift action instead of as a move action. This does not enable you to take any more attacks in one round than you would otherwise be entitled to.

Alchemical items, potions, scrolls, and wands cannot be stowed away quickly using this feat.

Normal: Without this feat, you may sheathe a weapon as a move action.

I made it a swift action instead of a free because the alternative was a free action with a "you may only use this feat once per round" clause. Otherwise, you could theoretically make 8 attacks (Greater TWF & haste) with 8 different weapons, and actually put each one away afterwards, which is just ridiculous.

Edit: As far as RACS goes, a 1st level commoner with an average Con score can run at 120'/6 seconds (20'/second, 6.096 meters/s) for a minute without any effort (so a bit over 365 meters in a minute). So average Joe with no training whatsoever can run the 400m race in 65 seconds assuming one successful DC 10 check (with no modifier). The world record is around 44.5 seconds. If this average Joe uses his one feat to pick up Run, he can do it in 52.5 seconds without the con check. A human who chooses Fleet as their other feat can do it in 45 seconds. World record speeds by a 1st level commoner who likes to run. A first level barbarian or monk would still trounce them.

The point is, it's a game that models reality to an extent, not mimics it. Common sense and comparisons to real-life only go so far.


Spoiler:
dreddwulf1 wrote:

I am not sure what 'trolling' is supposed to be, so try to make your statement plain and understandable, please. Such jargon only speaks of rudeness and an elitist attitude.

There is little difficulty in acquiring the skill of quick sheathing if you actually make an effort. I also said 'In combat' and 'in a training situation'. I also stated that this is done in a COMBAT training environment. LARPing with foam sticks is not a viable source of information. There are too many rules in it to create a proper simulation of a battle, which has no rules.

However, to be fair I have LARPed at one time, myself. I watched my opponent use the string tactic. I also mopped the floor with him when the aforementioned situation presented itself and he hit himself with his own weapon. I also stopped due to the fact that it was not a truly viable training atmosphere for practical combat simulation. It can be fun and was for a time, but it is a game, one that is not geared for combat training, therefore got boring pretty quickly for me.

I would also ask that you e-mail ME instead of putting personal attacks on the board. It wastes space that can be used by others to place opinions, rules and content that allows sharing of information on two weapon fighting. From here on in, that is what I will be doing.

The final point I would make as to LARP is that the weapons are not designed to draw or sheathe as an actual weapon would. They are designed not to hurt anyone, which is a contradiction to the concept of a weapon. I'm not saying it is a bad thing to LARP, just that using it as an example for combat situations is not logical.

Again, I apologise to those who are posting to share actual info on this subject. I felt the need to deal with this one publicly.

One: I can't email you, no email address.

Two: Trolling is when you post in such a way as to be offensive. Some people troll by accident, others because they are in a bad mood. Some because they are jerks. I pointed out that you were trolling (a common term I assumed everyone new, but we all know what assuming does), in hopes that you were the first one.
Three: Your posts scream of elitism (I would be careful with the caps lock key in the future).
Four: My comment was relevant to the topic. It is possible to use a weapon cord effectively, and it is not hard. Your comeback was not and should have been in a spoiler if you truly did not want to disrupt the thread.


Bobson wrote:
Quote:


Quick Sheathe (Combat)
You can sheathe weapons faster than most.

Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +1, Quick Draw

Benefit: You can sheathe a weapon as a swift action instead of as a move action. This does not enable you to take any more attacks in one round than you would otherwise be entitled to.

Alchemical items, potions, scrolls, and wands cannot be stowed away quickly using this feat.

Normal: Without this feat, you may sheathe a weapon as a move action.

I made it a swift action instead of a free because the alternative was a free action with a "you may only use this feat once per round" clause. Otherwise, you could theoretically make 8 attacks (Greater TWF & haste) with 8 different weapons, and actually put each one away afterwards, which is just ridiculous.

Perhaps throw in a clause for the ability to sheathe two weapons as a swift action for TWF'ers with a min. +6 BAB?

Liberty's Edge

I really don't have a problem with the creation of a feat, just illustrating why it wouldn't be a gamekiller to add it to quick draw. As for drawing 8 weapons and making 8 attacks, this falls under the same idea as talking as a free action. It can be done, the character is not going to quote a chapter from 'War and Peace' with that free action, neither should they be able to draw and sheathe all that and attack. Even the rules quote common sense in certain circumstances.

No this does NOT mimic reality all that well. Neither does launching fireballs from your hands, teleporting, flying, riding a mount at a possible walking speed of 900 ft/Min, killing 6 people with a single swordstroke, etc.

Not seeing where the training issue is, either. The same training to sheathe a weapon would also go with using the aforementioned chain or string on the weapon idea. Getting around that thing while fighting with it or getting the weapon back to your hand would take some extra effort, but noone her so much as suggested a feat for that. Interesting how easily acceptable one is rather than the other....

In any case, this seems a matter far more of opinion than any one view, as I have seen on this post. Solved my own problem a long time ago, now just looking at options. Think I pretty much got what I need from here.

Thank for the ideas, thoughts and the reminder not to ask about any options that are not absolute and incontrovertably written in stone tablets (rulebooks). Just seems to start arguments.

Since this discussion is now severely off-topic let's go back to two-weapon fighting questions. Anyone?

P.S. It doesn't say that any character can use the bathroom either. Does that mean they can't? :)


dreddwulf1 wrote:

I really don't have a problem with the creation of a feat, just illustrating why it wouldn't be a gamekiller to add it to quick draw. As for drawing 8 weapons and making 8 attacks, this falls under the same idea as talking as a free action. It can be done, the character is not going to quote a chapter from 'War and Peace' with that free action, neither should they be able to draw and sheathe all that and attack. Even the rules quote common sense in certain circumstances.

No this does NOT mimic reality all that well. Neither does launching fireballs from your hands, teleporting, flying, riding a mount at a possible walking speed of 900 ft/Min, killing 6 people with a single swordstroke, etc.

Not seeing where the training issue is, either. The same training to sheathe a weapon would also go with using the aforementioned chain or string on the weapon idea. Getting around that thing while fighting with it or getting the weapon back to your hand would take some extra effort, but noone her so much as suggested a feat for that. Interesting how easily acceptable one is rather than the other....

In any case, this seems a matter far more of opinion than any one view, as I have seen on this post. Solved my own problem a long time ago, now just looking at options. Think I pretty much got what I need from here.

Thank for the ideas, thoughts and the reminder not to ask about any options that are not absolute and incontrovertably written in stone tablets (rulebooks). Just seems to start arguments.

Since this discussion is now severely off-topic let's go back to two-weapon fighting questions. Anyone?

P.S. It doesn't say that any character can use the bathroom either. Does that mean they can't? :)

You posted in the rules questions forum. We told you what the rules are, and what we believe would be valid house rules to allow what you want to do.

We didn't say that using a weapon cord should require a feat, because it doesn't. If you want options, maybe post in advice, something like "I know sheathing a weapon requires a move action. I was thinking of allowing sheathing to be a free action for characters with the Quick Draw feat, does this seem like it would be unbalanced or break anything?"

P.S. There are no rules regarding bathroom use. So you don't use one, but you also don't need one. There are also no rules regarding sneezing, blood on a sword making you lose your grip, being right or left handed, being born with a club toe, or any other of an infinite list of things. They aren't important enough to warrant rules. By the RAW, they have no effect. If you care so much about them, you can make up your own, but don't try to convince us your way is "right" or the only way of doing it.

The Exchange

Quote:
2. Is there a such weapon as a sword gauntlet/short sword gauntlet?

Adventurer's Armory p.18: Pata '... treat it as a combined short sword and locked gauntlet.'

Liberty's Edge

ProfPotts wrote:
Quote:
2. Is there a such weapon as a sword gauntlet/short sword gauntlet?
Adventurer's Armory p.18: Pata '... treat it as a combined short sword and locked gauntlet.'

Thanks Profpotts, both for answering the question and staying on task.

Liberty's Edge

Tarantula wrote:
dreddwulf1 wrote:

I really don't have a problem with the creation of a feat, just illustrating why it wouldn't be a gamekiller to add it to quick draw. As for drawing 8 weapons and making 8 attacks, this falls under the same idea as talking as a free action. It can be done, the character is not going to quote a chapter from 'War and Peace' with that free action, neither should they be able to draw and sheathe all that and attack. Even the rules quote common sense in certain circumstances.

No this does NOT mimic reality all that well. Neither does launching fireballs from your hands, teleporting, flying, riding a mount at a possible walking speed of 900 ft/Min, killing 6 people with a single swordstroke, etc.

Not seeing where the training issue is, either. The same training to sheathe a weapon would also go with using the aforementioned chain or string on the weapon idea. Getting around that thing while fighting with it or getting the weapon back to your hand would take some extra effort, but noone her so much as suggested a feat for that. Interesting how easily acceptable one is rather than the other....

In any case, this seems a matter far more of opinion than any one view, as I have seen on this post. Solved my own problem a long time ago, now just looking at options. Think I pretty much got what I need from here.

Thank for the ideas, thoughts and the reminder not to ask about any options that are not absolute and incontrovertably written in stone tablets (rulebooks). Just seems to start arguments.

Since this discussion is now severely off-topic let's go back to two-weapon fighting questions. Anyone?

P.S. It doesn't say that any character can use the bathroom either. Does that mean they can't? :)

You posted in the rules questions forum. We told you what the rules are, and what we believe would be valid house rules to allow what you want to do.

We didn't say that using a weapon cord should require...

Back to Two-Weapon Fighting, please.


Pathfinder Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I think it's pretty clear that in the Rules As Written, the Quick Draw Feat doesn't allow quick sheathing. I absolutely don't think this was an oversight in any way shape or form, given the name of the feat and the ample space in the description to mention it.

So to pull quick sheath off (pull, get it?), you either have to convince your DM to allow it by fiat or by letting you take a new feat. But there's really no point to arguing it on the boards, other than to prcatice for the argument at the table, I guess. It doesn't look like you are convincing many folks here.

You haven't mentioned why you want to quick sheath. Color me curious. I am guessing you want to be able to switch weapons during a single full attack, without having to drop anything (which may not always be the best idea, but people do it all the time in combat, both real and imagined - combat is desperate business).

As far as two weapon defense goes, if you take the AGP Two Weapon Warrior Class, your TWD goes up with your level.

Liberty's Edge

Michael F wrote:

I think it's pretty clear that in the Rules As Written, the Quick Draw Feat doesn't allow quick sheathing. I absolutely don't think this was an oversight in any way shape or form, given the name of the feat and the ample space in the description to mention it.

So to pull quick sheath off (pull, get it?), you either have to convince your DM to allow it by fiat or by letting you take a new feat. But there's really no point to arguing it on the boards, other than to prcatice for the argument at the table, I guess. It doesn't look like you are convincing many folks here.

You haven't mentioned why you want to quick sheath. Color me curious. I am guessing you want to be able to switch weapons during a single full attack, without having to drop anything (which may not always be the best idea, but people do it all the time in combat, both real and imagined - combat is desperate business).

As far as two weapon defense goes, if you take the AGP Two Weapon Warrior Class, your TWD goes up with your level.

Originally it was for an Eldritch Knight who wanted to concentrate on two-weapon fighting, hence all the questions. AS it is, the question was already answered a while ago in my game (here the question just broke down to useless bashing and the 'can' and 'can't' remarks), so I'm done with the entire line of questioning.

I thank you for your input, but this thread was for two-weapon fighting. The question on the Quick Draw feat was a side question, based on the written rule not mentioning sheathing in the Quick Draw feat. A side question that has wasted far too much space here.

I would truly appreciate it if everyone could return to two-weapon fighting questions and comments. That is the reason for this post. If quick draw is a major issue, please create a new post for it. Thank you.


dreddwulf1 wrote:
I would truly appreciate it if everyone could return to two-weapon fighting questions and comments. That is the reason for this post. If quick draw is a major issue, please create a new post for it. Thank you.

What TWF questions do you have that haven't already been answered?


Question, if your are using a Shield for Bashing and you dont have the TWF feat, would you take the -6/-10 negative for attacking with two weapons???...if so then answer me this, why would anyone use the Sword & Shield option of the Ranger found on the APH???


Mymyr wrote:
Question, if your are using a Shield for Bashing and you dont have the TWF feat, would you take the -6/-10 negative for attacking with two weapons???...if so then answer me this, why would anyone use the Sword & Shield option of the Ranger found on the APH???

I think the archetype is there to gather most shield-related feats like shield focus.

if you want to S&B to get alot of attacks, just take Core Ranger (not that easy to build I admit).


If you're planning a higher dex TWF build but don't want to devote all your feats to the shield abilities. Also it lets you bypass the requirements. 2nd level human ranger could have Power attack, TWF, and Shield Slam. At 3rd can take Imp Bull Rush.


Kaiyanwang wrote:

I think the archetype is there to gather most shield-related feats like shield focus.

if you want to S&B to get a lot of attacks, just take Core Ranger (not that easy to build I admit).

It sounds reasonable, but as you said it's better if you go core Ranger...

And in the case that Tarantula is mentioning, always would be better if you go core, as damage is done on Str, and in fact you're saving one feat slot, not going High Dex (you would have to attack with Weapon Finesse)...

So I don't see the point on building a PC that has to have at least 15 of Dex to gain TWF and then go with at least 15 of Str, to have enough Str to hit regularly...

So I don't see the point on that option, as well as the other option the Urban Ranger...but that's another topic...thanks mates !!! hope someday that they realize that if you are going to make an option at least the option should be as deadly as the others...(take the Inquisitor for example, that's one hell of a broken class)...

The Exchange

Quote:
Question, if your are using a Shield for Bashing and you dont have the TWF feat, would you take the -6/-10 negative for attacking with two weapons???...if so then answer me this, why would anyone use the Sword & Shield option of the Ranger found on the APH???

You'd only take the penalty if you try to attack with your 'main' weapon as well as your shield bash as part of a full-attack action. Just holding a weapon in the other hand doesn't give you penalties if you don't attack with it in a round. Normally each round you can choose which weapon to attack with (so you could, for example, choose to use a full-attack action to use all your iterative attacks for shield bashing, at no penalty).

A few class features / alternate features (e.g. the Shielded Fighter's 'Shield Fighter' feature) even allow you to switch between the weapons you're using for each attack in a full-attack action, and still not suffer Two-Weapon Fighting penalties, as long as you don't claim the 'bonus' attack you normally get from TWF.

1 to 50 of 56 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / Two-Weapon Fighting Question All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.