James Jacobs (Creative Director):
If you wield two weapons, the weapon in your off hand adds half your Strength bonus unless you have the Double Slice feat.[/] See the rules for light and one-handed weapons on page 141 of the Core Rulebook.All (normal ;) )Character have 2 hand, main and off if you attack with the off hand you add only 0.5 bonus STR. no doubt JJ is not me or my comrades.
You might see to quote the reference where it shows an off-hand is used when not getting extra attacks. Without it you won't gain any ground.
PS:JJ, won't count as a reference.
This sure seems like the people who are arguing for half str mod are the same people who were arguing against the ability to use two weapons without two weapon fighting in the first place. And it seems like they are largely using the exact same arguments simply because the FAQ didn't explicitly call this out. This is really fighting tooth and nail to impose what little TWF penalties they can onto their players. What's the point? Just let them have the str mod.I was clearly on the side of the can use off hand attacks without TWF penalties part of the previous debate.
Karlgamer, people are using the words "penalty" and "penalize" in their general, english-language senses, not the game term that refers to a negative integer applied to a score or check. (I would also note that "penalize" doesn't even have that rules meaning, yet you still responded to it earlier in the same way you've been responding to usage of "penalty".)When dealing with rules semantics is VERY VERY important.
Even taking into consideration the actual definition of penalty getting a strength bonus to off hand attacks still doesn't count as a penalty.
If it was a penalty in either case it still wouldn't be a TWF penalty.
This discussion should have nothing to do with penalties. Even taking into consideration the general English-language sense.
Doing less damage is seen as a negative thing which makes it a penalty(not the game term). This "penalty" comes from using TWF. TWF does not impose anything past the turn it is used on so there will be no .5 str mod, unless you can show that TWF last until the next turn or that an off-hand has to be nominated even when not getting an extra attack.
|
Interestingly the FAQ dealt with iterative attack bonuses in its examples and does not deal with damage. In fact it ONLY deals with penalties for an EXTRA attack.
Multiple Weapons, Iterative Attacks, and Two-Weapon Fighting (page 202): If I have iterative attacks from a high BAB, can I make attacks with different weapons and not incur a two-weapon fighting penalty?
Yes. Basically, you only incur TWF penalties if you trying to get an extra attack per round.
Let's assume you're a 6th-level fighter (BAB +6/+1) holding a longsword in one hand and a light mace in the other. Your possible full attack combinations without using two-weapon fighting are:
(A) longsword at +6, longsword +1
(B) mace +6, mace +1
(C) longsword +6, mace +1
(D) mace +6, longsword +1
All of these combinations result in you making exactly two attacks, one at +6 and one at +1. You're not getting any extra attacks, therefore you're not using the two-weapon fighting rule, and therefore you're not taking any two-weapon fighting penalties.
If you have Quick Draw, you could even start the round wielding only one weapon, make your main attack with it, draw the second weapon as a free action after your first attack, and use that second weapon to make your iterative attack. As long as you're properly using the BAB values for your iterative attacks, and as long as you're not exceeding the number of attacks per round granted by your BAB, you are not considered to be using two-weapon fighting, and therefore do not take any of the penalties for two-weapon fighting.
The two-weapon fighting option in the Core Rulebook specifically refers to getting an extra attack for using a second weapon in your offhand. In the above four examples, there is no extra attack, therefore you're not using two-weapon fighting.
Using the longsword/mace example, if you use two-weapon fighting you actually have fewer options than if you aren't. Your options are (ignoring the primary/off hand penalties):
(A') primary longsword at +6, primary longsword at +1, off hand mace at +6
(B') primary mace at +6, primary mace at +1, off hand longsword at +6
In other words, once you decide you're using two-weapon fighting to get that extra attack on your turn (which you have to decide before you take any attacks on your turn), that decision locks you in to the format of "my primary weapon gets my main attack and my iterative attack, and my off hand weapon only gets the extra attack, and I apply two-weapon fighting penalties."
This FAQ still says that one of the weapons is in your off hand.
However, the rules on combat, first page, under damage, give the defining answer to how STR bonuses are applied.
Strength Bonus: When you hit with a melee or thrown weapon, including a sling, add your Strength modifier to the damage result. A Strength penalty, but not a bonus, applies on damage rolls made with a bow that is not a composite bow.
Off-Hand Weapon: When you deal damage with a weapon in your off hand, you add only 1/2 your Strength bonus. If you have a Strength penalty, the entire penalty applies.
To use the attacks presented as examples, if going a step further and looking at damage bonuses it would look like this (using longsword in primary hand and mace in off hand)
(A) longsword at +6 (full damage), longsword +1 (full damage)(B) mace +6 (half damage), mace +1 (half damage)
(C) longsword +6 (full damage), mace +1 (half damage)
(D) mace +6 (half damage), longsword +1 (full damage)
So yes, the FAQ itself still refers to primary and off-hand use even when not taking the extra attack. So you STILL have to apply the damage bonus rule. The rule for off hand damage is NOT part of TWF, it is part of the Damage rules.
I was clearly on the side of the can use off hand attacks without TWF penalties part of the previous debate.
I didn't cross reference every individual's posts. Many are the same posters with the same arguments. Anybody not getting deja vu from this thread has a very high will save.
About the James Jacobs quotes, I am not at all interested in being one of the people that vexes him picking and choosing which of his quotes to go by. But he very clearly disagreed with the eventual FAQ reading on TWF. Has he changed his mind on that ruling? We don't know. I always take JJ's advice to heart, but in any case where he has spoken against the rules or eventual FAQ reading (spring attack/vital strike, TWF rules, whether cantrips are spells), I suggest going by only what is written in the rules or FAQ, not what is said in the forums. If that means JJ thinks I'm a jerk, so be it.
don't hate me JJ :(
With that said show me where an off-hand exist outside of a situation where you do not get more attacks than normal such as TWF or natural attacks combined with martial weapons.
So, good fellow, are your really asking me to show you an example of the use of off hand attacks, when only recently we found out OFFICIALLY that using an off hand attack outside of TWF was even possible?
Well, I did give an example for 3.5 above. I don't know if you actually took the time to read it.
I realize that 3.5 isn't pathfinder but I also pointed out that the only difference between the two rules systems regarding off hand attacks was that in 3.5 you were given a -4 off hand penalty.
Notice that the penalty isn't a TWF penalty but specifically and off hand penalty.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
There has been a bit of miscommunication in recent posts, perhaps partly because I think some of the people involved might not have english as a first language. I will try to clarify the current state of the debate as best I can, so that people can move forward productively.
CURRENT STATE OF THE OFF-HAND DAMAGE DEBATE
It is accepted by both sides that an off-hand attack gains a bonus to damage equal to half your strength bonus unless you possess the Double Slice feat.
It is accepted by both sides that if you employ the Two-Weapon Fighting ("TWF") mechanic, the extra attack granted by this mechanic is considered to be an off-hand attack.
It is known, via the recent FAQ by Sean K Reynolds, that you can make multiple attacks due to a high enough Base Attack Bonus ("iterative attacks") and employ multiple weapons (one per attack) without employing the TWF mechanic.
The only question is this:
In such a case as described above, in which iterative attacks use different weapons but do not employ the Two-Weapon Fighting mechanic, is one of the attacks considered to be an off-hand attack?
The position of the "not off-hand" side is this:
The TWF mechanic is the only rule that defines an attack as being off-hand. Therefore, "off-handedness" exists only while employing the TWF mechanic. As a result, the answer to the above question is "no".
This position will be refuted if a rule (other than TWF) is cited which defines circumstances under which an attack is considered "off-hand". Unless I missed it, such a citation has not yet taken place.
I am not sure what the position of the other side of the argument is.
Hopefully this post is helpful.
good argument
Darn you Krome. Now I have to decide if I want to follow the rules or make a houserule.
With that said show me where an off-hand exist outside of a situation where you do not get more attacks than normal such as TWF or natural attacks combined with martial weapons.So, good fellow, are your really asking me to show you an example of the use of off hand attacks, when only recently we found out OFFICIALLY that using an off hand attack outside of TWF was even possible?
Well, I did give an example for 3.5 above. I don't know if you actually took the time to read it.
I realize that 3.5 isn't pathfinder but I also pointed out that the only difference between the two rules systems regarding off hand attacks was that in 3.5 you were given a -4 off hand penalty.
Notice that the penalty isn't a TWF penalty but specifically and off hand penalty.
I think Krome just handled all of that for you, at least until someone can rebuff his argument anyway.
You are also using Two hands when you use a Two-handed weapon, a primary hand and an off hand. You get the Strength damage from both hands.
You are also using two hands when you use a double weapon, a primary hand and off hand. You get the strength damage from either or both hands.
I think this is a very important concept, and easy to skip over.
I'll try to rephrase it outside of the current argument.
Ignore hands, arms, and all that stuff.
I'm a chess pawn, and I have a longsword.
I have two nebulous resources that I can use to manipulate that longsword.
One of these is fairly powerful, it adds a Widget's worth of force to whatever I use it on. Lets name this thing Alfonzo.
The other one is less powerful, it only adds half a Widget. It's name is Barney.
So, if I use Alfonzo to swing my longsword, I get one Widget worth of force. If I use Barney, I get half a Widget. If I use both Alfonzo and Barney, I get 1.5 Widgets worth of force!
There is a race of peoples, called Grikonians, that believe Alfonzo and Barney live within us, as etherial spirits, and we use them to empower our physical limbs to do things.
Others, the Karlonites, feel that, on your turn, you send Alfonzo and Barney into separate limbs, and they're stuck there until the end of your turn.
Others still feel that Alfonzo is permanently bound inside one specific limb, and Barney in the other, and that can never change. We don't talk about these folk, and banish them to caves.
So, back to game time, the Grikonians feel that when you make an attack, you can choose who powers the attack, Alfonzo or Barney (or, sometimes, both!). And if you have multiple attacks, you can still choose who powers each of those attacks. Say I send in Alfonzo for my first strike, great, a widget! Now, I send him in again for my second strike, woot, another widget! It doesn't matter what limb is physically holding which weapon, as they're all powered by Alfonzo.
The Karlonites, though, feel that once Alfonzo enters a limb, he's stuck there, so if you use another limb, with another weapon, you've got no choice but to send in Barney, and get his paltry half widget.
Everyone agrees, however, that when you need to use two resources at the same time, you can't use the same resource twice. So you have no choice but to send Alfonzo in one limb, and Barney in the other. Fortunately, the Paizotrons have declared that when doing so, an extra attack is granted.
....
And I have no idea where I was going with this. It made sense at the time, and I thought I had a great point to make. Oh well.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Krome, your argument is flawed. Here's why:
#1: "The FAQ still says that one of the weapons is in your off hand." Both references (there are actually three, but you only bolded two) to a weapon in your off hand refer to employing the TWF mechanic. The FAQ never references an off hand without referring to gaining the extra attack granted by the TWF mechanic. Therefore, this point of your argument fails to actually establish that the off hand exists as a concept outside of the TWF mechanic.
#2: "...the rules on combat, first page, under damage, give the defining answer to how STR bonuses are applied."
Yes, this defines that if your attack is off hand, you deal less damage. However, nothing in the rule you quoted says anything about what causes an attack to be considered an off hand attack in the first place. Defining the result of X is not the same as defining X, or defining how X comes to be. Defining how much damage an off hand attack deals is not the same thing as defining off hand attacks, or defining how an attack becomes an off hand attack.
Both of your arguments fail to actually contradict the "off hand exists only in the TWF mechanic" statement in any way whatsoever. I.e., the truth or falsehood of "off hand exists only in the TWF mechanic" exists independently of the rules you cited. Your conclusion to the contrary, therefore, is invalid.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think Krome just handled all of that for you, at least until someone can rebuff his argument anyway.
Look at the FAQ he quoted. Look at the first four words of the sentence containing the first instance of the term "offhand".
Notice: the word "off" appears five times in that FAQ post. Every time is in reference to two-weapon fighting.
1) "The two-weapon fighting option in the Core Rulebook specifically refers to getting an extra attack for using a second weapon in your offhand."
2) "if you use two-weapon fighting you actually have fewer options than if you aren't. Your options are (ignoring the primary/off hand penalties)"
3&4) describing those options, which are only options when TWF.
5) "In other words, once you decide you're using two-weapon fighting to get that extra attack on your turn, that decision locks you in to the format of "my primary weapon gets my main attack and my iterative attack, and my off hand weapon only gets the extra attack, and I apply two-weapon fighting penalties.""
Thus, Krome's conclusion that "This FAQ still says that one of the weapons is in your off hand." should more completely say "This FAQ still says that one of the weapons is in your off hand when using the two-weapon fighting option."
Krome, your argument is flawed. Here's why:
#1: "The FAQ still says that one of the weapons is in your off hand." Both references (there are actually three, but you only bolded two) to a weapon in your off hand refer to employing the TWF mechanic. The FAQ never references an off hand without referring to gaining the extra attack granted by the TWF mechanic. Therefore, this point of your argument fails to actually establish that the off hand exists as a concept outside of the TWF mechanic.
#2: "...the rules on combat, first page, under damage, give the defining answer to how STR bonuses are applied."
Yes, this defines that if your attack is off hand, you deal less damage. However, nothing in the rule you quoted says anything about what causes an attack to be considered an off hand attack in the first place. Defining the result of X is not the same as defining X, or defining how X comes to be. Defining how much damage an off hand attack deals is not the same thing as defining off hand attacks, or defining how an attack becomes an off hand attack.Both of your arguments fail to actually contradict the "off hand exists only in the TWF mechanic" statement in any way whatsoever. I.e., the truth or falsehood of "off hand exists only in the TWF mechanic" exists independently of the rules you cited. Your conclusion to the contrary, therefore, is invalid.
Jiggy to the rescue. :)
The fight goes on.
This position will be refuted if a rule (other than TWF) is cited which defines circumstances under which an attack is considered "off-hand". Unless I missed it, such a citation has not yet taken place.
How about this?
when using a Buckler and using that hand to wield or help wield a weapon, you take a -1 penalty on attacks.
"This penalty stacks with those that may apply for fighting with your off hand and for fighting with two weapons."
That kind of implies that fighting with your off hand is not always the same as fighting with two weapons.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
This position will be refuted if a rule (other than TWF) is cited which defines circumstances under which an attack is considered "off-hand". Unless I missed it, such a citation has not yet taken place.How about this?
when using a Buckler and using that hand to wield or help wield a weapon, you take a -1 penalty on attacks.
"This penalty stacks with those that may apply for fighting with your off hand and for fighting with two weapons."
That kind of implies that fighting with your off hand is not always the same as fighting with two weapons.
On the other hand (see what I did there?), there isn't a penalty to fighting with your off hand outside of TWF; that much was spelled out in the FAQ. So what penalty could it be referring to?
My best guess is that when they copied over the buckler text from 3.5 and did whatever cleanup/editing may have occurred, they weren't looking at it with off-handedness in mind and failed to remove what was actually a reference to a now-nonexistent -4 penalty to off-hand attacks.
If the "penalty for fighting with your off hand" language is referring to a now-removed rule, then it's a mere artifact and does not support the notion of non-TWF off-handedness in Pathfinder. If someone can show why this isn't a copy/paste artifact error, then we'll at least have something to talk about.
|
This position will be refuted if a rule (other than TWF) is cited which defines circumstances under which an attack is considered "off-hand". Unless I missed it, such a citation has not yet taken place.How about this?
when using a Buckler and using that hand to wield or help wield a weapon, you take a -1 penalty on attacks.
"This penalty stacks with those that may apply for fighting with your off hand and for fighting with two weapons."
That kind of implies that fighting with your off hand is not always the same as fighting with two weapons.
edit: damn you ninja Jiggy... :P
When, other then TWF, do you take a penalty on attacks when attacking with an off-hand? I thought that you only take the minuses to hit when two weapon fighting?
The reason that I ask this, is that quote assumes that there is a chance that the penalties will not stack (aka, they are to the same thing, in this case, a to-hit penalty). If it said "or" instead, it would back that argument better.
This position will be refuted if a rule (other than TWF) is cited which defines circumstances under which an attack is considered "off-hand". Unless I missed it, such a citation has not yet taken place.How about this?
when using a Buckler and using that hand to wield or help wield a weapon, you take a -1 penalty on attacks.
"This penalty stacks with those that may apply for fighting with your off hand and for fighting with two weapons."
That kind of implies that fighting with your off hand is not always the same as fighting with two weapons.
There is no penalty for fighting with an off-hand though. That was a 3.5 relic, which was brought up in the first TWF debate. It seems that during the copy and paste the buckler was never fixed.
|
I'm not so big on relying on "implied" rules, but that goes double for situations where the implication only exists in one or two extremely specific cases.
Also, note that in the CRB you took the two-weapon fighting penalty when combining with natural attacks, even if you had no off-hand weapon to be using. This means that the extra few points of "off-hand" penalty to attack rolls didn't always apply when the CRB first came out (corrected in the bestiary), which may be something that the buckler text was writing to. Now it does always apply, because the only situation where TWFing penalties apply now is when you gain extra attacks via two-weapon fighting.
This position will be refuted if a rule (other than TWF) is cited which defines circumstances under which an attack is considered "off-hand". Unless I missed it, such a citation has not yet taken place.How about this?
when using a Buckler and using that hand to wield or help wield a weapon, you take a -1 penalty on attacks.
"This penalty stacks with those that may apply for fighting with your off hand and for fighting with two weapons."
That kind of implies that fighting with your off hand is not always the same as fighting with two weapons.
My best guess is that when they copied over the buckler text from 3.5 and did whatever cleanup/editing may have occurred, they weren't looking at it with off-handedness in mind and failed to remove what was actually a reference to a now-nonexistent -4 penalty to off-hand attacks.
ninja'd by jiggy.
This position will be refuted if a rule (other than TWF) is cited which defines circumstances under which an attack is considered "off-hand". Unless I missed it, such a citation has not yet taken place.
How about this?
Off Hand, Off-Hand Weapon: When attacking with two weapons, the character must designate one of his hands as his off hand; the weapon held in that hand is treated as his off-hand weapon. The game rules don’t really care about whether you’re right-handed or left-handed, and it’s even OK to change your off hand designation from one round to the next.Attack Penalties: When you use the full attack action to attack with two weapons, you can make your primary and off-hand attacks in any order -- though most people attack with the primary hand first.
You do not have to choose between the attack and full attack actions until after you have made your first attack on your turn (see page 143 in the Player's Handbook). However, if you intend to attack with two weapons during your action, you must take the correct penalty for each attack or give up your opportunity to use your second weapon (because the rules require you to take a penalty on attacks you make with both your primary and off hands). For example, suppose you hold a longsword in your primary hand and carry a lit torch in your off hand. It's reasonable to assume the torch is a light weapon, albeit an improvised weapon. You don't have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, but being able to see in the torchlight is more important to you than a shield right now.
If something leaps out at you and you decide to hack at it with your sword, you could also try to whack it with your torch (perhaps the foe seems slightly flammable, or perhaps you suspect you're facing a regenerating monster). You can make your attack roll with your longsword and observe the result before deciding between an attack or a full attack, but you must take a -4 attack penalty on that primary hand attack to preserve your option to attack with the torch. In this situation it would be entirely reasonable for the DM to make you take the -4 attack penalty before you see your first attack's result (because it speeds play); however that's not strictly necessary. The DM might allow you to see the result before deciding to attack with the torch. If that is so and you decide to try an attack with the torch, your DM must recalculate the result of your sword attack, taking the primary weapon penalty into account. (I don't recommend this option, but it fits the letter of the rules.)
Even if you decide to take the penalty, you don't have to attack with the torch, or even use the full attack action. If you decide to attack with the torch, you make a single attack with the torch and you'll take a -8 penalty for the off-hand attack and an additional -4 penalty for the improvised weapon (see page 113 in the Player's Handbook), for a total penalty of -12.
Once you take a two-weapon fighting penalty, the penalty applies to all the attacks you make with that hand during your current action. It does not apply to attacks you make during some other character's turn. For example, say your torch-wielding swordfighter from the previous example has a base attack bonus of +10. With the full attack action, the character could make two attacks with the sword: one at +10 and the other at +5.
If you opt to throw in an off-hand attack with the torch, the -4 penalty for your primary hand applies to both attacks, dropping your attack bonus to +6 (10-4 = 6) and +1 (5-4 = 1). When you attack with the torch, you make only a single attack (because the two-weapon fighting option allows you only one extra attack) at -2 (you use your full attack bonus for the single attack, so that's 10 -8 for an off-hand attack with a light weapon and an additional -4 for the improvised weapon).
Some attack penalties you voluntarily assume, such as the penalty for defensive fighting (see pages 140 and 143 in the Player's Handbook), apply until your next turn, but two weapon penalties are not one of them.
If, after you made two-weapon attacks with your sword and torch, a foe later provokes an attack of opportunity from you that same round, you can strike that foe with your longsword with no two-weapon penalty at all. (You also can use just the torch, also with no two-weapon penalty, though you still take the -4 penalty for an off-hand attack; you also still take the -4 penalty for an improvised weapon for a total penalty of -8.)
Light Weapons: Refer to Table 7-5 in the Player's Handbook to determine if a weapon is light. If you're using a weapon from a book other than the Player's Handbook, refer to the tables (or weapon description) provided in that book to determine if a weapon is light. Remember that an unarmed strike is considered a light weapon and that the off-hand end of a double weapon also is considered a light weapon.
Mind you Pathfinder isn't 3.5 but beside the -4 off hand penalty I don't see how the rules regarding off hand have changed to make off hand a TWF only thing. This is (at least for 3.5) a clear example of off hand applying outside TWF.
The game rules don’t really care about whether you’re right-handed or left-handed, and it’s even OK to change your off hand designation from one round to the next.
That does not really help you. That just means I can make each weapon the primary weapon as I decide to use it.
Example:I have a BAB of 13 and my weapons are an axe and a scimitar.
I use the scimitar so the axe is the off hand.
I use the scimitar so the axe is the off hand.
I use the axe so the scimitar is the off hand.
In short I just elect to never use the off-hand weapon, and since there is no logical reason for me to do so, nor a rule forcing me to do so, then such a rule no longer really makes sense with the absence of the offhand penalty that existed in 3.5.
PS:All of those rules were supposed to work together. With the removal of the off-hand rule the other rules which are no longer in print have no merit.
The game rules don’t really care about whether you’re right-handed or left-handed, and it’s even OK to change your off hand designation from one round to the next.Example:I have a BAB of 13 and my weapons are an axe and a scimitar.
I use the scimitar so the axe is the off hand.
I use the scimitar so the axe is the off hand.
I use the axe so the scimitar is the off hand.
Read it again it says "one round to the next"
Not one attack to the next
or one action to the next
Once again semantics is important.
And before you throw all of this away. Remember that in both Pathfinder and 3.5 Off hand damaged isn't defined within the TWF section.
The only difference it that in 3.5 you received a -4 off hand penalty. Not a TWF penalty.
In fact in 3.5 if you attack with an off hand weapon that was light and you possessed the TWF feat your penalties for fighting with you off hand would actually be smaller then if you just attacked with your off hand alone.
The game rules don’t really care about whether you’re right-handed or left-handed, and it’s even OK to change your off hand designation from one round to the next.Example:I have a BAB of 13 and my weapons are an axe and a scimitar.
I use the scimitar so the axe is the off hand.
I use the scimitar so the axe is the off hand.
I use the axe so the scimitar is the off hand.Read it again it says "one round to the next"
Not one attack to the next
or one action to the nextOnce again semantics is important.
And before you throw all of this away. Remember that in both Pathfinder and 3.5 Off hand damaged isn't defined within the TWF section.
The only difference it that in 3.5 you received a -4 off hand penalty. Not a TWF penalty.
In fact in 3.5 if you attack with an off hand weapon that was light and you possessed the TWF feat your penalties for fighting with you off hand would actually be smaller then if you just attacked with your off hand alone.
This seem to be from a "Rules of the game Article" judging by how it is written. In which case it is not a rule but a dev's intent on 3.5, but since Pathfinder has already shown that TWF does not work that way his opinion is no longer valid.
If it is a rule then with the off-hand no longer being mandatory while using two weapons, at least not with RAW, it still does not apply.
This seem to be from a "Rules of the game Article" judging by how it is written. In which case it is not a rule but a dev's intent on 3.5, but since Pathfinder has already shown that TWF does not work that way his opinion is no longer valid.If it is a rule then with the off-hand no longer being mandatory while using two weapons, at least not with RAW, it still does not apply.
I have already posted a link to this numerous times but:
herehere
and
here
Other then the -4 off hand penalty. I don't see why any of this is invalid to pathfinder.
Could you could explain to me what invalidates this information?
|
|
This seem to be from a "Rules of the game Article" judging by how it is written. In which case it is not a rule but a dev's intent on 3.5, but since Pathfinder has already shown that TWF does not work that way his opinion is no longer valid.If it is a rule then with the off-hand no longer being mandatory while using two weapons, at least not with RAW, it still does not apply.
I have already posted a link to this numerous times but:
here
here
and
hereOther then the -4 off hand penalty. I don't see why any of this is invalid to pathfinder.
Could you could explain to me what invalidates this information?
Because 3.5e is not Pathfinder, similar though they may be. The Pathfinder devs have already explicit ruled differently than those posts on at least one matter that a quick skimming shows: The post you point to details that to use more than one weapon you MUST use two-weapon fighting, which is not true in Pathfinder by explicit FAQ.
The post you point to details that to use more than one weapon you MUST use two-weapon fighting, which is not true in Pathfinder by explicit FAQ.
It does not show this. This is why you shouldn't quickly skim.
Other then the -4 to off hand attacks these rules and the pathfinder rules do not differ on these matters.
|
|
The post you point to details that to use more than one weapon you MUST use two-weapon fighting, which is not true in Pathfinder by explicit FAQ.It does not show this. This is why you shouldn't quickly skim.
Other then the -4 to off hand attacks these rules and the pathfinder rules do not differ on these matters.
I didn't skim that much:
Also as noted Part One, attacking with two weapons also imposes a penalty on your attack rolls. Fighting this way is quite difficult, and without special training, you don't have much chance for success.
Neither Part One nor Part Two explicitly say you must gain the extra attack to take the penalties, and describe the penalties outside of the context of extra attacks entirely, ergo you take the penalties regardless. Pathfinder made a FAQ ruling explicitly stating the opposite, but at least in pathfinder the penalties were only ever described in conjunction with the mention of extra attacks.
Either way, 3.5e material can be used for guidance, but never for RAW. It is simply a different game.
Also as noted Part One, attacking with two weapons also imposes a penalty on your attack rolls. Fighting this way is quite difficult, and without special training, you don't have much chance for success.
Neither Part One nor Part Two explicitly say you must gain the extra attack to take the penalties, and describe the penalties outside of the context of extra attacks entirely, ergo you take the penalties regardless. Pathfinder made a FAQ ruling explicitly stating the opposite, but at least in pathfinder the penalties were only ever described in conjunction with the mention of extra attacks.
So you took that as meaning that in 3.5 it was impossible to attack with two weapons in each hand without taking TWF penalties?
Remember that in both Pathfinder and in 3.5 the "attacking with two weapons in each hand using iterative attacks" is still a corner case.
The "Rules of the Game" articles were not meant to replace the Actual rules of the game but are meant to illustrate the rules so the players can understand what the rules mean.
Basically what's written here does not trump whats written in the PHB.
I'm pretty sure that you know this so what kind of game are you playing exactly?
The rules in the PHB for TWF are Near identical to the words written in the CRB concerning TWF. Do you really think that because Skip Williams took a few short cuts in explaining a few rules that it means he was officially ruling against them? Of course you don't so stop it!
Get back on track and actually tackle my argument.
Also the same part I'm quoting is the same part that I was using to argue for using two weapons in different hands before. Because it is an example of using your off hand for an attack outside of the TWF action.
Mind you(And I truely hate repeating this) The only differences between the 3.5 rules and Pathfinder rules(and I mean when you look at the actual sentences in the books) is that in 3.5 there was a -4 penalty to off hand attacks.
The only difference. Which means when Skip was writing this the only difference between what he was using as a source and pathfinder rules was that in 3.5 there was a -4 penalty to off hand attacks.
If you look at the front of your CRB Skip Williams is credited. Discounting this argument off hand(pun not intended) is simple ridiculous.
Edit: Note to self always preview.
I'm really surprised at you Krome.
The two-weapon fighting option in the Core Rulebook specifically refers to getting an extra attack for using a second weapon in your offhand. In the above four examples, there is no extra attack, therefore you're not using two-weapon fighting.
This is the first time SKR mentions *any* instance of an off-hand in his FAQ. It is at the halfway point where he begins to discuss TWF. I do not see how this implies the off-hand exists before this point. That's a bit of a leap as SKR had plenty of time to use the term off-hand to designate attacks in the many examples he cooked up before this paragraph... and did not.
Jumping on the bandwagon :D
In the long run, would it be game breaking to just allow the full Strength bonus to attacks so long as you aren't TWF?
Personally, I'm a fan of telling the players that they can do something rather than denying them some fun. Since there isn't really a mechanical advantage to fighting with two weapons, why remove any more? Just let them have the full Strength bonus and enjoy the game.
In the long run, would it be game breaking to just allow the full Strength bonus to attacks so long as you aren't TWF?
Absolutely not. I haven't seen any reason why it would be. Although I am curious.
Personally, I'm a fan of telling the players that they can do something rather than denying them some fun.
So am I. Always try to say "yes." Fortunately the rules tend to be in favor of fun.
Since there isn't really a mechanical advantage to fighting with two weapons, why remove any more?
Well, you wouldn't be removing anything. At least not form my perspective. In fact fighting with two weapons in each and without getting your extra attack is kind of a NEW thing to all of us I assume(Unless this has been a common thing for years and has only ever been FAQed just recently) If anything this give more options then it did before. Even considering the 1/2 strength.
Just let them have the full Strength bonus and enjoy the game.
I feel that, if someones enjoyment of the game is raped around getting to use there full strength for one attack with one hand and getting to use there full strength for another attack with another hand without using the extra attack that would be entitled to them because they are wielding two weapons, then that person is completely missing the point.
So doen't that mean that I'm also missing the point? Ah, a double edged sword.
If true that would be true for all of us.
Because all of you, like me, want to know for certain. Even if you decide to rule against one particular rule you at least want to know if you are actually deciding against it or not.
We could have just as trivial an argument about "Female dwarves having beards."
Because all of you, like me, want to know for certain. Even if you decide to rule against one particular rule you at least want to know if you are actually deciding against it or not.
I don't need to know for certain. I already know my ruling on it and I don't see any real need to debate it.
We could have just as trivial an argument about "Female dwarves having beards."
Female dwarves do have beards. It's another one of my house rules I can never let go.
Well, you wouldn't be removing anything. At least not form my perspective. In fact fighting with two weapons in each and without getting your extra attack is kind of a NEW thing to all of us I assume(Unless this has been a common thing for years and has only ever been FAQed just recently) If anything this give more options then it did before. Even considering the 1/2 strength.
I have never played an edition of this RPG before Pathfinder. As such, I have always assumed this was possible purely in the context of the Pathfinder Core Rules and in that context alone.
Because all of you, like me, want to know for certain. Even if you decide to rule against one particular rule you at least want to know if you are actually deciding against it or not.
Certainty is irrelevant. I'm concerned with Rules Cohesion and the ease of rules comprehension by the player base as a whole. Since I can see no definitive evidence of the existence or necessary designation of the off-hand outside of TWF, I'd prefer that 3.5 artifact to be removed as it is easier for everyone to understand without this strange corner case rule affecting iterative attacks.
After sleeping on it, I've come to my conclusion.
I haven't seen any rules posted that clearly say you have an off-hand outside of TWF.
I think the intent of SKR's FAQ was that you only have an off-hand when TWF (lumping the half strength in with TWF penalties).
I think the intent of the original rules is that any time you do anything with your off-hand, it's kinda gimpy. Thus, it's assumed if you use a weapon in your offhand, you're using TWF, and getting half strength. This is backed by James' sort of common sense postings, 'of course you get half strength with your off-hand, that's what the rule says!' sort of thing. It's natural to think of two hands, two weapon, equals dual wielding, thus TWF, and all that.
So, looking at the original intent (and JJ) vs the new (yet not entirely complete) FAQ, I'd like to use the original intent version and penalize the off-hand to hell and back. However, that's a big PITA. That adds lots of complexity, and fiddly bits, and non-action hand switching, and I really don't want to deal with that. So, in practice, I'll probably run things like the new FAQ says, and dump the off-hand strength bonus in with TWF and end up running it the easy way instead of the way it probably should be.
Thanks for the discussion everyone. (and especially for keeping it civil!)
|
|
Actually the monks Unarmed Strike ability specifically references off-hand attacks and associated half-strength damage modifier with out metioning TWF.
Unarmed Strike: At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply his full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all his unarmed strikes.
So by CRB a monk with a BAB of +6/+1 can make both attacks with what ever appendages that he chooses and can apply full strength to both attacks as it is specifically called out in his class ability.
<br>Now a majority of the people in this thread are stating that any character with a +6/+1 BAB can make both attacks with any appendages they choose and also get full strength on both attacks.
If the general rule was full strength on all attacks then why call it out as a specific ability of only one class? Why not list it in the general combat chapter?
Or is it that the monks ability is the exception to the general rule that characters have off-hands and that off-hands add half damage?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Stuff
You're making the same error Krome made up-thread a ways. The rule you quoted says that monks never have off-hand unarmed strikes. This implies that off-hand attacks exist in the game. It does NOT imply where or when or under what circumstances an off-hand attack exists.
Think of it this way:
Assume for a moment that off-hand attacks only exist when you employ the TWF mechanic. Would this cause the monk's ability to stop making sense? No. You would have the statement "Employing the TWF mechanic causes one of your attacks to be considered off-hand, but the monk's unarmed strike is an exception to this." It still makes sense and still completely jives with the rule you quoted.
Krome's citation (defining how much damage an off-hand attack deals) neither defines nor implies the conditions under which an attack is off-hand. In the same way, your citation (excepting the monk's unarmed strike from off-hand damage rules) also fails to define or imply conditions under which an attack is considered off-hand.
A rule which says nothing about what makes an attack be considered off-hand also cannot contradict a statement of what makes an attack be considered off-hand. It simply doesn't speak to the issue one way or the other.
In short, your citation is irrelevant to the topic to which you applied it.
|
|
StuffRebuff
And I would agree with you if they also did not reference the same rule under the monks Flurry of Blows which specifically references the rules for TWF.
If it were meant only to apply in TWF situations why not list it just under the Flurry of Blows ability? Why list it twice?
As listed it would seem to indicate that a monk is not only able to apply full Str to Flurry of Blows off-hand attacks but also to off-hand attacks not related to Flurry of Blows ie not TWF.
Does it specifically state if and/when an attack is considered off-hand? No. But it does show that this is an ambiguous rules area especially now that SKR has FAQ'd TWF.
|
|
I would also point to SKR's FAQ regarding shield bash.
If I make a shield bash (page 152), does it always have to be an off-hand attack?
The text for a shield bash assumes you're making a bash as an off-hand attack, but you don't have to. You can, for example, just make a shield bash attack (at your normal, main-hand attack bonus) or shield bash with your main hand and attack with a sword in your off-hand.Update: Page 152—In the Shield Bash Attacks section, in the first sentence, delete “using it as an off-hand weapon.”
Based on the TWF FAQ a fighter with +6/+1 BAB has several options
1) +6 Sword/+1 Sword (full Str both)
2) +6 Shield/+1 Shield (full str both)
3) +6 Sword attack (full str)/+1 shield bash (off hand, 1/2 str)
4) +6 Shield Bash (full str)/ +1 Sword attack (off-hand, 1/2 str)
If it were meant only to apply in TWF situations why not list it just under the Flurry of Blows ability? Why list it twice?
As listed it would seem to indicate that a monk is not only able to apply full Str to Flurry of Blows off-hand attacks but also to off-hand attacks not related to Flurry of Blows ie not TWF.
Flurry of Blows doesn't make it so that a monk can't use normal TWF. A monk could do TWF with a some weapon as their primary hand attack and use his unarmed strike as his off hand. Without the note in unarmed strike, the monk would only get half his strength mod from unarmed strikes. Additionally, some monk archetypes (Sensei, at least) lose flurry of blows. They don't lose the unarmed strike feature.
Could also be the text is years old and doesn't mesh well with the FAQ SKR just wrote days ago.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
StuffRebuffAnd I would agree with you if they also did not reference the same rule under the monks Flurry of Blows which specifically references the rules for TWF.
If it were meant only to apply in TWF situations why not list it just under the Flurry of Blows ability? Why list it twice?
It's not listed twice - it's two separate rules.
1) The monk's unarmed strike is never "off-hand". This applies regardless of whether he's using Flurry of Blows or traditional TWF.
2) The monk's Flurry attacks are never "off-hand" for damage purposes, but unlike above, this applies to any weapon used in the flurry.
One rule is restricted to unarmed strikes but is not restricted to Flurry of Blows, while the other is restricted to Flurry of Blows but not restricted to unarmed attacks.
As listed it would seem to indicate that a monk is not only able to apply full Str to Flurry of Blows off-hand attacks but also to off-hand attacks not related to Flurry of Blows ie not TWF.
See above. "Not related to Flurry of Blows" does not inherently mean "not TWF".
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I would also point to SKR's FAQ regarding shield bash.
If I make a shield bash (page 152), does it always have to be an off-hand attack?
The text for a shield bash assumes you're making a bash as an off-hand attack, but you don't have to. You can, for example, just make a shield bash attack (at your normal, main-hand attack bonus) or shield bash with your main hand and attack with a sword in your off-hand.Update: Page 152—In the Shield Bash Attacks section, in the first sentence, delete “using it as an off-hand weapon.”
This is exactly the same mistake that you and Krome have already made, and I've already explained the problem with it:
The text you quoted simply references the possibility of off-hand attacks - just like previous arguments, this fails to in any way state, reference, imply, or otherwise have anything at all to do with what makes an attack "off-hand" in the first place.
Once again, you've referenced something that fails to speak to the issue at hand in any way. You just keep finding any text you can that uses the phrase "off hand", regardless of context, and somehow concluding that the use of the term implies things that aren't referenced in the cited texts at all.
And I'm not replying to you again until you can explain back to me in your own words what this error you've made is, so that I know you're at least trying to be rational.
Krome, your argument is flawed. Here's why:
#1: "The FAQ still says that one of the weapons is in your off hand." Both references (there are actually three, but you only bolded two) to a weapon in your off hand refer to employing the TWF mechanic. The FAQ never references an off hand without referring to gaining the extra attack granted by the TWF mechanic. Therefore, this point of your argument fails to actually establish that the off hand exists as a concept outside of the TWF mechanic.
#2: "...the rules on combat, first page, under damage, give the defining answer to how STR bonuses are applied."
Yes, this defines that if your attack is off hand, you deal less damage. However, nothing in the rule you quoted says anything about what causes an attack to be considered an off hand attack in the first place. Defining the result of X is not the same as defining X, or defining how X comes to be. Defining how much damage an off hand attack deals is not the same thing as defining off hand attacks, or defining how an attack becomes an off hand attack.Both of your arguments fail to actually contradict the "off hand exists only in the TWF mechanic" statement in any way whatsoever. I.e., the truth or falsehood of "off hand exists only in the TWF mechanic" exists independently of the rules you cited. Your conclusion to the contrary, therefore, is invalid.
Good rebuttal, that was my thought exactly on reading Krome's argument.
For those who think that off-hand damage rules are applied even when not using the TWF rules, there was an example early in this thread that no one rebutted. It may have gotten lost in the debate:
If a character throws a readied throwing weapon, takes a free action to Quick Draw a greatsword, takes a five-foot step and makes a melee attack as his second iterative attack, what is the Str damage bonus? He's using his second hand, which some people are arguing would be an off-hand in this situation, so whatever ruling should be consistent with using a one-handed weapon in the other hand.
Logic points to the weapon gaining whatever Str bonus to damage that would normally be applied to an iterative attack - X for one-handed weapon, 1.5X for two-handed weapon.
This seem to be from a "Rules of the game Article" judging by how it is written. In which case it is not a rule but a dev's intent on 3.5, but since Pathfinder has already shown that TWF does not work that way his opinion is no longer valid.If it is a rule then with the off-hand no longer being mandatory while using two weapons, at least not with RAW, it still does not apply.
I have already posted a link to this numerous times but:
here
here
and
hereOther then the -4 off hand penalty. I don't see why any of this is invalid to pathfinder.
Could you could explain to me what invalidates this information?
I know what you are saying. I am saying that the offhand no longer exist outside of making multiple attacks anymore. That fact that it does not do so, the removal of offhand from PF rules, and SKR's recent FAQ back that up.
That Rules of the Game articles is assuming that the offhand still works the same way it did in 3.5.While I often use Rules of the Game when the language is the same, in this case it is not. I don't see Pathfinder having the intention to push any penalties(non game term) from using a second weapon if you don't get the extra attack.
|
|
Am I claiming that anything that I have quoted has defined off-hand? No. What I am saying is that the concept of an “off-hand” has been assumed with in the rules structure as recently as 8/30/11 (Date of Shield Bash FAQ) outside of TWF and is listed in multiple places that do not reference the TWF rules. If off-hand was only to be related to TWF then why not list off-hand = ½ damage just within the TWF rules structure? Why not state that all attacks received full Str damage unless you are TWF.
Let me use this as an example: (prior to Shield Bash FAQ) If I had done a shield bash (which was listed as off-hand) would I then have had to take the associated TWF penalties? Since people are stating off-hand is only defined with relation to TWF. (and this is whether or not I attacked with another weapon)
Now let’s look at Sean’s example of a shield bash attack in his FAQ. It does not bring up anything concerning TWF but yet in his example he specifically states that you can shield bash with your main hand and attack with your sword in your “off-hand.”
If he wasn’t referring to TWF why use the “off-hand” verbiage?
Or is it that you can only shield bash while two-weapon fighting? Since shield bash plus attack with any other weapon states that you had an “off-hand” per FAQ whether or not you are going for the extra attack.
And I'm not replying to you again until you can explain back to me in your own words what this error you've made is, so that I know you're at least trying to be rational.
A) Whether you choose to reply to me or not is your choice. It means nothing to me in the long run.
B) I’m only in error if a dev comes in and states that the rule is X which is counter to what I stated. Until such dev input it is a matter of interpretation and either of us could be right or wrong.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Off-hand" attack penalties and "off-hand" damage penalties"* only exist in the context of using the two-weapon fighting option (Core Rulebook page 202).
Thus, as the FAQ says,
I deliberately wrote that FAQ entry so it wouldn't mention "off-hand" attacks until the section on using the two-weapon fighting option. That's because the concept of an "off-hand" only applies when you are using the two-weapon fighting option in the Combat chapter.
Thus, if you're not using the twf combat option, there's no attack penalty and no Str bonus reduction, because those are penalties* that only apply when using the two-weapon fighting option to gain an extra attack.
* Using "penalty" in the English sense of the word, meaning, "at a weaker value than normal," such as a reduced Str bonus to damage for off-hand weapons. Not necessarily in the game sense of the word, meaning "a modifier that is not a bonus."
Am I claiming that anything that I have quoted has defined off-hand? No. What I am saying is that the concept of an “off-hand” has been assumed with in the rules structure as recently as 8/30/11 (Date of Shield Bash FAQ) outside of TWF and is listed in multiple places that do not reference the TWF rules. If off-hand was only to be related to TWF then why not list off-hand = ½ damage just within the TWF rules structure? Why not state that all attacks received full Str damage unless you are TWF.
Let me use this as an example: (prior to Shield Bash FAQ) If I had done a shield bash (which was listed as off-hand) would I then have had to take the associated TWF penalties? Since people are stating off-hand is only defined with relation to TWF. (and this is whether or not I attacked with another weapon)
Now let’s look at Sean’s example of a shield bash attack in his FAQ. It does not bring up anything concerning TWF but yet in his example he specifically states that you can shield bash with your main hand and attack with your sword in your “off-hand.”
If he wasn’t referring to TWF why use the “off-hand” verbiage?
Or is it that you can only shield bash while two-weapon fighting? Since shield bash plus attack with any other weapon states that you had an “off-hand” per FAQ whether or not you are going for the extra attack.
And I'm not replying to you again until you can explain back to me in your own words what this error you've made is, so that I know you're at least trying to be rational.A) Whether you choose to reply to me or not is your choice. It means nothing to me in the long run.
B) I’m only in error if a dev comes in and states that the rule is X which is counter to what I stated. Until such dev input it is a matter of interpretation and either of us could be right or wrong.
This issue had not come up at the time. Now that it has we have the recent FAQ(per explanation by various people) contradicting the shield bash post since one assumes off-hands on extra attacks, and the other does not.
The recent FAQ will most likely end up taking precedence, IMHO
It is important to remember this whole debate started based on a corner case of nonoptimal* weapon use. While it did need a ruling it never had one because the game assumes you will do things in a certain way.
The ongoing argument about using a 2-handed weapon in conjunction with TWF is an example of this(nonconventional actions that might be possible)*.
In the absence of an actual rule on the issue I would say the second weapon should not be an off-hand weapon, and it should do full damage. It is not like the issue is benefitting anyone except in some strange corner case.
You could actually be TWF'ing, holding a shield, or using a two handed weapon for more damage. I am sure they won't make you take a penalty for fluff/flavor when a ruling is made.
edit:ninja'd by Sean. It seems great minds think alike. 2 for 2.
* Using "penalty" in the English sense of the word, meaning, "at a weaker value than normal," such as a reduced Str bonus to damage for off-hand weapons. Not necessarily in the game sense of the word, meaning "a modifier that is not a bonus."
Thanks Sean.
If that's how the game rules are that's how I play.