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

PaizoCon 2014!

Do you suffer penalty on attacks of opportunity when two weapon fighting?


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 168 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

zag01 wrote:
Jiggy wrote:


• You take TWF penalties only "when you fight this way".
• "Fight this way" means gaining an extra attack via TWF.
• You can only gain an extra attack during a full-round action (a full attack).
Therefore, you only take TWF penalties during a full attack.
Granted the first two leaps of logic make perfect sense but that last part is where you make your interpretation.

You're saying you can gain an extra attack without taking a full-round action?

Full Attack: "If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks."

When you use Spring Attack, you're not spring attacking the whole round, otherwise you could untrained trip someone as an AoO without provoking.

When you use Whirlwind attack, you're not whirlwinding the whole round, otherwise you could either A) whirlwind as an AoO, or B) not take any AoOs at all (depending on if you read an AoO as "bonus or extra")

Every act you take happens within the action it takes to do so, unless it specifies otherwise. When the action is over, so is whatever you were doing in that action. Moving, attacking, casting, etc.


Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Modules Subscriber
Axl wrote:


You don't "choose to stop TWF". It automatically ends at the end of your full-attack sequence.

Ok, where is that stated in the rulebook?

You're right that you don't choose to stop TWF. On your next turn you choose to either continue to TWF or to do something else.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Excellent additional examples, Grick.


Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Modules Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
In fact, the rules for a full-attack explicitly state that you can attack once, see how it turns out, and then decide whether to continue as a full-attack or to call it a standard action and then still have a move action to make.

Since you brought that up let me ask you how you would rule the following:

A player has a BAB less than 6 but has the TWF feat. They say I hit 'the enemy' and if he doesn't go down I'll hit him again otherwise I'll rush over to my fallen ally. Do you apply the TWF penalty to the first attack or not?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

zag01 wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
In fact, the rules for a full-attack explicitly state that you can attack once, see how it turns out, and then decide whether to continue as a full-attack or to call it a standard action and then still have a move action to make.

Since you brought that up let me ask you how you would rule the following:

A player has a BAB less than 6 but has the TWF feat. They say I hit 'the enemy' and if he doesn't go down I'll hit him again otherwise I'll rush over to my fallen ally. Do you apply the TWF penalty to the first attack or not?

I guess I'll humor you and repeat myself, but I'd appreciate it if you would read more carefully going forward.

In my last big post, I wrote:
You do not choose to TWF at the start of your turn. You choose to TWF when you initiate a full-attack (or potential full-attack).


Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Modules Subscriber

How are you humoring me? You didn't answer my question. And I'd appreciate you dropping your snark.

If you don't apply the penalty to the first attack and the player hits on the number or by 1 and drops the foe he doesn't need the second attack, but if he doesn't drop the enemy he wanted to swing again, but then retroactively his first attack actually didn't hit. Or maybe after 'dropping' the first guy he wants to then step and swing at a second foe instead of rushing to his buddy. But then again his first attack wouldn't have hit so you have a big headache retconning what should have, could have happened.

Its much easier to apply the penalties to the first attack (choosing to TWF at the beginning of his turn) and then letting the chips land where they may.

@Grick
I'm not saying you can use TWF to get an extra attack without a full round action, I'm saying there's no concrete rules support saying that the penalty ends when the action does as opposed to lasting for the entire round.

Spring Attack and Whirlwind Attack aren't good comparisons because neither gives you a penalty while performing those actions/during your turn.


zag01 wrote:
I'm not saying you can use TWF to get an extra attack without a full round action, I'm saying there's no concrete rules support saying that the penalty ends when the action does as opposed to lasting for the entire round.

If you're not performing an action, then that action isn't happening.

You're not TWFing during an AoO because you can't TWF during an AoO.

Every action stops at the end of that action. The action may have consequences that last longer, but if they do, that action will say so. Lunge says so. Power Attack says so. Fighting Defensively says so. They all say so.

TWF does not say so. When the action is over, you're no longer performing that action.

If you're not performing that action, you're not taking the penalties of that action.

As for the unrelated example up there, when the player says "I hit 'the enemy' and if he doesn't go down I'll hit him again otherwise I'll rush over to my fallen ally." the DM asks the player to clarify what he's actually doing. The player, being competent, says "I'm taking a full-round action to full attack, using Two-Weapon Fighting. I'll start with the rapier in my main hand. My attack roll, including all my bonuses and penalties, is 14, do I hit?" Say it hits and kills the goblin, and there's no other foe within reach (or within 5' of his reach). The player then has the option of ending his action, or taking a move action instead of his remaining attacks.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

zag01 wrote:
How are you humoring me? You didn't answer my question. And I'd appreciate you dropping your snark.

It wasn't snark; it was honest. I'm trying to keep things clear so we can have a real dialogue, but that's hard to do when you don't read carefully. I can never be sure what you think I'm saying (and by extension, the context of your rebuttals) if I don't know you're being thorough when you read.

So again, with bolding this time:

Once again, I wrote:
You do not choose to TWF at the start of your turn. You choose to TWF when you initiate a full-attack (or potential full-attack).

I cited before (in the same post from which I quoted myself) the rules which state that you can decide whether the first attack is a standard action or the beginning of a full-attack after you make it. Thus, the first attack (if you haven't already taken a move action) is a "potential full-attack". That's what "potential" means - capable of happening, but might not.

So yes, I did answer your question, before you asked it. I cited how an attack could either be a standard action or the start of a full-attack and could be decided after the attack was resolved, and said that TWF penalties begin when you initiate a full-attack or potential full-attack.

Then you asked what I'd do if someone initiated a potential full-attack. That tells me you weren't reading thoroughly, and I asked you (politely, I thought) to do so going forward. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

Quote:
Its much easier to apply the penalties to the first attack (choosing to TWF at the beginning of his turn)

Here you've made a logic jump that I've already pointed out. You've equated "apply the penalties to the first attack" with "choosing to TWF at the beginning of his turn". I already showed how the two are not the same thing. You persist in your belief that they go together, but without making any rebuttal to support that stance.

This further supports the idea that you simply didn't read what I wrote very carefully (the alternative is that you're unable to see the difference between the beginning of the turn and the first attack of the turn, but it would be rude for me to consider that a real possibility).

If you want to have a serious discussion (which is what I'm trying to do), then please read carefully, rebut my arguments instead of simply ignoring them, and explain your logic based on cited rules instead of merely making a claim and leaving it at that.


@Jiggy

I agree with your stance and Grick's but I understand where Zag is coming from the two weapon fighting section states:

Two-Weapon Fighting
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get
one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a –6
penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary
hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when
you fight this way.

I think what zag is getting at is that you are always wielding that second weapon, you don't stop wielding the off hand weapon even when it isn't your turn. If someone were to disarm one weapon you wouldn't suddenly be unable to make attacks of opportunity.

Or at least that is how I understand the confusion, maybe I'm misinterpreting Zag's argument.


Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Modules Subscriber

@Grick
So you're claiming its the exception that proves the rule? I think I see where you're coming from then, though I'm not quite sure I'm convinced.

@Jiggy
Any sentence that starts with "I guess I'll humor you" is just dripping with snark, though I do now see what I missed. I agree 'apply the penalties to the first attack' and choosing to TWF at the beginning of his turn' are not the same thing. I guess what I meant and should have said is: When do you choose to TWF? When you start the attack action part of your turn. I still don’t see any written rules saying it ends when your full attack ends though.


Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Modules Subscriber

Ahorse, you're close to my point. What I'm trying to say is that on your turn you choose to attack with two weapons (ie full attack action), and have accepted the penalties that go with that. Therefore until your next turn when you can choose to only attack (single attack or full attack) with one weapon you're still taking those TWF penalties.


From a cinematic standpoint, it makes sense not to take penalties for opportunity attacks if you break down what you're doing while two weapon fighting.

You're attacking with two weapons at or almost at the same time. What does that mean? You've either got two weapons tracing out different paths, or you have a double weapon whose follow through on the first attack needs to set you up for a second attack. On top of hitting the enemy, you have to make sure you've got room to work with your other weapon. Thus the penalty.

Not so with an opportunity attack. This is just a simple swing with one weapon. You don't have to make any extra accommodations because you aren't using both of them in the attack. In short, the penalty isn't for holding a second weapon, it's for the added complexity of using both weapons at once.

From a logical or rules standpoint, I think things would be much clearer if "when you fight this way" was "while you are attacking this way".


Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Modules Subscriber

Ah see Killsmith I see it the complete opposite. If you've got all that complexity going with wielding the two weapons and then on top of that complexity you see an opening and get a "free" swing (or 3 or 5 free swings) I don't see how MORE attacks in that 6 second round would be SIMPLER.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Cards, Companion, Maps, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
zag01 wrote:
I still don’t see any written rules saying it ends when your full attack ends though.

Nor are there any written rules saying it carries on to the start of your next turn.

I think it's less of a stretch to assume that the penalties only apply to the full attack action; there's already a distinction between a full-round action and a 1-round action documented in the rules.

But any of the rules are going to come apart if you push them too hard. I personally find it a little ridiculous that I can take five attacks of opportunity in a round, but can't take more than one attack during my turn until I advance another couple of levels. Not only that - all the attacks of opportunity are at full BAB; even if I were able to take five attacks in a round there would be some pretty severe penalties by the time I got round to the last one. At some point you have to stop looking for what makes sense, and just go with what it says in the rules.


For those who are saying it is unbelievable that all the attacks resolve during the characters turn in the initiative, is it really any more unbelievable than a human moving 60' in that same instant of initiative?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

zag01 wrote:

I still don’t see any written rules saying it ends when your full attack ends though.

That would be the "when you fight this way" clause. That specifies a duration.

The statements "X happens while you do Y" and "X begins when you start doing Y and ends when you stop doing Y" are equivalent.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
Dabbler wrote:


A full round action takes up the round, with a bit of time in here or there for you to take a few steps, make a swipe at a foe that leaves himself open, but primarily what you are doing is that full round action. As such, you are still in effect TWFing when you make that AoO.

This notion creates differences between how long different full-round actions take.

<snipped>

Grick's fireball and your full-attack were both the same action type. But the fireball was DONE before his turn even ended. If you believe your full-attack isn't done, then you have to explain why two full-round actions can take different lengths of time.

Good point, well presented. My response is that while your attacks may be over in the same space of time (which by the way is never specifically stated, and could easily be regarded as somewhat variable), you are still two weapon fighting for the round. After all, you have not started striking with the off-hand weapon at the start of the round, but you still take the penalty for TWFing on all the attacks you make, not just the ones that are off-hand, even if they come before the first off-hand strike.

You used the example of a two-bladed sword, so let me also answer your question with a question: If the TWFer is NOT TWFing when he takes the AoO, is it reasonable for him to make the AoO a two-handed attack with one end of the weapon rather than treating each end as a one-handed weapon?

Also, consider haste, which has very similar wording to the AoO wording. Should your hasted attack be at the same attack bonus as your first attack of the round in a TWF sequence, or should it be treated entirely separately, allowing the extra attack to be, say, two-handed? The extra attack provided by haste is, just like the AoO, out of the normal TWF sequence, so I do not see why it should be treated any differently to the AoO.

If you are correct and the attack is 'normal' then it is not precluded to make a two-handed attack with a double-weapon, as you can make any attack valid with the weapon. If I am correct and the attack is treated as part of the TWF sequence, then it is precluded to do this. My point here is that you are changing your style of combat mid-round, from a style that makes you take a penalty before you gain the benefit (you take the TWF penalty on your first attack before you gain the extra attack, so it's a pretty heavy penalty) and lasts for your entire full attack, to one where you don't.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

@Dabbler:

As I've stated, you take TWF penalties during a full-attack action in which you employ the TWF mechanic to make an extra attack. That actually answers both your questions.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I am a bit confused. It seems there are a lot of folks who want PCs to suffer two weapon fighting penalties, for even touching a second weapon, and have them last for the entire combat afterward. Even with the errata and FAQ, it seems some people just need it to be more complicated. I still have no idea why.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

They have a burning need to be right.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

*throws support behind Grick, Tarantula & the Jiggernaut*

TWF Penalties only exist for the attacks made during your turn.


How has this not come up yet in 2 pages?

Two Weapon Warrior

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

Case Closed. (TWF penalties do not normally apply to AoO, logical or not)

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Tarantula wrote:

"Making an Attack of Opportunity: An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack, and most characters can only make one per round. You don't have to make an attack of opportunity if you don't want to. You make your attack of opportunity at your normal attack bonus, even if you've already attacked in the round."

Emphasis mine. Penalties from previous attacks do not count toward the AoO attack. (Penalties from things like power attack, which state they apply until your next turn do apply however, as do their benefits)

Let's see what will happen if we follow this line of thought:

- you don't get a charge bonus on a AoO. It is a full round action
(an interesting thing I just noticed is that it say: "Attacking on a Charge: After moving, you may make a single melee attack. You get a +2 bonus on the attack roll and take a –2 penalty to your AC until the start of your next turn." Attack roll, singular. This support the idea that id don't give anything to a AoO.)

- Two-Weapon Defense will not work when using 2 weapons. You need to wield the 2 weapon for it to work and wielding is defined as:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Wielding means "actively trying to use the item," and is normally only used in the context of weapons or weapon-like objects such as rods, wands, and so on.

If you aren't using the second weapon you aren't wielding it.

Someone has other interesting after-effects of this interpretation?

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Tarantula wrote:
Ughbash wrote:

Full attack is completed on your turn just as a move and attack would be.

Full round spell casting takes the entire round and is NOT done yet when the next person in iniative goes.

The Combat Round:

"When the rules refer to a “full round”, they usually mean a span of time from a particular initiative count in one round to the same initiative count in the next round. Effects that last a certain number of rounds end just before the same initiative count that they began on."

Full-Round Actions:
"Full Attack

If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.

The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step. You may take the step before, after, or between your attacks.

If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first."

Nothing in full attack says you are finished "full attacking" until immediately prior to your next turn. However, it is weird because you resolve all the attacks during your turn.

Thanks to this line of text thee difference between full-round and One-round action must be the most confusing thing in this game, I think:

PRD wrote:
When the rules refer to a “full round”, they usually mean a span of time from a particular initiative count in one round to the same initiative count in the next round. Effects that last a certain number of rounds end just before the same initiative count that they began on.

Almost all the actions in the "Actions In Combat" table that require a Full-Round Action are completed during the acting character part of the round, spells that require a full-round to cast (not 1 round) are cast at the end of the character turn, not at the start of his next turns, and so on.


Diego Rossi wrote:
- Two-Weapon Defense will not work when using 2 weapons. You need to wield the 2 weapon for it to work and wielding is defined as:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Wielding means "actively trying to use the item," and is normally only used in the context of weapons or weapon-like objects such as rods, wands, and so on.

If you aren't using the second weapon you aren't wielding it.

Someone has other interesting after-effects of this interpretation?

Interesting observation Diego. It also puts into question how exactly TWDefense works at all..

PRD - Core - Feats - Two Weapon Defense wrote:


Benefit: When wielding a double weapon or two weapons (not including natural weapons or unarmed strikes), you gain a +1 shield bonus to your AC.

When you are fighting defensively or using the total defense action, this shield bonus increases to +2.

Two Weapon Defense needs to be updated to account for the new definition of "wielded" put forth by Sean in the TWF and Defending Weapon FAQs. It is my understanding that you cannot "wield" a weapon that you aren't actively using so Total Defense wouldn't work with TWD.

It also suggests that TWD turns on and off (which is clearly not accounted for in the rules text because there is no duration).


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Diego Rossi wrote:
- Two-Weapon Defense will not work when using 2 weapons. You need to wield the 2 weapon for it to work and wielding is defined as:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Wielding means "actively trying to use the item," and is normally only used in the context of weapons or weapon-like objects such as rods, wands, and so on.

If you aren't using the second weapon you aren't wielding it.

Someone has other interesting after-effects of this interpretation?

Two Weapon Defence clinches it for me. You only get the bonus if you are wielding two weapons (TWFing) and it's useless if you are only TWFing for your attacks and not before and after (which is when anyone will actually try and hit you). Ergo, you must be TWFing for the entire round to gain the AC bonus, which in turn implies that TWFing takes place with all it's benefits and penalties for the entire round.


So that means that Dabbler that you arent getting two weapon Def if you have to move more than 5ft in a round? I think this is one of those nebulous areas where clarification to a rule might be needed due to clarifcation of a rule.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dabbler wrote:
My response is that while your attacks may be over in the same space of time (which by the way is never specifically stated, and could easily be regarded as somewhat variable), you are still two weapon fighting for the round.

You've made this claim a number of times, but without any rules to back it up.

Also, others have posted reasons why this is not true, and you have not rebutted them.

How about this? In order to be Two-Weapon Fighting you must wield a second weapon in your offhand. This means if you are not wielding a second weapon in your offhand, you cannot use Two-Weapon Fighting.

So full attack with two weapons. (Full-round action)
Drop both weapons. (Free actions)
Cast quickened shocking grasp (Swift action)
Deliver touch attack (Free action)

When you deliver that touch attack, you are not wielding a second weapon in your offhand. So you cannot be Two-Weapon Fighting. Since you're not TWFing, you don't take the penalties for fighting that way.

Dabbler wrote:
If the TWFer is NOT TWFing when he takes the AoO, is it reasonable for him to make the AoO a two-handed attack with one end of the weapon rather than treating each end as a one-handed weapon?

Yes, assuming he didn't spend a free action at the end of his turn to take a hand off the weapon. "The character can also choose to use a double weapon two-handed, attacking with only one end of it."

Stynkk wrote:

*throws support behind Grick, Tarantula & the Jiggernaut*

TWF Penalties only exist for the attacks made during your turn.

While I appreciate the support, this is not correct. The penalties only exist for attacks made during that action, not during the turn, or round, or minute, etc.

Diego Rossi wrote:
you don't get a charge bonus on a AoO. It is a full round action

Of course not. "After moving, you may make a single melee attack. You get a +2 bonus on the attack roll and take a –2 penalty to your AC until the start of your next turn."

Diego Rossi wrote:
If you aren't using the second weapon you aren't wielding it.

One could argue that by defending yourself with the weapon (thus gaining the AC bonus) you're using it. This is probably the intent, if not the rule.

Dabbler wrote:
Two Weapon Defence clinches it for me. You only get the bonus if you are wielding two weapons (TWFing)

You can wield two weapons without TWF. Just attack with each of them.

Dabbler wrote:
Ergo, you must be TWFing for the entire round to gain the AC bonus

No, it means you must be fighting for the entire round to gain the AC bonus (which is why the feat is broken under that definition of wielding).


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

As I understood the "wielding" thing, you essentially have to have the weapon at the ready. TWD just requires you to have two weapons held and ready for use, similar to how a wizard cannot use a two-handed arcane bond to cast because casting renders the weapon unusuable. You don't even have to TWF to get TWD; you just have to wield two weapons or a double weapon. You can make your four iteratives, one with each weapon, and not be TWF, and still get TWD.

It still seems very clear that TWF penalties are attached to the full-attack action, not to any other attack rolls that don't specifically say they suffer TWF penalties. The penalties are meant to offset the advantage of an extra attack, and that's all.


blahpers wrote:
As I understood the "wielding" thing, you essentially have to have the weapon at the ready.

I think part of the wielding issue is the FAQ on Defending Weapons, where you explicitly must attack with the weapon in order to gain its benefit. This could be taken to mean wielding a weapon only happens when actually attacking, rather than just having it equipped in a manner in which you could attack.

Also,

If you're wielding a sword, you're trying to hit people with it.

Does that mean actually making attack rolls, or could it mean the fluff of constantly making feints, minor attacks, and whatnot that is assumed to be happening any time combat is engaged and not flat-footed?

This doesn't really mesh with the two-handed weapon and casting example, though:

if you're wielding a 2H weapon, you can let go of the weapon with one of your hands (free action). You're now only carrying the 2H weapon, not wielding it, but your free hand is now free to attack or help cast spells or whatever. And at the end of your turn if your free hand remains free you'd be able to return it to grip your 2H weapon so you can still threaten foes and take attacks of opportunity if you want.

Using this example, wielding means equipped and ready to use, even if no attack was actually made.

It's similar to wearing a spiked gauntlet and holding a weapon in that same hand. Generally, people rule that you must choose which one you're wielding as a free action. And you only threaten with the one you chose to wield, regardless of whether you made any attacks at all.

Using these examples, if you are wielding two weapons, and both are ready to attack (not being held, carried, etc.) then you get the AC from TWD.

Using the more restrictive 'attack roll' definition of wielding breaks the feat, which I think definitely isn't intended.


Follow all these points and make your decision, try not to break them apart from each other and I think it will make more sense.

There is a difference between fighting with two weapons and Two-Weapon Fighting. This is described clearly in the core rule book FAQ.

If you have a weapon available, that you can currently theaten with, you are wielding a weapon. Weilding two weapons equals fighting with two weapons, not Two-Weapon Fighting.

Charge and other attack actions explicitly state that the penalties last 'until the start of your next turn'. There is no reason to add this line to Two-Weapon Fighting. You are not 'still charging'. You would not apply the +2 to hit to any AoO's made that round, but it doesn't say that you don't.

If you apply the Two-Weapon Fighting penalties until the next turn because the action is always going on, then your Monks are going to love you. Following the same exact logic, a Monk using Flurry of Blows would actually gain a substantial bonus to their AoO in a round where they flurried. Starting at level 10, when Monks flurry, they actually attack with a higher bonus for those attacks.

In summary, Charge, Flurry of Blows and Two-Weapon Fighting are combat options. One explicitly states the penalties last until the next turn, the other two do not. There is no reason to add or delete parts from any of these options, for good or bad.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Talonhawke wrote:
So that means that Dabbler that you arent getting two weapon Def if you have to move more than 5ft in a round? I think this is one of those nebulous areas where clarification to a rule might be needed due to clarifcation of a rule.

I agree, Talonhawke. Conversely I always allowed TWD to get the AC bonus whether they were TWFing or not, which is apparently not supported in the rules just as applying the penalty from TWF to attacks of opportunity is not supported (or denied, for that matter) in the rules.

@Grick
I never pretended that the RAW backed up my claim - it is somewhat more ambiguous, but more likely stands against me than for me. I don't mind that, I just feel intuitively that if you have most of your round TWFing, you are likely to be doing so for any extra attacks you make in the round as well, and until there is a clarification on this, that's how I will play it in my games.


Dabbler,

So are you going to give the Monks a bonus when they flurry and get an AoO?

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Grick wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
My response is that while your attacks may be over in the same space of time (which by the way is never specifically stated, and could easily be regarded as somewhat variable), you are still two weapon fighting for the round.

You've made this claim a number of times, but without any rules to back it up.

Also, others have posted reasons why this is not true, and you have not rebutted them.

How about this? In order to be Two-Weapon Fighting you must wield a second weapon in your offhand. This means if you are not wielding a second weapon in your offhand, you cannot use Two-Weapon Fighting.

So full attack with two weapons. (Full-round action)
Drop both weapons. (Free actions)
Cast quickened shocking grasp (Swift action)
Deliver touch attack (Free action)

When you deliver that touch attack, you are not wielding a second weapon in your offhand. So you cannot be Two-Weapon Fighting. Since you're not TWFing, you don't take the penalties for fighting that way.

Often cited but never rad fully apparently:

FAQ wrote:

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 are 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."

—Sean K Reynolds, 11/04/11


Diego Rossi wrote:
FAQ wrote:
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."

That doesn't say anything about still Two-Weapon Fighting after the full-round action is over.

Or were you agreeing with me?


Yeah, I don't know what Diego was trying to say either.


Komoda wrote:
Yeah, I don't know what Diego was trying to say either.

He might have been trying to point out that SKR said you have to choose whether or not to use TWF "before you take any attacks on your turn" which could kind of be read to mean that you have to choose to TWF before any attack, even if it isn't part of a full-round action.

This would mean that SKR says you can't quickened shocking grasp, then deliver the touch, then choose to TWF when you take the full-round action to full attack. You choose to TWF first, then cast the spell, then make the free attack, then choose to full attack. And when doing so, if however you are delivering the touch is using your primary or off-hand weapon, you would take TWF penalties on it. And if it's not, you don't.

Meaning if the crazy melee wizard is holding a sword in his right hand, an empty left hand, and armor spikes, he can make his touch attack using his left hand without penalty because it's not using his primary weapon (sword) or his off-hand weapon (spikes).

I suspect that wording was an oversight on SKRs part, rather than an incomprehensible rule about pre-full-round attacks.


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Grick wrote:
blahpers wrote:
As I understood the "wielding" thing, you essentially have to have the weapon at the ready.

I think part of the wielding issue is the FAQ on Defending Weapons, where you explicitly must attack with the weapon in order to gain its benefit. This could be taken to mean wielding a weapon only happens when actually attacking, rather than just having it equipped in a manner in which you could attack.

Also,

If you're wielding a sword, you're trying to hit people with it.

Does that mean actually making attack rolls, or could it mean the fluff of constantly making feints, minor attacks, and whatnot that is assumed to be happening any time combat is engaged and not flat-footed?

This doesn't really mesh with the two-handed weapon and casting example, though:

if you're wielding a 2H weapon, you can let go of the weapon with one of your hands (free action). You're now only carrying the 2H weapon, not wielding it, but your free hand is now free to attack or help cast spells or whatever. And at the end of your turn if your free hand remains free you'd be able to return it to grip your 2H weapon so you can still threaten foes and take attacks of opportunity if you want.

Using this example, wielding means equipped and ready to use, even if no attack was actually made.

It's similar to wearing a spiked gauntlet and holding a weapon in that same hand. Generally, people rule that you must choose which one you're wielding as a free action. And you only threaten with the one you chose to wield, regardless of whether you made any attacks at all.

Using these examples, if you are wielding two weapons, and both are ready to attack (not being held, carried, etc.) then you get...

That's an . . . interesting ruling. (MHO follows.) Given the pricing of the ability and the way it's described in RAW, wielding it ought to be enough. It's just like wielding a shield--if your shield isn't ready, you don't get the effect. You shouldn't have to actively hack with it to get the bonus.

*waves magic house-rule wand, and decides to never, ever get a defending weapon in PFS*

Qadira

Grick wrote:


Meaning if the crazy melee wizard is holding a sword in his right hand, an empty left hand, and armor spikes, he can make his touch attack using his left hand without penalty because it's not using his primary weapon (sword) or his off-hand weapon (spikes).

I suspect that wording was an oversight on SKRs part, rather than an incomprehensible rule about pre-full-round attacks.

just because he is touching with his left hand which is empty, does not mean it is not penalized. If he's taken an attack with his primary weapon (sword), then his hand would be an off-hand attack and get penalties.

thats part of SKRs whole FAQ of you choosing to TWF before making any attacks.

if the wizard had a bab of +6, he gets two attacks on a full attack action, and can slash with his sword at +6 bab, and attack with his armor spikes at +1 or vice versa. he can cast his quickened spell, and step up to make his touch attack at +6.

if the wizard is electing to use TWF rules, he can attack with his sword / spikes w/ penalties ( +4/+4 ), and his sword again (-1) for his iterative. if he then casts quickened shocking grasp, he'd make his touch attack with the penalty for twf for the round , at +4. he would not be able to count his hand holding the spell as an off-off hand and not take penalties with it. at that point its a light off hand weapon.

the next round, when he chooses whether he's going to TWF for the current round, he decides whether he keeps the penalties for TWF or not.
the decision is made every round. as a non-action at the start of his turn. thats why it doesn't last for a set minute or hour. it lasts only as long as the player using two weapon fighting rules chooses to use the two weapon fighting rules.

two weapon defense only requires you to be weilding two weapons or a double weapon, and don't require you to be Two Weapon Fighting to get the benefit, so it lends no weight to either side of the argument that you retain TWF penalties on AoO or not.


Seraphimpunk wrote:
just because he is touching with his left hand which is empty, does not mean it is not penalized. If he's taken an attack with his primary weapon (sword), then his hand would be an off-hand attack and get penalties.

But it's not his off-hand. His off-hand is locked by the TWF choice as his armor spikes.

Remember, this is only when using a super specific exact wording of that FAQ. (The same wording that means you choose to TWF even if you don't have any weapons drawn, and also breaks if you try to use ITWF and thrown weapons)

"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."

The touch is not his main attack. It's not his iterative attack. It's not his off-hand attack.

Under Two-Weapon Fighting (combat, not feat):
"You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way."

The touch is not his regular attack. It's not attacks with a primary hand. It's not the bonus attack with his off-hand.

Seraphimpunk wrote:
the decision is made every round. as a non-action at the start of his turn. thats why it doesn't last for a set minute or hour. it lasts only as long as the player using two weapon fighting rules chooses to use the two weapon fighting rules.

It's equally valid to say the decision is made every turn. That's why it doesn't last for a round or a minute or an hour.

So if it's equally valid to last a turn than a round, why not per action, which would actually make sense?

The fact that you can't use TWF twice in one round does not make the action last for that entire duration.

Just like you can use Stunning Fist no more than once per round, but that doesn't make it take the entire round, and AoOs made after you use Stunning Fist do not stun people.

Qadira

the touch attack IS an off hand attack, because he's already attacked with his main hand attack.

if the same wizard had a sword, armor spikes, and an unarmed strike,
and attacked with sword and spikes, then wanted to attack with unarmed strike, he could, the penalty is as a light off hand weapon so its the same penalty being applied to the spikes (-2), he'd be the same +4/+4/-1.

the charged spell in hand becomes a weapon. only since he's already attacking with two weapon fighting does he apply the -2 to hit with it.

since you're supposing a wizard is two weapon fighting with armor spikes and a sword, i wasn't going into nitty-gritty of feats and proficiencies.

if you want to go that far, fine, the human wizard with a sword and armor spikes wants to TWF for a round. he has the two-weapon fighting feat. his bab is +6. he'd take a nonproficiency penalty of -4 with the sword, and with the armor spikes since they're a martial weapon as well. so he'd be at +6 bab, -2 for TWF, -4 nonproficiency. so before other factors like strength he'd be at sword +0/-5, armor spikes +0.

under combat, full round actions are listed as "consuming all of your time during the round" but that you can also complete free/quick actions. It does not exhonerate those free actions from any penalties accumulated by the character's choice of full-round or other action.

Quote:
Full-Round Action: A full-round action consumes all your effort during a round. The only movement you can take during a full-round action is a 5-foot step before, during, or after the action. You can also perform free actions and swift actions (see below). See Table: Actions in Combat for a list of full-round actions.

since the wizard is deciding to Two-Weapon Fight, he must figure out what his touch is considered to assign it a Two Weapon Fighting penalty. A touch is a light off hand weapon. And the wizard has the feat. So its made at his bab, with a -2 penalty for being a light off hand weapon.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Komoda wrote:

Dabbler,

So are you going to give the Monks a bonus when they flurry and get an AoO?

On reflection, yes they would attack at their full flurry bonus, whatever that may be. It seems odd not to, in the light of the discussion here - if I hadn't thought long about the TWF and AoO factors during this thread, I would probably have been applying the AoO inconsistently without thinking much about it.

Grick wrote:
Just like you can use Stunning Fist no more than once per round, but that doesn't make it take the entire round, and AoOs made after you use Stunning Fist do not stun people.

This may come as a shock, but stunning fist actually specifies that it takes place on one attack only, which is way later attacks cannot use stunning fist.


Seraphimpunk wrote:

the touch attack IS an off hand attack, because he's already attacked with his main hand attack.

if the same wizard had a sword, armor spikes, and an unarmed strike,
and attacked with sword and spikes, then wanted to attack with unarmed strike, he could, the penalty is as a light off hand weapon so its the same penalty being applied to the spikes (-2), he'd be the same +4/+4/-1.

the charged spell in hand becomes a weapon. only since he's already attacking with two weapon fighting does he apply the -2 to hit with it.

since you're supposing a wizard is two weapon fighting with armor spikes and a sword, i wasn't going into nitty-gritty of feats and proficiencies.

if you want to go that far, fine, the human wizard with a sword and armor spikes wants to TWF for a round. he has the two-weapon fighting feat. his bab is +6. he'd take a nonproficiency penalty of -4 with the sword, and with the armor spikes since they're a martial weapon as well. so he'd be at +6 bab, -2 for TWF, -4 nonproficiency. so before other factors like strength he'd be at sword +0/-5, armor spikes +0.

under combat, full round actions are listed as "consuming all of your time during the round" but that you can also complete free/quick actions. It does not exhonerate those free actions from any penalties accumulated by the character's choice of full-round or other action.

Quote:
Full-Round Action: A full-round action consumes all your effort during a round. The only movement you can take during a full-round action is a 5-foot step before, during, or after the action. You can also perform free actions and swift actions (see below). See Table: Actions in Combat for a list of full-round actions.
since the wizard is deciding to Two-Weapon Fight, he must figure out what his touch is considered to assign it a Two Weapon Fighting penalty. A touch is a light off hand weapon. And the wizard has the feat. So its made at his bab, with a -2 penalty for being a light off hand weapon.

What if this same said wizard hasn't decided yet? He decides to cast a quickened shocking grasp to try to kill the monster. The monster still hasn't fallen down, so now he decides to TWF with his sword and armor spikes. Oh, but wait, he already has made the shocking grasp attack, so do we now have to ret-con it to be at a -2 because afterwards he decided to TWF?

The answer is no. TWF penalties apply only to the TWF attacks. That is, the iterative and off-hand attacks made when undertaking the TWF full-round attack action.

For those using Two Weapon Defense as an example. It helps to read the text.
"Benefit: When wielding a double weapon or two weapons (not including natural weapons or unarmed strikes), you gain a +1 shield bonus to your AC.

When you are fighting defensively or using the total defense action, this shield bonus increases to +2."

Wielding. Not fighting with. I read wielding as you have taken the draw weapon action for the weapon. This makes sense, as TWD does not work for weapons you cannot draw (Unarmed/Natural). Touch spells are considered to be armed, so one weapon + touch spell held would qualify for TWD as well.


Tarantula wrote:
Touch spells are considered to be armed, so one weapon + touch spell held would qualify for TWD as well.

I disagree.

Why you are armed, you do not have a weapon wielded. An improved unarmed strike is armed.

-James


james maissen wrote:
Tarantula wrote:
Touch spells are considered to be armed, so one weapon + touch spell held would qualify for TWD as well.

I disagree.

Why you are armed, you do not have a weapon wielded. An improved unarmed strike is armed.

-James

Excellent point James. SKR has drawn a clear line between wielded and armed. It is a good idea to introduce the concept of armed to this discussion because people are confusing it with wielded.

@Sir Grick: I hadn't thought of swift actions. I concur TWF penalties would only last for the action.

@whoever made the wielding a shield is attacking comparison (not a lot of time so my apologies):

Wielding a shield is different than wielding a weapon. To wield a shield you need to be employing it (in this case defending yourself).


Stynkk wrote:


@Sir Grick: I hadn't thought of swift actions. I concur TWF penalties would only last for the action.

Even there you have to be careful.

If a character is making a full attack action and casts a quickened touch spell in the middle of that sequence does it take the penalty or not?

-James


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

Bored now. Just pick something and be consistent. Me, TWF for full attack action and that's it. It leaves the fewest "WTF?" scenarios open.

And I'm getting close to just banning any monk with flurry because it's a bloody headache. I won't ask for clarification because as a group the players have alienated the developers to the point that they won't touch the subject with a 10' reach pole. So, no monk for you, my players!

...Okay, I didn't mean it. I'll just ignore the ill-considered monk ruling and carry on, game balanced.

Qadira

Tarantula wrote:


What if this same said wizard hasn't decided yet? He decides to cast a quickened shocking grasp to try to kill the monster. The monster still hasn't fallen down, so now he decides to TWF with his sword and armor spikes. Oh, but wait, he already has made the shocking grasp attack, so do we now have to ret-con it to be at a -2 because afterwards he decided to TWF?

Order matters. its a turn based game. Casting a quickened action with a free attack attached to it, before deciding whether to TWF, attack, or full attack in the round means he hasn't started TWF yet, and wouldn't take penalties. But doing it after he's locked himself into his TWF action means he would take the penalty.

Like the FAQ on TWF states, you're locked in.

He couldn't take a swing with his sword at +6, and then decide to TWF because he'd already initiated a regular full attack.

He couldn't take a swing with TWF penalties, see the enemy go down, and decide to take a move action: he's already locked into a full attack action with two weapon fighting, so he can only take a five ft step.

Its not a lot to consider. after you start two weapon fighting, you take the penalty until the start of your next turn.
w/ over 30 FAQ's for the topic, I hope it gets a simple yes/no from devs to sort it out.


Quote:
He couldn't take a swing with TWF penalties, see the enemy go down, and decide to take a move action: he's already locked into a full attack action with two weapon fighting, so he can only take a five ft step.

Actually he could. He's not locked into a full attack action. He did a single attack with TWF penalties. Taking the penalties doesn't lock you into anything.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Grick wrote:
Komoda wrote:
Yeah, I don't know what Diego was trying to say either.

He might have been trying to point out that SKR said you have to choose whether or not to use TWF "before you take any attacks on your turn" which could kind of be read to mean that you have to choose to TWF before any attack, even if it isn't part of a full-round action.

This would mean that SKR says you can't quickened shocking grasp, then deliver the touch, then choose to TWF when you take the full-round action to full attack. You choose to TWF first, then cast the spell, then make the free attack, then choose to full attack. And when doing so, if however you are delivering the touch is using your primary or off-hand weapon, you would take TWF penalties on it. And if it's not, you don't.

Meaning if the crazy melee wizard is holding a sword in his right hand, an empty left hand, and armor spikes, he can make his touch attack using his left hand without penalty because it's not using his primary weapon (sword) or his off-hand weapon (spikes).

I suspect that wording was an oversight on SKRs part, rather than an incomprehensible rule about pre-full-round attacks.

"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)," and "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." seem pretty straightforward, especially when taken with the ruling that you can chose any of your manufactured weapons or unarmed attack as your "primary weapon" and any any of your manufactured weapons or unarmed attack as your "secondary weapon", as long as they are made with different weapons.

You:
a) have to decide to use two weapon combat before you do any attack
b) if you use two weapon combat it apply to all your attacks

Your attempt at levity (and I hope for you that it was an attempt to make a joke) was really lame.

51 to 100 of 168 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / Do you suffer penalty on attacks of opportunity when two weapon fighting? 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.