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

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


Rules Questions

101 to 150 of 168 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
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?

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.

He work like any other character that has decided to make an attack at full bonus and then want to switch to TWF. He can't.

You must decide if using TWF before your first attack roll.

Andoran

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

PRD wrote:

Touch Spells in Combat: ....

Touch Attacks: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity.


Diego, I think you are missing the point that Grick & James are making. TWF is a specific kind of full round action, any benefits or penalites are contained within that action. Using a swift action after TWF (or even in the middle of TWF) does not carry any penalty nor does your touch attack count as on of your weapons you're using. The swift action is self contained and separate - away from the full round action and exempt from the TWF penalites. When you cast a quicked melee touch spell you gain an extra free action to deliver the spell during that turn, separate from your attack action routine.

SKR's TWF FAQ is not an exhaustive explanation, he didn't delve into corner cases, just the most common scenario. It is unfair to apply his FAQ text to a situation that goes beyond his example.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Stynkk wrote:
TWF is a specific kind of full round action, any benefits or penalites are contained within that action. Using a swift action after TWF (or even in the middle of TWF) does not carry any penalty nor does your touch attack count as on of your weapons you're using. The swift action is self contained and separate - away from the full round action and exempt from the TWF penalites. When you cast a quicked melee touch spell you gain an extra free action to deliver the spell during that turn, separate from your attack action routine.

That's certainly one interpretation. But without a quote on the rule or FAQ that says this definitively, I will remain unconvinced.


Diego Rossi wrote:


You must decide if using TWF before your first attack roll.

No, you must decide if you are taking the TWF penalties before your first attack in the full attack sequence it has nothing to do with any other attacks.

For example if a NPC with a readied action provoked an AOO and you hit him, you could then elect to TWF as a full round action to hurt him. If he was still alive you could then cast a quickened spell and attack him at full BAB without TWF penalty.

Likewise you could cast that quickened spell during your full attack sequence and not have a reduced BAB nor suffer TWF penalties for that quickened spell attack.

TWF penalties are for the full attack sequence and nothing else. It is different than power attack/combat expertise/fighting defensively/deadly aim penalties. You don't continue to have that penalty any more than you continue to have the charging +2 to hit.

-James
PS: Now its interesting to ask whether you can take the TWF penalty for your first attack and then elect not to TWF to forgo those penalties for the remainder of your normal full attack sequence (without ever gaining the benefit of TWF). Personally I would allow it, but I'm not sure the RAW support for it. But then again I see the requirements a little differently than I think that they are directly worded. For example I see it not as declaring an action but whether or not what you've done up until that point is at the limit of what you can do and is consistent with what you've done in the round to that point. It answers those pesky questions such as what happens when you get slowed or staggered in the middle of your turn.


Dabbler wrote:


That's certainly one interpretation. But without a quote on the rule or FAQ that says this definitively, I will remain unconvinced.

What's wrong with what the core rules directly say?

Quote:


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.

It's a penalty to your regular attacks- meaning attacks in that sequence, not forever more... the penalty for the extra attack is slightly higher.

How else could you possibly read it?

Compare to power attack:

Quote:
You must choose to use this feat before making an attack roll, and its effects last until your next turn.

-James


Dabbler wrote:

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?

I found a post from you in this thread..

To answer it-

Yes it is reasonable for him to make the AOO using the two-bladed sword as a two-handed weapon. He could also make the AOO using an improved unarmed strike or natural bite attack.

He could do so despite making a TWF full attack the round prior or subsequent. Likewise he could do so if he full attacked with unarmed strikes the prior round or subsequent round. Moreover he could do so even if he didn't attack at all the prior or subsequent round.

The only requirement here is that he is threatening the square with a given armed weapon (as opposed to a non-improved unarmed strike or whip, etc). A PC might threaten a square with a plethora of weapons and elect to use any one of them when making an AOO.

Basically he could make any attack that he could make if given a normal attack without any other actions. He could not make a free action quick draw and then attack with this new weapon, nor could he make a free action drop to use a claw attack. Those are the limitations, nothing about what he's done the prior round or the round that's yet to come. The one exception to this would be if he's done something that stops him from threatening squares (full defense, become flatfooted somehow, etc).

I hope this helps,

James


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
james maissen wrote:
Dabbler wrote:


That's certainly one interpretation. But without a quote on the rule or FAQ that says this definitively, I will remain unconvinced.
What's wrong with what the core rules directly say?

It's open to interpretation. It says that you make the attack at your normal full BAB attack bonus. Well, when TWFing 'normal' attack bonus is your attack bonus at a -2 penalty if you are using a light off hand weapon, for example. So I say, use that, as TWF clearly effects everything else even when you are not using the off hand weapon to hit with that particular blow, and even when you haven't tried to hit with it yet.

I understand that you disagree, and that's perfectly cool - like I said, the definition of 'normal' is as ever open to interpretation.


Dabbler wrote:


It's open to interpretation.

I disagree that it's open to anything personally. But let's see what you believe are true for the following:

How long do YOU believe that this TWF penalty lasts? A minute, a year? Forever? Why?

When making an AOO, does it matter how you fought the prior round, the subsequent round, both or neither? Does it matter that you charged the previous round, or if you TWF for example?

-James


james maissen wrote:
When making an AOO, does it matter how you fought the prior round, the subsequent round, both or neither? Does it matter that you charged the previous round, or if you TWF for example?

Your example of a "Charge" Attack is a good one. It is another full round action, just like the "Two Weapon Fighting" form of attack. The bonus you gain from charging only lasts for the single attack you make in that sequence, TWF should work in a similar fashion.

It is important to note that TWF is a Full Round Action, not an "activated mode" that you switch on and off like Power Attack.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
james maissen wrote:
Dabbler wrote:


It's open to interpretation.
I disagree that it's open to anything personally.

It's open to being interpreted any way anyone wants to, and they will whether you like it or not. Different groups will play in different ways, we call the changes 'houserules' and I can still recall the times when 75% of any D&D game was nothing but houserules and rules lawyers had yet to rear their heads on the horizon of gaming.

james maissen wrote:

But let's see what you believe are true for the following:

How long do YOU believe that this TWF penalty lasts? A minute, a year? Forever? Why?

Unnecessary use of hyperbole here, James. There is no reason to suppose these things whatsoever, and it makes you look as if you are using ridicule in place of reason. It's far preferable to keep the discussion civilised.

For the record, though, I would say that from the point where you commit to using TWF until your next initiative turn when you decide whether you are using it in your next round will suffice. In this manner it functions like other options like Power Attack and Combat Expertise, which are much more clearly established that they do effect AoOs.

Thus you could charge with two weapons, then make an AoO, and that would be at full bonus without the TWF penalty, because at that stage you are not invoking TWF. You could make a swift action without the penalty, because you have not yet started fighting with TWF, then full attack with TWF. But once you attack with TWF, you are 'locked in' to TWF mode - as seen by the fact that your first attack is at a penalty even though you are not yet attacking with your off-hand. In the same way, even though all your attacks may be over, your AoOs would (IMHO) still suffer the -2 penalty for TWFing because you are still in TWF 'mode'. At the start of your next turn, you can choose if you are continuing with TWF or not.

I do understand that not everyone will agree with this interpretation, but it's the way I've always played it and always seen it played and it seems perfectly reasonable to me. Call it a houserule or an alternate reading or whatever you like, it all comes down to how you interpret 'normal' in the description of attacks of opportunity - and like it or not, it IS an interpretation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dabbler wrote:


Unnecessary use of hyperbole here, James.

For the record, though, I would say that from the point where you commit to using TWF until your next initiative turn when you decide whether you are using it in your next round will suffice. In this manner it functions like other options like Power Attack and Combat Expertise, which are much more clearly established that they do effect AoOs.

Thus you could charge with two weapons, then make an AoO, and that would be at full bonus without the TWF penalty

Actually the hyperbole was for a point rather than simply being gratuitous. You are arbitrarily picking 1 full round, while other things that are not tied to a full attack action (say power attack.. I've double moved and declared power attack before) do specify. I see no reason to extend an arbitrary extra time period for TWF.

Now I'll ask you, since you mentioned an AOO after charging. Do you get the +2 to hit on that AOO? Or are you no longer charging after you've completed that full round action yet are somehow still TWFing after you've completed its full round action? Is there a 'charge mode'?

Power attack and combat expertise expressly state how long the bonus and penalty last. TWFing is closer to charge than it is power attack you have to admit.

I can understand the 'we've always done it this way' but really that's not so good a thing in a rules forum. Many people have 'always done' some things wrong. They may like them that way and that's fine. They can continue to do them even if they rule books/errata/FAQ says 'Hey Dabbler it doesn't work that way it works this way'. Meaning it really has no bearing on things.

There is not a 'TWF mode' but rather there is a full round action that has that option. The full round action is done at the end of the character's turn. It doesn't specify any care-over penalties or bonuses.

For example do you let the character in 'TWF mode' make an attack with the primary and then an EXTRA attack with the secondary when presented with an AOO? Isn't that what they are entitled to when making attacks in 'TWF mode'?

Again this made seem like gratuitous hyperbole, but I do not mean it to be rude in any way. Rather I mean it to be logical consequence and potential inference from what you would like to be the RAW. Now the rules as you like them to be can be whatever, have fun and enjoy the gaming! But when discussing the rules it needs to be a different cut from that.

So again I don't mean it to be rude in any way. Please forgive me if the medium conveys it to you in that fashion. I do not see this as 'your interpretation' of the RAW, but rather a complete separation from them to meet how you and your group have elected to play things. That's not 'interpretation' but rather 'alteration'.

-James


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
james maissen wrote:
Dabbler wrote:


Unnecessary use of hyperbole here, James.

For the record, though, I would say that from the point where you commit to using TWF until your next initiative turn when you decide whether you are using it in your next round will suffice. In this manner it functions like other options like Power Attack and Combat Expertise, which are much more clearly established that they do effect AoOs.

Thus you could charge with two weapons, then make an AoO, and that would be at full bonus without the TWF penalty

Actually the hyperbole was for a point rather than simply being gratuitous. You are arbitrarily picking 1 full round, while other things that are not tied to a full attack action (say power attack.. I've double moved and declared power attack before) do specify. I see no reason to extend an arbitrary extra time period for TWF.

Hardly arbitrary, merely unstated. I am choosing to look at TWF the same way that Power Attack and Combat Expertise work - that you get the benefit and the penalty until your next initiative turn.

james maissen wrote:
Now I'll ask you, since you mentioned an AOO after charging. Do you get the +2 to hit on that AOO? Or are you no longer charging after you've completed that full round action yet are somehow still TWFing after you've completed its full round action? Is there a 'charge mode'?

No. Charging is an action that you take, while TWF, like Power Attack or Combat Expertise, is a method of fighting.

james maissen wrote:
Power attack and combat expertise expressly state how long the bonus and penalty last. TWFing is closer to charge than it is power attack you have to admit.

If you wish to associate the two I would have to point out that charge clearly states you gain the bonus on ONE attack, at the end of the charge - and that even after the charge, you are suffering a penalty to AC until your next initiative turn. Once again, this is convergent evidence that benefits are immediate, penalties last until your next turn.

james maissen wrote:
I can understand the 'we've always done it this way' but really that's not so good a thing in a rules forum. Many people have 'always done' some things wrong.

I think the term you intended to use is not 'wrong' but 'differently'. In this case I am applying a different interpretation of 'normal attack bonus' than you. I am not claiming either of us is right or wrong.

james maissen wrote:
They may like them that way and that's fine. They can continue to do them even if they rule books/errata/FAQ says 'Hey Dabbler it doesn't work that way it works this way'. Meaning it really has no bearing on things.

Except in this case it is not a case that the rules STATE that it works differently to the way I am applying them - I'm extrapolating from what the rules do say to arrive at what I think they probably intended to mean, just as you are.

james maissen wrote:
There is not a 'TWF mode' but rather there is a full round action that has that option. The full round action is done at the end of the character's turn. It doesn't specify any care-over penalties or bonuses.

I don't deny that it doesn't state this, what it comes down to is how you regard the term 'normal attack bonus'. You take it to mean 'unadjusted attack bonus' while I regard it as 'attack bonus you used during the action you took preceding the attack'.

james maissen wrote:
For example do you let the character in 'TWF mode' make an attack with the primary and then an EXTRA attack with the secondary when presented with an AOO? Isn't that what they are entitled to when making attacks in 'TWF mode'?

No, the benefit from TWF is clearly stated - you gain one (or more for higher iterations of TWF) extra attack during a full attack action. Just like the attack bonus of charge is clearly stated to apply to only one attack. It's the penalty from both that lasts all turn.

james maissen wrote:
Again this made seem like gratuitous hyperbole, but I do not mean it to be rude in any way. Rather I mean it to be logical consequence and potential inference from what you would like to be the RAW. Now the rules as you like them to be can be whatever, have fun and enjoy the gaming! But when discussing the rules it needs to be a different cut from that.

The problem, James, is that you are assuming that your interpretation of 'normal attack bonus' is the correct one and clearly stated in the RAW, and it isn't. Which means what I am doing is not actually counter to RAW, unless the devs rule otherwise.

james maissen wrote:
So again I don't mean it to be rude in any way. Please forgive me if the medium conveys it to you in that fashion.

No harm, no foul, I'm not offended at all and I hope that likewise you do not feel that my argument is an attack.

james maissen wrote:
I do not see this as 'your interpretation' of the RAW, but rather a complete separation from them to meet how you and your group have elected to play things. That's not 'interpretation' but rather 'alteration'

There we will have to differ, of course. I think we are both agreed that one way 'normal attack bonus' was stated was to make clear that iterative attacks were not a factor.

You take 'normal attack bonus' to mean the attack you could have made if you had a standard action to attack. Now I am not saying that this is an invalid interpretation, but if it WAS as a standard action, you would be able to, say, make a grapple as an AoO, which you cannot.

Therefore, an AoO is NOT a standard action, it's a quick side-swipe that you make when the enemy exposes themselves - I think we can both agree on this too.

Therefore to my mind it is more like part of a full attack, and hence why I would interpret 'normal attack bonus' as the attack bonus that is normal for your combat that round. This is reinforced by the statements in feats like Power Attack and Combat Expertise, that their effects continue after the initiative turn is over. So I think that if you have been TWFing for the round, then an AoO should have the TWF penalty taken into account, because that is your 'normal attack bonus' when using TWF.

As for whether this is RAW, well the term used is 'normal attack bonus' - but there is no actual definition or example of 'normal attack bonus' given, so from what I can see, either of our interpretations could be the way the devs intended, until they state otherwise. If the rules were clear on this, we wouldn't be here arguing the toss!


Sorry if the reply is a bit scattered, the quoting is being done by hand as the post was too long.

Both charge and TWF are in the special attacks section. I can understand the idea of 'way of fighting' idea mind you, but its certainly interpretation over direct reading.

A monk making an AOO. Do they use full BAB? Do they take flurry penalties? I'm assuming you believe yes to both?

Well on charging:

Dabbler wrote:
If you wish to associate the two I would have to point out that charge clearly states you gain the bonus on ONE attack, at the end of the charge - and that even after the charge, you are suffering a penalty to AC until your next initiative turn. Once again, this is convergent evidence that benefits are immediate, penalties last until your next turn.
Charge wrote:


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.
Quote:

You can as much contort this as TWF to be either:

1. You only get one attack until your next turn and thus cannot make AOOs.

2. You get a +2 bonus on your attack roll until the start of your next turn.

Both are wrong (or 'different' if you really prefer that). It does not 'directly' say that you ONLY get the +2 bonus on that one attack and no others. It does directly say that you only get one attack. Hence the contortion for case 1.

Now TWF says:

Quote:
when you fight this way

Which for some reason you are suggesting extends for a full round. You are basing this because you believe that there is a 'TWF mode' which you draw from feats that have specific language that is completely absent here. It is a stretch to say the least.

For the record- you would believe that a character could at the start of their turn make a quickened spell attack (or other swift action) without penalty and THEN TWF with penalty. That penalty would extend past their full attack action, past the end of their turn until the start of their next turn. At which point they could again make a quickened spell attack and then TWF. The quickened spell would be without penalty but the TWF would suffer it's normal penalties and any AOOs not falling between the start of their turn and the start of their full attack action would suffer those penalties.

This is different from power attack/combat expertise. Why not also read in the OTHER restrictions of those FEATs to this SPECIAL ATTACK? It seems somewhat selective to me.

[quote = "Dabbler"]You take it to mean 'unadjusted attack bonus' while I regard it as 'attack bonus you used during the action you took preceding the attack'.

Which attack bonus would this be? If you made iterative attacks would you have a lower BAB? (no). If you had a flanking bonus would you get that? (no, though you might get it again). If you had a true strike bonus would you get that? (no). If you had a bonus from charging would you get that? (no, even though the penalty to AC endures). Would you take power attack/combat expertise penalties? (yes, they specifically say that it applies to them).

Let's ask one last situation/ question since you want to tie this to the prior round.

Situation a character is TWF without the TWF feat. He is using a long sword (primary) and dagger (off-hand) while also wearing armor spikes.

He makes his full round attack (6BAB so two longsword attacks and one dagger attack), with a (-4/-8) respective penalty.

After his turn is over an enemy walks past him.

He threatens the square left with all three weapons. Now what are his penalties (in your opinion) to attack with each?

If you want also have the character after the full attack action drop the longsword (free action) then quickdraw a shortsword (free action). Does this change anything?

-James


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

Not a joke, point out that an extremely strict reading of SKR's FAQ leads to a silly conclusion.

For instance, because SKR said "you have to decide before you take any attacks on your turn" instead of "you have to decide before you take any attacks in the full attack" that means you have to choose to TWF before you make any attacks, rather than choose before you make any attacks as part of the full-round action required to use TWF. That's the basis of your argument, that because you have to choose to TWF before the swift/free attack, that's why the swift/free attack is penalized by TWF.

So if your argument is based on an extremely strict reading of the FAQ that doesn't really make sense, then you have to take the entire FAQ extremely strictly also. Which means the penalties are restricted explicitly to "primary weapon" and "off hand weapon" and any attacks that are neither are not penalized.

So, since this shows the extremely strict wording of the FAQ doesn't work, a clearer reading is for the FAQ to be backing up the existing CRB rules, using which it makes no sense whatsoever for a free attack to be penalized by something you have not yet done and may not do.

Simply reading SKR's statement of "any attacks on your turn" to mean "any attacks of your full attack" makes it all work perfectly. TWFing applies only to the action used to TWF. Just like every other action in the game that doesn't have specific text stating otherwise.

Diego Rossi wrote:
b) if you use two weapon combat it apply to all your attacks

Except natural attacks.

Say during your turn you TWF and attack with rapier, dagger, and bite. Rapier main hand, taking TWF penalties. Dagger off-hand, taking TWF penalties. Bite, which is the only natural weapon, is secondary natural due to fighting with weapons.

Later in the round, something provokes. You bite it. Do you inexplicably take TWF penalties? Is the bite still secondary?

No, it's primary, and gets 1.5x Str. TWFing earlier in the round in a different action doesn't affect it.


(These quotes are a bit out of order, but it works better this way)

Dabbler wrote:
I don't deny that it doesn't state this, what it comes down to is how you regard the term 'normal attack bonus'. You take it to mean 'unadjusted attack bonus' while I regard it as 'attack bonus you used during the action you took preceding the attack'.

"Normal attack bonus" isn't really relevant. The argument is not what the normal attack bonus is, it's whether the penalties still apply. TWF does not change your attack bonus, it just applies a penalty to your attack roll(s).

Dabbler wrote:
there is no actual definition or example of 'normal attack bonus' given

Attack Bonus: "Your attack bonus with a melee weapon is the following: Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + size modifier"

TWF does not change your attack bonus. Iterative attacks do (by effectively changing your BAB value). When TWFing, and any other attacks, you take your attack bonus, then apply Other Modifiers. TWF applies an Other Modifier in the form of a penalty. Just like Bless applies an Other Modifier in the form of a +1 morale bonus.

Dabbler wrote:

You take 'normal attack bonus' to mean the attack you could have made if you had a standard action to attack. Now I am not saying that this is an invalid interpretation, but if it WAS as a standard action, you would be able to, say, make a grapple as an AoO, which you cannot.

Therefore, an AoO is NOT a standard action, it's a quick side-swipe that you make when the enemy exposes themselves - I think we can both agree on this too.

Again, either a red herring or not relevant. There's no way an AoO is a standard action, and no-one here was arguing that. Especially not James Maissen who you were quoting but possibly not directly addressing.

Dabbler wrote:
This is reinforced by the statements in feats like Power Attack and Combat Expertise, that their effects continue after the initiative turn is over.

If certain abilities have specific text, and others don't, doesn't that imply that the specific text applies only to those abilities, and not to everything?

Meaning, if every action lasted an entire round, why would Power Attack and Combat Expertise and Fighting Defensively explicitly say so? And doesn't the fact that they do say so make it reasonably certain that otherwise it doesn't apply the whole round?

And if the consequences of an action don't apply a whole round, isn't it the most reasonable assumption that they apply only while performing that action?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
james maissen wrote:

Situation a character is TWF without the TWF feat. He is using a long sword (primary) and dagger (off-hand) while also wearing armor spikes.

He makes his full round attack (6BAB so two longsword attacks and one dagger attack), with a (-4/-8) respective penalty.

After his turn is over an enemy walks past him.

He threatens the square left with all three weapons. Now what are his penalties (in your opinion) to attack with each?

His penalty is calculated based on whatever weapon he chooses to attack with being the first attack with the main hand of the normal full-attack TWF sequence. This is his 'normal attack bonus' as I see it.

james maissen wrote:
If you want also have the character after the full attack action drop the longsword (free action) then quickdraw a shortsword (free action). Does this change anything?

I would say the same as above: His penalty is calculated based on whatever weapon he chooses to attack with being the main hand of the normal full-attack TWF sequence.

Grick wrote:
Meaning, if every action lasted an entire round, why would Power Attack and Combat Expertise and Fighting Defensively explicitly say so? And doesn't the fact that they do say so make it reasonably certain that otherwise it doesn't apply the whole round?

Now you have a good point, yes. TWF does not indeed state this explicitly. It all comes down to how you interpret the phrase 'normal attack bonus' and the fact that it feels - to me - logical that if you are concentrating on fighting with a weapon in each hand (the reason for the penalty to hit) you don't stop concentrating just because you see an opening.

You guys (Grick and James) interpret 'normal attack bonus' to mean 'Attack Bonus as from a standard attack action' while I take it to mean 'attack bonus used when commencing your last initiative turn'. Either is a valid interpretation so far as I can see. However, if the devs rule against my interpretation and in favour of yours, I don't have a problem with that.


Dabbler wrote:
It all comes down to how you interpret the phrase 'normal attack bonus'

Normal attack bonus is irrelevant. TWF does not change that value.

Further, the line about "normal attack bonus" is only in attacks of opportunity, and this discussion also applies to all attacks made outside the full-round action to full attack.

Dabbler wrote:
You guys (Grick and James) interpret 'normal attack bonus' to mean 'Attack Bonus as from a standard attack action' while I take it to mean 'attack bonus used when commencing your last initiative turn'.

That is not my interpretation, and even if it was, it would be the same value as yours. The only thing that changes the attack bonus is a change in BAB, strength, or size.


If you ever faught with two weapons you would understand it is not about concentration, it is coordination. The second you stop swinging the second sword, even if you use it to block, attacking gets easier. Crossing swords is a nightmare and makes it harder to hit your opponent.

The key decider for me is that there are explicit rules that state when anything last a whole round. Anything that only lasts your turn doesn't say anything explicit. That part is very cut and dry for me. As such I would not give TWF penalties or Flurry bonuses to AoO made in the same round.

Quote:
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?

IWR* that a quickened spell touch attack does not get added into the penalties of two weapon fighting. I would rule this because the attack is not gained from the Two-Weapon Fighting option.

*IWR- I Would Rule - how I would do it, but nothing concrete to back it up.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Tarantula wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
This is the thing, a round is six seconds of action, initiative is merely a determining factor for order - you don't do your full attack in the first second and then stand around in the next five doing nothing.

I agree, which is why your reading of it makes sense, but doesn't appear to be supported in the text.

Still curious how you'd handle the TWF monk/bard with 2 whips taking an AoO with an unarmed strike.

The monk kicks at their normal attack bonus. How else would you handled it?


voska66 wrote:
Tarantula wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
This is the thing, a round is six seconds of action, initiative is merely a determining factor for order - you don't do your full attack in the first second and then stand around in the next five doing nothing.

I agree, which is why your reading of it makes sense, but doesn't appear to be supported in the text.

Still curious how you'd handle the TWF monk/bard with 2 whips taking an AoO with an unarmed strike.

The monk kicks at their normal attack bonus. How else would you handled it?

Would the kick take TWF penalties? I would rule no. I think that Dabbler would apply TWF penalties to a third weapon, but I'm not sure, which is why I asked the question. Which has gone ignored.


Dabbler wrote:


His penalty is calculated based on whatever weapon he chooses to attack with being the first attack with the main hand of the normal full-attack TWF sequence. This is his 'normal attack bonus' as I see it.

What penalty exactly would he have for making the AOO with the dagger?

What penalty for making the AOO with the armor spikes?

I'm not following you here as I see a plethora of possible random answers.

-James


james maissen wrote:
Dabbler wrote:

His penalty is calculated based on whatever weapon he chooses to attack with being the first attack with the main hand of the normal full-attack TWF sequence. This is his 'normal attack bonus' as I see it.

What penalty exactly would he have for making the AOO with the dagger?

What penalty for making the AOO with the armor spikes?

I'm not following you here as I see a plethora of possible random answers.

-James

I think that Dabbler missed that you said for your example the longsword is the "main hand" and the dagger is the "offhand".


Does fighting with two weapons take longer than fighter with one? Assume a BAB of 16 so the TWF has 7 attacks and the THF has 4. Who's turn takes longer? Does either sequence require more than the full round action?

I ask this because I think it's important. Nothing suggests that the TWF penalties continue beyond the round they are incurred. Once you have completed your turn, you are no longer TWF.

So this means that the AoO is at the highest attack bonuses. If you have more than one attack, you can simply attack with each of them in turn until you are out of AoO.

Forgive me as I write this. I took my sleeping meds but I wanted to be part of the conversation while they kicked in. They aren't stopping me from having spelling and grammar but I can't promise to be coherent.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Every round takes the exact same amount of time, every time.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Every round takes the exact same amount of time, every time.

What if you TWF in a time stop ?


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Glutton wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Every round takes the exact same amount of time, every time.
What if you TWF in a time stop ?

Alternate string of time, but same amount of time.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Glutton wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Every round takes the exact same amount of time, every time.
What if you TWF in a time stop ?
Alternate string of time, but same amount of time.

Aha! Trick question! You can't attack in a Time Stop!

(unless you attack an unattended object, curse my self for a fool)


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Well, accordingly to some posters, you don't have to attack at all to two-weapon fight.


Meaning you can twf with telekinesis?


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Yes, according to some, thinking about fighting with two weapons incurs penalties.


If I think about my opponent fighting with two weapons, does he incur penalties?


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Glutton wrote:
If I think about my opponent fighting with two weapons, does he incur penalties?

No, he gets bonuses, and you get penalties for imagining the act of two-weapon fighting.

Andoran

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

So, if TWF don't apply to all other attacks you make, what will happen when you are hasted? The extra attack is penalized or not?

A monk with Vicious stomp using flurry of blow and tripping an enemy what BAB use for his AoO? If he is not TWF with his AoO he should use the 3/4 BAB.

On a similar vein, what will happen when you are using rapid shot and are hasted or you get an attack of opportunity with the bow? Still unaffected by the penalty?


The haste attacks are part of the full attack action.

The monk would only be at 3/4 however.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Grick wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
It all comes down to how you interpret the phrase 'normal attack bonus'
Normal attack bonus is irrelevant. TWF does not change that value.

That depends on how you define 'normal attack bonus', as I said.

Grick wrote:
Further, the line about "normal attack bonus" is only in attacks of opportunity, and this discussion also applies to all attacks made outside the full-round action to full attack.

Go back and read the title of the thread.

james maissen wrote:
Dabbler wrote:


His penalty is calculated based on whatever weapon he chooses to attack with being the first attack with the main hand of the normal full-attack TWF sequence. This is his 'normal attack bonus' as I see it.

What penalty exactly would he have for making the AOO with the dagger?

What penalty for making the AOO with the armor spikes?

I'm not following you here as I see a plethora of possible random answers.

<sigh> You just quoted the answer to those questions.


Dabbler wrote:


<sigh> You just quoted the answer to those questions.

Could you just PLEASE write the numbers?

Is it -4, -8 or 0 or something else?

I REALLY do not follow which you mean here, though I will suspect it is not 0 from your stance.

What is the penalty for an AOO with the offhand dagger?

What is the penalty for an AOO with the armor spikes that were NOT used in the TWF routine?

-James


Bob_Loblaw wrote:
Nothing suggests that the TWF penalties continue beyond the round they are incurred. Once you have completed your turn, you are no longer TWF.

Are you sure you don't mean action, instead of round and turn?

As quoted, you've got 2 different answers. If it stops at the end of your turn, it doesn't last the entire round.

And if it lasts your entire turn, then AoOs and other non-full-attack attacks are also penalized, which makes the same lack of sense as AoOs and attacks outside your turn.

Diego Rossi wrote:
So, if TWF don't apply to all other attacks you make, what will happen when you are hasted? The extra attack is penalized or not?

Haste: "When making a full attack action, a hasted creature may make one extra attack..."

Since the haste attack is part of the full-round action to full attack, it takes TWF Penalties, because TWF penalties last the entire action.

Diego Rossi wrote:
A monk with Vicious stomp using flurry of blow and tripping an enemy what BAB use for his AoO? If he is not TWF with his AoO he should use the 3/4 BAB.

If he's making a regular attack with the AoO, then yes, normal BAB. If he's making a combat maneuver, then (depending on level) he might use monk level for BAB.

Diego Rossi wrote:
On a similar vein, what will happen when you are using rapid shot and are hasted or you get an attack of opportunity with the bow? Still unaffected by the penalty?

Rapid Shot (Combat): "When making a full-attack action with a ranged weapon, you can fire one additional time this round. All of your attack rolls take a –2 penalty when using Rapid Shot."

The penalties for Rapid Shot only apply to the action used to rapid shot, a full-round action to full attack. Anything outside that action does not take the penalty.


Dabbler wrote:
That depends on how you define 'normal attack bonus', as I said.

Well sure, if you define "normal attack bonus" as being a purple giraffe.

Using the in game definition of attack bonus (which for melee attacks is Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + size modifier) there is no possible interpretation of "normal" that would cause TWF to change that.

Two-Weapon Fighting imparts a penalty. The penalty is applied along with your attack bonus to your attack roll. A+B=C

Dabbler wrote:
Grick wrote:
Further, the line about "normal attack bonus" is only in attacks of opportunity, and this discussion also applies to all attacks made outside the full-round action to full attack.
Go back and read the title of the thread.

This discussion has gone beyond the original post. It hinges not on AoOs but on how long the TWF penalties last.

Dabbler wrote:
<sigh> You just quoted the answer to those questions.

If you're not reading clearly, I'll sum it up.

Different weapons can have different penalties.

Using your 'TWF for an entire round' ruling, what penalties are applied to weapons that were not used to two-weapon fight during the full attack? Main hand (-4)? Off-hand (-8)? What if it's a two-handed weapon, does it take penalties for both? What kind of strength bonus does it get? What about power attack? There are all rules you'll have to define in order for your interpretation to work.


Grick wrote:


Haste: "When making a full attack action, a hasted creature may make one extra attack..."

Since the haste attack is part of the full-round action to full attack, it takes TWF Penalties, because TWF penalties last the entire action.

It doesn't actually say that the Haste attack is part of the full-round action to full attack. It could legitimately be considered "not an action", or a free action.

The rule is too ambiguous to be definitive about this.


Axl wrote:
Grick wrote:


Haste: "When making a full attack action, a hasted creature may make one extra attack..."
It doesn't actually say that the Haste attack is part of the full-round action to full attack. It could legitimately be considered "not an action", or a free action.

So you may only make the attack when making a full attack action, but it doesn't explicitly say that the attack is part of the full attack action that is required to make it?

I disagree.


Axl wrote:
Grick wrote:


Haste: "When making a full attack action, a hasted creature may make one extra attack..."

Since the haste attack is part of the full-round action to full attack, it takes TWF Penalties, because TWF penalties last the entire action.

It doesn't actually say that the Haste attack is part of the full-round action to full attack. It could legitimately be considered "not an action", or a free action.

The rule is too ambiguous to be definitive about this.

With a modicum of certainty you can indeed say that the haste attack is part of the full attack action. Now you don't have in the CRB 'hey Axl, it's part of the full attack action when you get this extra attack that occurs when you're doing it' but beyond that it's not missing much.

You have to make the haste attack when making the full attack action.

The haste attack is an extra attack.

It certainly is not a free action, swift action, standard action, move action, separate full round action or non-action to do. None of these are so specified.

The only remaining possibility is that this is taking place as part of the full round attack action.

Trying to be purposefully obtuse is not the spirit in which these rules were written. Try to give the folks at paizo a bit more credit than that.

-James


Grick & James Maissen: I think that your interpretation is very reasonable. Indeed I would use the same interpretation during my own games. However I still believe that other interpretations may be valid.


Axl wrote:

Grick & James Maissen: I think that your interpretation is very reasonable. Indeed I would use the same interpretation during my own games. However I still believe that other interpretations may be valid.

It reminds me of an old joke on physicists...

A physicist sits down at a bar and orders from the bartender two drinks. One for him and one for the empty seat next to him.

The bartender asks 'oh is someone joining you?'

The physicist replies 'well as a scientist I have to admit the possibility of a beautiful woman suddenly materializing in the chair, and this way I'll be prepared'

The bartender asks 'why don't you just ask one of the ladies down there to join you? One might say yes'

The physicist replies 'yeah.. but what are the odds on that happening?'

-James

Andoran

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


Haste: "When making a full attack action, a hasted creature may make one extra attack..."
It doesn't actually say that the Haste attack is part of the full-round action to full attack. It could legitimately be considered "not an action", or a free action.

So you may only make the attack when making a full attack action, but it doesn't explicitly say that the attack is part of the full attack action that is required to make it?

I disagree.

LOL.

So after spending all the thread saying that any attack not part of the full attack sequence is outside the sequence and don't suffer from the TWF penalty, you start to claim that some kind of extra attack should be included in the full attack sequence?

And James, where it say what kind of action it is?
Until haste get "as part of your full attack" added to "make one extra attack" the action is a undefined one and separated from the full attack.


"When making a full attack action, a hasted creature may make one extra attack with one natural or manufactured weapon."

Haste is obviously not outside of the full-attack action. Haste doesn't let you make 2 attacks when someone provokes an AoO. It isn't an extra attack any time you can make an attack. It is one extra attack when making a full-attack action.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:
So after spending all the thread saying that any attack not part of the full attack sequence is outside the sequence and don't suffer from the TWF penalty, you start to claim that some kind of extra attack should be included in the full attack sequence?

Yes.

The haste attack is made when making a full attack. Any penalty that applies to that full attack also applies to the haste attack.

Also true for Rapid Shot, Ki Points, Flurry, Speed items, etc.

An attack of opportunity is not made when making a full attack. Any penalty that applies only to a full attack has nothing to do with an AoO.

A free action attack from casting a spell is not made when making a full attack. Any penalty that applies only to a full attack has nothing to do with the free action attack granted by a spell.

Diego Rossi wrote:
Until haste get "as part of your full attack" added to "make one extra attack" the action is a undefined one and separated from the full attack.

"When making a full attack action, a hasted creature may make one extra attack with one natural or manufactured weapon. The attack is made using the creature's full base attack bonus, plus any modifiers appropriate to the situation. (This effect is not cumulative with similar effects, such as that provided by a speed weapon, nor does it actually grant an extra action, so you can't use it to cast a second spell or otherwise take an extra action in the round.)"

Andoran

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

An attack of opportunity is not made when making a full attack. Any penalty that applies only to a full attack has nothing to do with an AoO.

PRD wrote:

Vicious Stomp (Combat)

You take advantage of the moment to brutally kick an enemy when he is down.
Prerequisites: Combat Reflexes, Improved Unarmed Strike.
Benefit: Whenever an opponent falls prone adjacent to you, that opponent provokes an attack of opportunity from you. This attack must be an unarmed strike.

Successful trip, AoO in the middle of the full attack.

If the monk don't count as TWF he get the 3/4 BAB.


Diego Rossi wrote:

Successful trip, AoO in the middle of the full attack.

If the monk don't count as TWF he get the 3/4 BAB.

An attack of opportunity “interrupts” the normal flow of actions in the round. If an attack of opportunity is provoked, immediately resolve the attack of opportunity, then continue with the next character's turn (or complete the current turn, if the attack of opportunity was provoked in the midst of a character's turn).


Diego Rossi wrote:
Grick wrote:

An attack of opportunity is not made when making a full attack. Any penalty that applies only to a full attack has nothing to do with an AoO.

PRD wrote:

Vicious Stomp (Combat)

You take advantage of the moment to brutally kick an enemy when he is down.
Prerequisites: Combat Reflexes, Improved Unarmed Strike.
Benefit: Whenever an opponent falls prone adjacent to you, that opponent provokes an attack of opportunity from you. This attack must be an unarmed strike.

Successful trip, AoO in the middle of the full attack.

If the monk don't count as TWF he get the 3/4 BAB.

The full attack action is not required to make an AoO. The monk makes it at 3/4 BAB.

101 to 150 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.