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

Two-weapon-fighting with a two-handed weapon and a weapon that does not require hands


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 315 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

34 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, it became quite a lively discussion in another thread on this subject and it was requested someone started a FAQ thread. While I personally feel the rules clearly allow it, some feel that there is unclarity or that the rules do not allow it (it's better I say upfront what my stance is rather than try to act like I'm objective).

Examples of the combination are things like longspear/kick and greatsword/spiked armor.

The argument why it is allowed is this:
1. The TWF rules do not note a difference based on how many hands a weapon require, (and neither does any other notes on two-weapon fighting I've found) they only designate the secondary attacks as "off-hand", and there are many cases where an off-hand is not an actual hand. Basically, the TWF rules allow you to fight with two weapons, and nothing in the rules say this is a non-allowed exception.

2. The spiked armor description clearly notes you can use them to make off-hand attacks as long as you have not made any other off-hand attacks that round (and the longspear/greatsword is not an off-hand attack or it would only add 1/2 str to damage).

3. The wording is exactly the same as the 3.5 SRD, word for word, and in the 3.5 FAQ it was explicitly allowed. Generally, when this is the case, the same rulings from 3.5 seem to be inherited to PF unless a developer says something else (part of the whole "backwards compability" thing). See spoiler for FAQ quote.

3.5 FAQ:

Just how and when can you use armor spikes? If you’re
using two weapons already, can you use armor spikes to
make a second off-hand attack? What if you’re using a
weapon and a shield? Can you use the armor spikes for an
off-hand attack and still get a shield bonus to Armor Class
from the shield? What if you use a two-handed weapon?
Can you wield the weapon in two hands and still make an
off-hand attack with the spikes? What are your options for
using armor spikes in a grapple? Can you use them when
pinned? If you have another light weapon, can you use that
and your armor spikes when grappling?
When you fight with more than one weapon, you gain an
extra attack. (Improved Two-Weapon Fighting and greater
Two-Weapon Fighting give you more attacks with the extra
weapon.) Armor spikes are a light weapon that can be used as
the extra weapon.
If you attack only with your armor spikes during your turn
(or use the armor spikes to make an attack of opportunity), you
use them just like a regular weapon. If you use the full attack
action, you can use armor spikes as either a primary light
weapon or as an off-hand light weapon, even if you’re using a
shield or using a two-handed weapon. In these latter two cases,
you’re assumed to be kicking or kneeing your foe with your
armor spikes.
Whenever you use armor spikes as an off-hand weapon,
you suffer all the penalties for attacking with two weapons (see
Table 8–10 in the PH). When using armor spikes along with a
two-handed weapon, it is usually best to use the two-handed
weapon as your primary attack and the armor spikes as the off-
hand weapon. You can use the armor spikes as the primary
weapon and the two-handed weapon as the off-hand attack, but
when you do so, you don’t get the benefit of using a light
weapon in your off hand.
You cannot, however, use your armor spikes to make a
second off-hand attack when you’re already fighting with two
weapons. If you have a weapon in both hands and armor spikes,
you can attack with the weapons in your hands (and not with
the armor spikes) or with one of the weapons in your hands and
the armor spikes (see the description of spiked armor in
Chapter 7 of the PH).

4. In 3.5, it was explicitly the intent, and since I assume the pathfinder developers looked through the FAQ when designing pathfinder, I assume they saw/shared that intent. Of course, these are assumptions of mine and might very well be incorrect.

The argument why it isn't allowed, I'm not so sure and someone else might be better to state it. The general feeling i've gotten is that the reason is "it's broken", and "greatswords use your off-hand" but I may have misinterpreted that and without math and rules references, it's hard to evaluate the arguments. If someone can present the argument better I'll try to incorporate it in this post.

If you think it's worth dev input, please click the FAQ button.

Liberty's Edge

The only thing I would add is I believe others were trying to have this also apply to Gauntlets and unarmed attacks.

Correct me if I am wrong.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

.
..
...
....
.....
Short version of the issue:

"You can two-weapon fight with a two-handed weapon and a zero-handed weapon."

VS

"Fighting two handed and two weapon fighting are mutually exclusive."


I think Jiggy's version is pretty well stated.

I've got no dog in this fight. From a pure balance perspective I would tend to think that allowing two-handed weapons unaltered plus using an unhanded "off-hand" weapon runs the risk of being unbalanced.

If I were pressed on this matter as a GM I'd probably rule that if you do this, you lose the 1.5x str damage on the 2 handed attack at least.


ciretose wrote:

The only thing I would add is I believe others were trying to have this also apply to Gauntlets and unarmed attacks.

Correct me if I am wrong.

Unarmed strike, absolutely, as that includes kicks and headbutts - that's no doubt part of this issue.

Gauntlets, that depends on the other issue discussed in that thread (action type to change grip) and it's better if we keep that out of this thread and focus on those cases where that isn't as issue.

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

I've got no dog in this fight. From a pure balance perspective I would tend to think that allowing two-handed weapons unaltered plus using an unhanded "off-hand" weapon runs the risk of being unbalanced.

If I were pressed on this matter as a GM I'd probably rule that if you do this, you lose the 1.5x str damage on the 2 handed attack at least.

I didn't include this in the OP as it's more of a rebuttal to an argument of balance rather than a statement of what I think is the RAW/RAI:

Balance:

I don't think it's unbalanced at all. At really low levels it can be an option, before you get weapon focus/specialization, but at that time two-weapon fighting is generally so hard (hard enemies primary defense at that point is AC rather than HP, so penalties to chance to hit can be very heavy) that it wouldn't mind a minor boost. At levels 3+ or so, a TWFer generally wants weapon focus (and specialization if it has access) and so wielding two light weapons will win out. Especially at higher levels, the chance for critical hits makes fightery TWFers prefer kukri, and for roguey TWFers the strength bonus isn't usually that great.

I've done some quick number crunching with a few basic builds and it really seems not to come out ahead (or rather, it comes out slightly ahead on single attacks and a fair bit behind on full attacks) of regular TWF with two light weapons.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
I've got no dog in this fight. From a pure balance perspective I would tend to think that allowing two-handed weapons unaltered plus using an unhanded "off-hand" weapon runs the risk of being unbalanced.

I doubt it. I mean, you take a -2 on your big uber two-hander of doom in exchange for a chance at piddly damage with a kick or some such? I haven't done the math, but I imagine it comes out roughly even in the long run. But I could be wrong on that.


Jiggy wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
I've got no dog in this fight. From a pure balance perspective I would tend to think that allowing two-handed weapons unaltered plus using an unhanded "off-hand" weapon runs the risk of being unbalanced.
I doubt it. I mean, you take a -2 on your big uber two-hander of doom in exchange for a chance at piddly damage with a kick or some such? I haven't done the math, but I imagine it comes out roughly even in the long run. But I could be wrong on that.

Jiggy, it has been my experience that most optimized builds are such that main attacks at the levels this will actually matter rarely miss. In many cases they are "miss on a 1" attacks. This is why "power attack" for melee and "deadly aim" for ranged are "required" for most such builds. Because they just don't miss with their main attacks, so a -2 isn't a big deal.

If so then this additional attack is basically pure gravy. And those who use this technique will have +5 flaming bane guantlets to do it with.

Dark Archive

I'd think it probably wouldn't be much different than it is now. In addition to taking that -2 penalty to all your attacks, you need to sink feats into it, and you end up having to effectively enchant another weapon.

The cost for this is quite high for very little gain, in my opinion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Seranov wrote:

I'd think it probably wouldn't be much different than it is now. In addition to taking that -2 penalty to all your attacks, you need to sink feats into it, and you end up having to effectively enchant another weapon.

The cost for this is quite high for very little gain, in my opinion.

Well good then, if the Devs rule against it, nobody will complain then.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:

balance:
Jiggy, it has been my experience that most optimized builds are such that main attacks at the levels this will actually matter rarely miss. In many cases they are "miss on a 1" attacks. This is why "power attack" for melee and "deadly aim" for ranged are "required" for most such builds. Because they just don't miss with their main attacks, so a -2 isn't a big deal.

If so then this additional attack is basically pure gravy. And those who use this technique will have +5 flaming bane guantlets to do it with.

balance:
Comparing it to single-weapon THF I think is a bad idea - because to use it nearly effective, it's quite a heavy feat investment. Or, I should say - in some circumstances it could be useful for a regular THFer, and might even be worth the investment for those situations (against an army of goons or someone with unusually low AC), but it's not going to be worth it in the majority of cases due to less chance to hit on iteratives. At a three-feat and +7 weapon investment, I think it's fair to get some benefit sometimes.

I think it's more relevant to compare it to TWF with two hand-held weapons as it's about the same investment, and in that case, specializing with dual-kukri or similar will always work out much better in the long run.

Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Well good then, if the Devs rule against it, nobody will complain then.

It's bad for those who'd like to do it for style rather than power, though.

Liberty's Edge

You actually gain quite a bit.

Your damage fighting two handed is 1 and 1/2 strength before adding in the power attack bonuses.

Not to mention you can then two weapon fight with a two handed weapon, which generally does more damage base than a normal weapon.

We will see what the Devs say.


Ilja, the feat investment is actually a pretty good argument that it should be allowed. Yeah, I think a character who pulls this off will do more damage using it, but at a pretty significant feat investment.

So maybe that's "balanced" from that perspective.

I will be interested in the Dev's ruling.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Seranov wrote:

I'd think it probably wouldn't be much different than it is now. In addition to taking that -2 penalty to all your attacks, you need to sink feats into it, and you end up having to effectively enchant another weapon.

The cost for this is quite high for very little gain, in my opinion.

Well good then, if the Devs rule against it, nobody will complain then.

HA! Someone would complain if they ruled that water was wet.

Liberty's Edge

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Ilja, the feat investment is actually a pretty good argument that it should be allowed. Yeah, I think a character who pulls this off will do more damage using it, but at a pretty significant feat investment.

The feat investment is functionally the same as any TWF build with significantly more damage. Use a Falcion rather than a greatsword.

You get all of the attacks of a standard THF with additional attacks from an offhand weapon.

Liberty's Edge

Gronk de'Morcaine wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Seranov wrote:

I'd think it probably wouldn't be much different than it is now. In addition to taking that -2 penalty to all your attacks, you need to sink feats into it, and you end up having to effectively enchant another weapon.

The cost for this is quite high for very little gain, in my opinion.

Well good then, if the Devs rule against it, nobody will complain then.
HA! Someone would complain if they ruled that water was wet.

That would totally be an non-needing nerf that is going to ruin a ton of existing builds!

Dark Archive

ciretose wrote:

You actually gain quite a bit.

Your damage fighting two handed is 1 and 1/2 strength before adding in the power attack bonuses.

Not to mention you can then two weapon fight with a two handed weapon, which generally does more damage base than a normal weapon.

We will see what the Devs say.

I think that if you compare it to normal TWF, yeah, you gain quite a bit. But a THF doesn't gain much beyond a much weaker off-hand attack, that penalizes all of his normal attack rolls. And the feat cost can be quite expensive for most classes, too.

I'm not saying it should be disallowed, more I'm saying that I don't see why it shouldn't be allowed, because it's not really super powerful for what you pay for it.

Liberty's Edge

Two things

1. If it is over powered compared to a normal TWF build, and by definition the "normal" TWF is the norm...isn't that the point of defining something as overpowered?

2. It isn't what do you pay for it relative to a THF build? It is relative to the "norma" TWF build it makes obsolete. Hell, the normal THF build isn't feat intensive at all, they could actually do this without losing much.

Liberty's Edge

Seranov wrote:
ciretose wrote:

You actually gain quite a bit.

Your damage fighting two handed is 1 and 1/2 strength before adding in the power attack bonuses.

Not to mention you can then two weapon fight with a two handed weapon, which generally does more damage base than a normal weapon.

We will see what the Devs say.

I think that if you compare it to normal TWF, yeah, you gain quite a bit. But a THF doesn't gain much beyond a much weaker off-hand attack, that penalizes all of his normal attack rolls. And the feat cost can be quite expensive for most classes, too.

I'm not saying it should be disallowed, more I'm saying that I don't see why it shouldn't be allowed, because it's not really super powerful for what you pay for it.

Agreed. Even a fighter with all his bonus feats would have to dedicate his entire build to both the TWF and THF feat trees to put himself in a position where he's seriously outdamaging someone using TWF or THF only, and at that point he's probably suffered in other areas (versatility, range, etc.). There are potential builds that let you scale up damage pretty quick by using a TH weapon and a non-handed off-hand, but considering the stat, feat, and gear requirements...


ciretose wrote:

You actually gain quite a bit.

Your damage fighting two handed is 1 and 1/2 strength before adding in the power attack bonuses.

Not to mention you can then two weapon fight with a two handed weapon, which generally does more damage base than a normal weapon.

We will see what the Devs say.

well you lose a lot too, as in -4 to attack if you power attack and TWF since both of those minus stack. if your TWF dont do power attack or vise versa

Liberty's Edge

ciretose wrote:

Two things

1. If it is over powered compared to a normal TWF build, and by definition the "normal" TWF is the norm...isn't that the point of defining something as overpowered?

2. It isn't what do you pay for it relative to a THF build? It is relative to the "norma" TWF build it makes obsolete. Hell, the normal THF build isn't feat intensive at all, they could actually do this without losing much.

The normal TWF build requires higher DEX than most TWF would bother with (though there are some situations that change this dynamic) so there's typically a cost in your base stat allotment. Non-limb offhand weapons are also often more costly to enchant and upkeep. Unarmed Strikes suffer the usual drawbacks listed in any monk thread, as well as having additional feat requirements, and armor spikes are part of your armor but have to be enchanted separately. Many of the best archetypes also mandate which kinds of weapons your abilities can work with. The Two-Handed Fighter would not apply any of his class features to any of those off-hand attacks, giving the standard THF a fairly substatial edge that at most tiers of play just evens out with the additional attacks.

Liberty's Edge

A first level human fighter can take power attack, furious focus and two weapon fighting, provided they have the 15 dex.

A 2nd level Human Ranger can do the same thing without the Dex.

With 18 strength in either build (harder for the fighter, but doable) you are doing base + 9 at a -2. And of course, the two handed weapons do more damage.

Compared to a one handed weapon doing +4 (strength) and less overall damage we are at about 6.5 damage difference before we look at the 2nd attack.

Or the same damage you would do as a THF, with -2 penalty to hit.

Let us not pretend this isn't significant or unreachable when you can get there by 2nd level.


I think what they were stating, Ciretose, is that: Sure, a first level human fighter can take Power Attack, Furious Focus (I'll be honest, I don't know what this does), and TWF at first level. Will using PA and TWF be a boon or not? I think that's a -3 to your attack.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Ciretose, why did you only give one version Power Attack? Wanted the damage difference to be two points more than if they both used PA?

And how does the math change at 4th level when the fighter is applying Weapon Specialization to either both weapons (for traditional TWF) or just one (greatsword + kick/whatever)?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Game balance wise I think it probably balances out as Jiggy mentioned. Rationally I think it makes perfect sense.

Rules wise I would say it was pretty clear you can't do it.

Two weapon fighting in the combat section states:
"If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon."

Two weapon fighting feat states:
"You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands."

Both of these state clearly the intent to have a weapon in each hand.

Spiked armour states:
"You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case. (You can't also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.)"

Nothing here about two weapon fighting, but it does state you can use them as an off hand weapon, but that you can't use them if you already used an off hand weapon. Mechanically there is no reason why you couldn't make an extra attack, in the same way you might with a two handed weapon.

As a result I would imagine that its assumed you can't two weapon fight with a two handed weapon and spiked armour.

When you consider the balance issues raised by monks two weapon fighting/ flurry, this takes things a lot further.

However, as I stated at the beginning, I don't think there is a massive balance issue here. If you have a bite attack you can attack at -5 as a secondary attack and use any weapon combination. This has no effect on your primary attack. Its the odd nature of the unarmed strike that causes the problem. Give characters a small slam attack rather than unarmed strike and the problem goes away...


Svipdag wrote:

Spiked armour states:

"You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case. (You can't also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.)"

Nothing here about two weapon fighting

Since the concept of an "off-hand" only applies when you are two-weapon fighting, it's explicit that armor spikes work with TWF.

Svipdag wrote:
Mechanically there is no reason why you couldn't make an extra attack, in the same way you might with a two handed weapon.

When you say "an extra attack" are you talking about the extra attack granted by fighting with two weapons, or from high BAB or something?

Svipdag wrote:
As a result I would imagine that its assumed you can't two weapon fight with a two handed weapon and spiked armour.

I don't see how that follows. Are you saying that attacking with armor spikes requires a free hand? If so, what led you to that conclusion?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is an old argument. RAW, yes, you can make 'off-hand' attacks with a 'no-handed' weapon, while all your hands are full - under the condition that you have NOT made any other off hand attacks.

Will this signifcantly raise your damage? Maybe. Long term, you have higher base damage in your primary attack (Khopesh, Greatsword, etc) but most likely have lower base damage in your off-hand (unarmed strike, armor spike, etc). In an optimized TWF build you're looking atleast 5 feats to pump your damage (TWF, Imp TWF, Gr TWF, Power Attack and Double Slice). These and your Str bonus are supplying your real damage. But unlike the optimized TWF build, your MH and OH weapon are not the same, you have to either double invest Weapon Focus, Weapon Spec, Improved Critical, etc or else lose out with either ALL your OH attacks or ALL your MH attacks. Neither result is optimal. Having to enchant 2 weapons is the same for either style, although enchanting unarmed attacks is significantly more expensive then enchanting regular weapons as far as I understand.

What does a THF need? One big weapon, Power Attack, Furious Focus everything after that is style and heavily depends on the campaign, party, class and role the character is attempting to fill (battlefield control, dpr, etc)

If someone wants to invest that heavily into the Big Smash/Little Smash combat style, I say let'em. Its a big investment, its easier to do with a pair of 1h weapons (Sunblade ftw) and if they're doing it for style, its probably not optimized anyway - so why sweat it, let the raging dwarf with the greataxe kick the goblin.

edit: fixed the link XD


This whole misunderstanding really highlights to me the need for an overhaul of the whole two-weapon fighting rules. It's full of vestigial and misleading wording. Handedness was largely eliminated in Pathfinder, but there's still remnants of it in terms like "off-hand." You can fight with two or more weapons without using "two-weapon fighting." And you can two-weapon fight without ever using an actual hand for your "off-hand."

The whole mess could use a definite trimming down. Something like, "When making a full-attack using at least two weapons, you may make an additional attack at your full attack bonus. This attack receives only half of the normal bonus damage from strength. If this extra attack is made with a light weapon all attacks during this round are made at -X, otherwise all attacks are -Y."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Last week we were leveling up characters in my campaign after they reached level 8. The party rogue was built as a TWF build but has demonstrated such an aversion to melee combat that he primarily fights with a bow. We probably need to rebuild him to match the player's preferences.

The player in question is the least invested of all the players and only really plays because he enjoys getting out of the house and hanging around with the guys.

As we were trying to level up characters we attempted to explain the TWF rules to him (not for the first time).

He was totally and absolutely overwhelmed with the process. We eventually gave up trying to explain it to him and basically told him that he can attack three times per round if he wanted to and we'd do the math for him. In the end he, again, just used his bow.

Yeah, that means he doesn't get much sneak attack either.

But since this fellow is a accomplished engineer and programmer it is clear that he is not math challenged or intellectually deficient. He just didn't want to spend the time trying to figure out how all the feats and base rules worked together.

I came away thinking "wow, this game might actually be more complicated than I thought."


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

The real interesting question is what's the STR mod if the offhand weapon is two handed?

Dark Archive

James, do you mean in the sense of an Alchemist with 4 arms using a pair of Greatswords or the like?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
james maissen wrote:
The real interesting question is what's the STR mod if the offhand weapon is two handed?

I agree, that IS the interesting question. :/

@Seranov: No, he means if you're TWFing with a greatsword and a kick, the kick doesn't have to be the off-hand attack. The kick could be main and the greatsword could be the off-hand. At which point, what would your damage mod be?

Dark Archive

Oooooh. Gotcha.

Shadow Lodge

In response to Grick:

I agree TWF does explicitly work with armour spikes as you say. They are worth noting in that it specifically states you can't attack with them if you have made another off hand weapon attack.

My comment "nothing here about TWF" was in relation to it mentioning about weapons in each hand.

Mechanically was perhaps a bad word to use. In real life terms, you could imagine being able to use armour spikes and a weapon in each hand in much the same way you could imagine using armour spikes with a two handed weapon. As you can't use them if you attack with another off hand weapon I would imagine you can't use them with a two handed weapon.

I think the game is set up to work that you have two weapons to TWF or a two handed weapon. There are variations such as the sword and board, but thats basically a weapon in each hand. You can use variations to work around this such as a natural attack.

I don't think its overpowered to use an additional Unarmed Strike when using a two handed weapon with the two weapon fighting rules, however I also don't think the rules are set up for this.

Liberty's Edge

I know SKR has commented before that the game is designed to the assumption of having two hands to fight with (this came up in a natural weapons discussion I believe), so there probably is some truth to the assertion that the game does not intend for you to be TWFing with TH weapons. That said, I think the game has evolved and grown to the point where it easily accomodates such a style.

Silver Crusade

In regards to Kick MH, 2hander OH, his OH weapon is no longer light, doubling his TWF penalties (-4/-4). Not to mention the MH attack is not 2 handed, making power attack x1 damage, not 1.5. Also, when 2WF, your off-hand attacks only do .5 Str damage without Double Slice and Power Attack doesn't care how many hands you're using, OH attacks are .5 +damage as well. This a completely unoptimal option. Could be done for style, but nowhere near 'gamebreaking', I'd even hazard at calling it 'effective'.

Liberty's Edge

Jiggy wrote:

Ciretose, why did you only give one version Power Attack? Wanted the damage difference to be two points more than if they both used PA?

And how does the math change at 4th level when the fighter is applying Weapon Specialization to either both weapons (for traditional TWF) or just one (greatsword + kick/whatever)?

Power attack is +3 for Two-Handed.

So Strength +6 vs +4
Power attack +3 vs +1
And weapon average is about 2.5 I believe we decided in the other thread? More if you have a light weapon in both hands, which is what you seem to be implying if they are going to be the same type for weapon specialization, right? I mean light is in the 1d6 range vs two-handed weapons in the 2d6 range?

At 4th level that power attack goes up to +6 vs +4. You can take weapon specialization on the main hand for no penalty, and if you are a fighter (you must be if you are taking weapon specialization) you still get a bonus to the off-hand weapon from weapon training, as long as it is in the same group.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
ciretose wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

Ciretose, why did you only give one version Power Attack? Wanted the damage difference to be two points more than if they both used PA?

And how does the math change at 4th level when the fighter is applying Weapon Specialization to either both weapons (for traditional TWF) or just one (greatsword + kick/whatever)?

Power attack is +3 for Two-Handed.

So Strength +6 vs +4
Power attack +3 vs +1
And weapon average is about 2.5 I believe we decided in the other thread? More if you have a light weapon in both hands, which is what you seem to be implying if they are going to be the same type for weapon specialization, right? I mean light is in the 1d6 range vs two-handed weapons in the 2d6 range?

At 4th level that power attack goes up to +6 vs +4. You can take weapon specialization on the main hand for no penalty, and if you are a fighter (you must be if you are taking weapon specialization) you still get a bonus to the off-hand weapon from weapon training, as long as it is in the same group.

It might just be me, but I'm having trouble thinking of a common two-handed weapon that shares a weapon group with spiked armour or an unarmed strike. Maybe a monk weapon, but at that point you're using Exotic Weapon Proficiency or going with the unarmed fighter archetype.


The very first line of Two-Weapon fighting specifies "if you wield a second weapon in your off-hand."

EDIT: I see the confusion is because of the description of Armor Spikes.

Here's the thing. Just because something qualifies for an off-hand attack doesn't mean it's wielded in your off-hand. It's the same as saying the Oracle curse gives you Cursed Vision, which acts the same as Darkvision, but does not qualify you for Deeper Darkvision because you don't actually have the Darkvision ability.

TWF specifically says you need to have a weapon in each hand. Armor spikes are not wielded in your off-hand unless they are on a shield and you're using that shield to bash. A spiked gauntlet is not the same as Armor spikes. That's why it's listed as a seperate weapon.

I'd allow things like the Cestus, Cizore (sp?), brass knuckles, etc...because they're actually weapons held in your hand.


Barry Armstrong wrote:

The very first line of Two-Weapon fighting specifies "if you wield a second weapon in your off-hand."

Why does this take two threads and ANY argument to understand? There is no interpretation or FAQ necessary.

The very first sentence very clearly states that the benefits and penalties of that feat apply when you use a weapon in each hand.

Armor spikes are not wielded in a hand, so they DO NOT QUALIFY (unless they are attached to a shield, and you're shield bashing).

Weapons like a cestus, spiked gauntlet, or brass knuckles do, and obviously other one-handed weapons.

Off-hand weapons aren't always wielded in your hand. For instance, a sea knife can explicitely be used in offhand attacks while it isn't in your hand.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advancedRaceGuide/uncommonRaces/gillmen. html


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Barry, sometimes the rules are written from the perspective of a "normal" PCs, and thus the "actual" rules are hidden behind this perspective. The section you mentioned could be one of those situations.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Booksy wrote:
Also, when 2WF, your off-hand attacks only do .5 Str damage without Double Slice

Well that's what off-hand says, but two-handed weapons says 1.5x STR and unlike light and one-handed weapons makes NO allowance for the change if wielded as an off-hand weapon.

The bonus from power attack would be normal, as BOTH the addition AND the subtraction would occur.

Clearly, it wasn't really considered as an option when the rules were written.

And I didn't claim it would be 'breaking' just that it would be interesting from a rules' point of view, as its a situation that reasonably wasn't considered when it was written.

-James


johnlocke90 wrote:

Off-hand weapons aren't always wielded in your hand. For instance, a sea knife can explicitely be used in offhand attacks while it isn't in your hand.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advancedRaceGuide/uncommonRaces/gillmen. html

I understand that now after reading the description of Armor Spikes. However, TWF is very specific in it's qualifications. What I quoted was exact text from the book.

Meaning that, RAW, if the off-hand weapon isn't wielded in your off-hand, you do not qualify for the feat. Otherwise it would simply say "when using an off-hand weapon".

If the RAI is to include things like Armor Spikes or a Sea Knife, they need to FAQ or errata it's semantics. Otherwise you have to house-rule it.


Honestly for a fighter you would do better adding weapon spec, greater weapon spec, weapon focus, greater weapon focus, improved critical and your highest weapon training with a high critical weapon like kukuri.

For a ranger using the two weapon style to get the necessary feat this is a much better deal. Assuming strength maxing and instant enemy wands you can be hitting for high damage with lots of attack without much of a downside, its not as if there are that many decent two hand feats besides power attack anyway.


Barry Armstrong wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:

Off-hand weapons aren't always wielded in your hand. For instance, a sea knife can explicitely be used in offhand attacks while it isn't in your hand.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advancedRaceGuide/uncommonRaces/gillmen. html

I understand that now after reading the description of Armor Spikes. However, TWF is very specific in it's qualifications. What I quoted was exact text from the book.

Meaning that, RAW, if the off-hand weapon isn't wielded in your off-hand, you do not qualify for the feat. Otherwise it would simply say "when using an off-hand weapon".

If the RAI is to include things like Armor Spikes or a Sea Knife, they need to FAQ or errata it's semantics. Otherwise you have to house-rule it.

Well considering that there is no such thing as an "off-hand", it would now be impossible to two weapon fight.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/offhand


Adamantine Dragon wrote:

I think Jiggy's version is pretty well stated.

I've got no dog in this fight. From a pure balance perspective I would tend to think that allowing two-handed weapons unaltered plus using an unhanded "off-hand" weapon runs the risk of being unbalanced.

If I were pressed on this matter as a GM I'd probably rule that if you do this, you lose the 1.5x str damage on the 2 handed attack at least.

I don't think there's a balance or intent issue here. I can see the argument that you can swing a 2-handed sword in close-fighting, and then elbow someone with an Armor Spike on the backswing.

Mechanically, I disagree with it due to semantics of the Two-Weapon Fighting feat. I would think, in this situation, you'd take a -4 on your 2-handed swing and a -4 on your Armor Spikes.


Just for the lulz, I did some maths on class balance. I was somewhat surprised at one of the results, but whatever. For those interested, here it is:

When it comes to the balance of it, looking at 10th level human fighter, for example. Since I don't have a life I statted up. Theory is what it is, but it can still show the ballpark we're playing in.

premises:
One greatsword only, one greatsword/spiked armor, and one shortsword/shortsword. 15 pb, standard WBL. I'll use fighter as they get the most feats and thus has the easiest time pulling something like this of - feel free to make something else if you think that's better.

When it comes to the wealth, standard at 10th level is 62k items in total. I'm going to spend 2/3rds of this on offensive items (weapons, belts etc) and assume the rest goes into armor, cloaks and other miscellaneous items. So 41k weapons & belts for them.

These are offensively built and one might want to invest more in defense, but that would mostly benefit Greatsword Gaby and my hypothesis is that Gaby will come out not far behind the others in damage (actually, probably slightly ahead of the others if we assume 1 round of standard attack and 2 rounds of full attacks, but that I migth be wrong about). In all these builds I think falchion and kukri would deal more damage than greatsword and shortsword, but since the discussions been on those and they're kind of iconic I'll stick with them.

Builds:

Greatsword Gaby:

Greatsword Gaby uses a single greatsword to smash in faces. They’re especially good at smashing stuff.

Str24/Dex14/Con14/Int7/Wis13/Cha7 (+2 race str, +2 level str, +4 belt str)
Feats:
1 Power Attack, WF (Greatsword), Cleave
2 Combat Reflexes
3 Iron Will
4 Weapon Specialization (Greatsword)
5 Improved Initiative, Weapon Training +1 (large blades)
6 Improved Sunder
7 Greater Sunder
8 Improved Critical (Greatsword), retrain Cleave into GWF (Greatsword)
9 Critical Focus
10 Sundering Strike, WT +2 (large blades, bows)

Offensive Gear: +3 adamantine greatsword (21k), +4 Str belt (16k), +1 Composite Longbow (+7) (3k), various +1 bane arrows (1k)

Armor Spike Abdi:

Armor Spike Abdi uses a combination of greatsword and spiked armor, getting up in their opponents face to hurt them.

Str20/Dex18/Con14/Int7/Wis13/Cha7 (+2 race str, +2 level dex, +4 belt str)
1 Power Attack, WF (Greatsword), Two-weapon Fighting
2 Double Slice
3 Combat Reflexes
4 Weapon Specialization (Greatsword)
5 Iron Will, Weapon Training +1 (large blades)
6 Improved Two-weapon Fighting
7 Improved Initative
8 Critical Focus
9 Improved Critical (Greatsword)
10 GWF (Greatsword), WT +2 (large blades, close)

Gear: +2 Greatsword (8k), +1 armor spikes (8k), +4 str belt (16k), Masterwork Composite Longbow +5 (1k), Cracked Pale Green Prism Ioun Stone (4k), arrows 2k

Shortsword Said:

Shortsword Said dual-wields shortswords, simple as that.

Str20/Dex18/Con14/Int7/Wis13/Cha7 (+2 race str, +2 level dex, +4 belt str)
1 Power Attack, WF (Shortsword), Two-weapon Fighting
2 Double Slice
3 Combat Reflexes
4 Weapon Specialization (Shortsword)
5 Iron Will, Weapon Training +1 (small blades)
6 Improved Two-weapon Fighting
7 Improved Initiative
8 Improved Critical (Shortsword)
9 Critical Focus
10, GWF (Shortsword) WT +2 (small blades, bow)

Gear: 2x +2 Shortsword (16k), +4 str belt (16k), +1 Composite Longbow +5 (3k), Cracked Pale Green Prism Ioun Stone (4k), various arrows (2k)

Maths:

Attack Routines:

Gaby
Greatsword +10 (bab) + 7 (str) + 2 (wt) + 2 (gwf) -3 (pa) +3 (magic); 2d6 + 10 (str) +2 (wt) +2 (ws) +9 (pa) +3 (magic)
Standard attack - Greatsword +21 (2d6+26; 17-20x2)
Full attack - Greatsword +21/+16 (2d6+26; 17-20x2)

Abdi
Greatsword +10 (bab) + 5 (str) + 2 (wt) + 2 (gwf) -3 (pa) -2 (twf) +3 (magic); 2d6 + 7 (str) +2 (wt) +2 (ws) +9 (pa) +2 (magic)
Armor Spikes +10 (bab) +5 (str) +1 (wt) -3 (pa) -2 (twf) +3 (magic); 1d6 +5 (str) +1 (wt) +3 (pa) +2 (magic)
Standard attack - Greatsword +19 (2d6+22; 17-20x2)
Full attack - Greatsword +17/+12 (2d6+23; 17-20x2); Armor Spikes +14/+9 (1d6+11; 20x2)

Said
Shortsword +10 (bab) + 5 (str) + 2 (wt) + 2 (gwf) -3 (pa) -2 (twf) +3 (magic); 1d6 + 5 (str) +2 (wt) +2 (ws) +6/+3 (pa) +2 (magic)
Standard attack - Shortsword +19 (1d6+17; 17-20x2)
Full attack - Shortswords +17/+17/+12/+12 (1d6+17/1d6+14; 17-20x2)

Damage per round; For this, I'm going to present the following for each build:
- Standard attack DPR vs generic CR10 from the "monster creation" chapter.
- Full attack DPR vs generic CR10
- Full attack DPR vs generic CR8
- Full attack DPR vs generic CR12
- A combination of DPR, assuming one standard attack and two full attacks vs a generic CR10, this to show how a generic fight might look like.

Gaby DPR:

Standard, CR10: .9*33+.2*.95*33 = 35.97
Full, CR10: .9*33+.2*.95*33 + .65*33+.2*.85*33 = 63.03
Full, CR8: .95*33+.2*.95*33 + .8*33+.2*.95*33 = 70.29
Full, CR12: .75*33+.2*.95*33 + .4*33+.2*.6*33 = 48.18
Combination: (35.97+63.03*2)= 54.

Abdi DPR:

Standard, CR10: .8*29+.2*.95*29 = 28.71
Full, CR10: .7*29+.2*.9*29 + .45*29+.2*.65*29 + .55*14.5+.05*.75*14.5 + .3*14.5+.05*.5*14.5 = 55.571
Full, CR8: .85*29+.2*.95*29 + .6*29+.2*.8*29 + .7*14.5+.05*.9*14.5 + .3*14.5+.05*.5*14.5 = 67.715
Full, CR12: .55*29+.2*.75*29 + .3*29+.2*.5*29 + .4*14.5+.05*.6*14.5 + .15*14.5+.05*.35*14.5 = 40.56357
Combination: (28.71+55.571*2)/3 = 46.6

Said DPR:

Standard, CR10: .8*20.5+.2*.95*20.5 = 20.295
Full, CR10: .7*20.5+.2*.85*20.5 + .7*17.5+.2*.85*17.5 + .45*20.5+.2*.65*20.5+.45*17.5+.2*.65*17.5 = 55.1
Full, CR8: .85*20.5+.2*.95*20.5 + .85*17.5+.2*.95*17.5 + .6*20.5+.2*.8*20.5+.6*17.5+.2*.8*17.5 = 68.4
Full, CR12: .55*20.5+.2*.75*20.5 + .55*17.5+.2*.75*17.5 + .3*20.5+.2*.5*20.5+.3*17.5+.2*.5*17.5 = 41.8
Combination: (20.295+55.1*2) = 43.5

Conclusion:

Goshdarn, that was a lot of math. Now, I must say I was partly wrong in my hypothesis - I though Said would come out a fair bit ahead of Abdi on full attacks. It wasn’t a huge difference between them but noticeable, definately. At lower levels Abdi would have come out even better than Said, but at higher Said would have come out ahead (they’re close enough that by level 12 when GWS comes Said will clearly come out ahead). I also think that a falchion/kukri test might have led to a different result, but that matters little.

TWF with greatsword and spiked armor gives slightly higher DPR than shortsword/shortsword up to midlevels. Just using a greatsword comes out way ahead against everyone unless you one-shot them with TWF, though, and still has more feats for special effects (for Gaby it was sunder, but could as easily have been archery, anti-caster, or more defenses). In comparision, the TWFers will have slightly better skills and ranged attacks (though Abdi misses out on weapon training (bows)), slightly better AC and slightly higher initiative. I think that’s a fair trade for three extra feats and DPR that is quite a lot higher across the board (especially against high-CR targets!).


johnlocke90 wrote:

Well considering that there is no such thing as an "off-hand", it would now be impossible to two weapon fight.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/offhand

According to the Core Rulebook, there is. I don't know why you'd bother trying to quote an online dictionary. It's clearly defined in several places, to include the Two-Weapon Fighting Feat description and in Chapter 8, Combat.

RAW does not apply to Webster's Dictionary. It applies to licensed Paizo Rulebooks for the Pathfinder Role Playing Game (and the electronic PRD, and the FAQ and game designer's responses).

Off-Hand is the hand you are not using to wield your primary weapon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Barry Armstrong wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:

Well considering that there is no such thing as an "off-hand", it would now be impossible to two weapon fight.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/offhand

According to the Core Rulebook, there is. I don't know why you'd bother trying to quote an online dictionary. It's clearly defined in several places, to include the Two-Weapon Fighting Feat description. In the very first line.

Off-Hand is the hand you are not using to wield your primary weapon.

Where did you get that definition from? I dont see it in the core rulebook.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Why did you grab Improved TWF?


johnlocke90 wrote:
Barry Armstrong wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
Well considering that Where did you get that definition from? I dont see it in the core rulebook.

It's in the Core Rulebook written in the Two-Weapon Fighting (Combat) feat description.

It's also in the PRD listed here: Two-Weapon Fighting

1 to 50 of 315 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / Two-weapon-fighting with a two-handed weapon and a weapon that does not require hands All Messageboards

©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.