Hi,
can brawler flurry with one scizore? Does he get that "off-hand" attack?
Also what are penalties for doing so?
the brawler can flurry with one weapon, so yes one scizore is fine to flurry with. You take a -2 on all your attack rolls and you get 1x str on all the attacks.
And how can he flurry with scizore? Doning scizore is full-round action, you cannot change the hand holding it as free/swift action. Brawlers flurry only states that it's a free TWF-feat attack with some weapons. And by TWF rules, you need a weapon (even if it's only fist) in second hand to have extra attack with it.
By me, it just points, that you can toss the weapon in other hand. But scizore is donned as full-round action. Fist attack with scizore will have -3 penalty (-2 TWF and -1 for blade), but second (if we designate the hand with scizore as off-hand) will be not -3, but -5 because scizore isn't light weapon.
And how can he flurry with scizore? Doning scizore is full-round action, you cannot change the hand holding it as free/swift action. Brawlers flurry only states that it's a free TWF-feat attack with some weapons. And by TWF rules, you need a weapon (even if it's only fist) in second hand to have extra attack with it.
By me, it just points, that you can toss the weapon in other hand. But scizore is donned as full-round action. Fist attack with scizore will have -3 penalty (-2 TWF and -1 for blade), but second (if we designate the hand with scizore as off-hand) will be not -3, but -5 because scizore isn't light weapon.
The flurry can be made even with a weapon wielded in two hands, this is spelled out in the flurry description. It does not require tossing a weapon back and forth, that is not stated or implied anywhere. The flurry rules are an exception to the TWF rules, as those rules state you need a second weapon in your off hand, but the feature says you need only one weapon.
|
Starting at 2nd level, a brawler can make a brawler's flurry as a full-attack action. When doing so, a brawler has the Two-Weapon Fighting feat when attacking with any combination of unarmed strikes, weapons from the close fighter weapon group, or weapons with the "monk" special feature. She does not need to use two different weapons to use this ability.
A brawler applies her full Strength modifier to her damage rolls for all attacks made with brawler's flurry, whether the attacks are made with an off-hand weapon or a weapon wielded in both hands. A brawler can substitute disarm, sunder, and trip combat maneuvers for unarmed attacks as part of brawler's flurry. A brawler with natural weapons can't use such weapons as part of brawler's flurry, nor can she make natural weapon attacks in addition to her brawler's flurry attacks.
At 8th level, the brawler gains use of the Improved Two-Weapon Fighting feat when using brawler's flurry. At 15th level, she gains use of the Greater Two-Weapon Fighting feat when using brawler's flurry.
Brawler's Flurry allows all attacks to be made with a single weapon the the brawler chooses. The scizore is in the close fighter weapon group.
A brawler can flurry with the scizore.
The penalties for doing so will be -2 for using a flurry, and an additional -1 for attacking with a scizore.
You will not gain the AC bonus from the scizore if you flurry with it.
The flurry can be made even with a weapon wielded in two hands, this is spelled out in the flurry description. It does not require tossing a weapon back and forth, that is not stated or implied anywhere. The flurry rules are an exception to the TWF rules, as those rules state you need a second weapon in your off hand, but the feature says you need only one weapon.
And how does PC wield a tube with a blade, strapped on his hand, with two hands and succesfully fight?
And even if it works so, are the penalties -3/-3? I don't understand how does having one one-hand weapon and making extra attacks with it, in consideration with TWF rules, doesn't encrease penalties. There's no spelling in brawlers flurry that his extra attacks use only penalty from first attack.
The flurry can be made even with a weapon wielded in two hands, this is spelled out in the flurry description. It does not require tossing a weapon back and forth, that is not stated or implied anywhere. The flurry rules are an exception to the TWF rules, as those rules state you need a second weapon in your off hand, but the feature says you need only one weapon.And how does PC wield a tube with a blade, strapped on his hand, with two hands and succesfully fight?
And even if it works so, are the penalties -3/-3? I don't understand how does having one one-hand weapon and making extra attacks with it, in consideration with TWF rules, doesn't encrease penalties. There's no spelling in brawlers flurry that his extra attacks use only penalty from first attack.
You don't wield it in two hands, you wield it in one, and make all of your attacks with that hand. Thus a "flurry" of attacks.
The brawler can twf with one hand, but still takes the appropriate penalties. That hand is both your main and off hand, depending on which attack in the sequence you are taking.
To answer your question about penalties, well, RAW you're correct, you do not get the penalty reduction for wielding a light weapon in your off hand. Was this intended? Likely not, but that's what it says. There's a whole ton of stuff like that in the ACG, it was a rushed and poorly edited book.
IF you go by strict RAW, there are no penalties when TWF with only one weapon.
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way.
Since you have no off hand, AND you are not wielding a second weapon at all, then you clearly are not "fighting this way". And if you are not "fighting this way" there is no penalty applied to the extra attacks.
There is not a "penalty reduction" that you fail to gain. There is no penalty applied since the penalty is for wielding a second weapon (which your are not) and for using your off hand (which you are not).
Now, I agree with many that the intent is that the penalty would be -2/-2. But to try and apply strict RAW as -4/-4 is not a correct reading of RAW.
IF you go by strict RAW, there are no penalties when TWF with only one weapon.
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way.Since you have no off hand, AND you are not wielding a second weapon at all, then you clearly are not "fighting this way". And if you are not "fighting this way" there is no penalty applied to the extra attacks.
There is not a "penalty reduction" that you fail to gain. There is no penalty applied since the penalty is for wielding a second weapon (which your are not) and for using your off hand (which you are not).
Now, I agree with many that the intent is that the penalty would be -2/-2. But to try and apply strict RAW as -4/-4 is not a correct reading of RAW.
To use two weapon fighting you must still have a primary and an off hand attack, there are no rules for using it otherwise. Even if you say they're both primary, then they suffer a -6, reduced to a -4 by the TWF feat.
The brawler's flurry doesn't say you get an extra attack, it says you have the two weapon fighting feat when using the ability, and you do not need a second weapon to use the ability. When you "fight this way", it is fighting with the TWF rules. If you are using the TWF feat, you are "fighting this way", as that feat has no other meaning otherwise. The brawler exception is only from the "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon." sentence. It does not except you from any other sentence in the Two Weapon Fighting rules. The rest of the rules must still be followed.
As I said, it's super poorly written, it needs to be cleaned up in the errata.
By RAW, as I posted before, there are only two sentences, again just two sentences, in the TWF rules before the statement, "when you fight this way". The first sentence describes what "this way" is. The second describes the penalties for fighting "this way".
But Brawlers and Monks can get away without fighting that way. Their unarmed Flurries do not have any "off hand" attacks at all. Two Handed Weapons also do not use the "off hand" attacks as there is no second weapon.
There are rules for fighting with two weapons. Those rules tell you the benefits and the penalties. It just so happens that when you gain the benefits (extra attacks) through special circumstances (Flurries) you do not meet any criteria for the penalties.
Agian, most agree the implied penalties are -2 to all attacks, which is specifically written into Monk's Flurry. But to arbitrarily add the One Handed weapon penalties to the off-hand attacks that do not use either the off-hand rules OR a one-handed weapon is NOT a reading of RAW.
I am not even saying it is an incorrect or a poor interpretation of RAI. While I think my claim that -2 to all attacks is correct, I can not prove it.
By RAW, as I posted before, there are only two sentences, again just two sentences, in the TWF rules before the statement, "when you fight this way". The first sentence describes what "this way" is. The second describes the penalties for fighting "this way".
But Brawlers and Monks can get away without fighting that way. Their unarmed Flurries do not have any "off hand" attacks at all. Two Handed Weapons also do not use the "off hand" attacks as there is no second weapon.
There are rules for fighting with two weapons. Those rules tell you the benefits and the penalties. It just so happens that when you gain the benefits (extra attacks) through special circumstances (Flurries) you do not meet any criteria for the penalties.
Agian, most agree the implied penalties are -2 to all attacks, which is specifically written into Monk's Flurry. But to arbitrarily add the One Handed weapon penalties to the off-hand attacks that do not use either the off-hand rules OR a one-handed weapon is NOT a reading of RAW.
I am not even saying it is an incorrect or a poor interpretation of RAI. While I think my claim that -2 to all attacks is correct, I can not prove it.
I think you're getting held up on off hand attacks requiring actual hands. They don't. The "fight this way" refers to getting the extra attack per round, having a weapon in your second hand is just the qualifier. It is not necessary to "fight this way". Heck, if your interpretation is correct, you get less penalty for fighting with one scizore than two. Does that make any sense?
And brawlers absolutely have off hand attacks. Did you notice they lack the language from the monk stating they don't, even on unarmed strikes? Heck, it even states you get full strength bonus for attacks with an off hand weapon. That doesn't make them primary hands though, and this is important for stuff like power attack.
Wanna get super duper technical? The brawler's flurry gives the TWF feat. The brawler does not need to use two different weapons to use the ability. The ability, I'll remind you, that gives TWF as a feat when attacking, but does not say you attack using the TWF rules. The only thing the TWF feat does is reduce penalties, that's it. So you get a bonus feat when making a flurry, that you don't necessarily have to use. A literal RAW interpretation leaves you unable to flurry with one weapon, or a weapon wielded in two hands. The monk flurry rules specifically say you get an extra attack, these do not. Is this correct? Very, very likely not, but as I said the book is written very poorly.
By strict RAW, brawlers flurry doesn't work. It's incredibly badly worded. The intention seems pretty clear that it be like a monks flurry however, so you should be able to flurry the single scizore.
By RAW, as I posted before, there are only two sentences, again just two sentences, in the TWF rules before the statement, "when you fight this way". The first sentence describes what "this way" is. The second describes the penalties for fighting "this way".
But Brawlers and Monks can get away without fighting that way. Their unarmed Flurries do not have any "off hand" attacks at all. Two Handed Weapons also do not use the "off hand" attacks as there is no second weapon.
There are rules for fighting with two weapons. Those rules tell you the benefits and the penalties. It just so happens that when you gain the benefits (extra attacks) through special circumstances (Flurries) you do not meet any criteria for the penalties.
Agian, most agree the implied penalties are -2 to all attacks, which is specifically written into Monk's Flurry. But to arbitrarily add the One Handed weapon penalties to the off-hand attacks that do not use either the off-hand rules OR a one-handed weapon is NOT a reading of RAW.
I am not even saying it is an incorrect or a poor interpretation of RAI. While I think my claim that -2 to all attacks is correct, I can not prove it.
I think you're getting held up on off hand attacks requiring actual hands. They don't. The "fight this way" refers to getting the extra attack per round, having a weapon in your second hand is just the qualifier. It is not necessary to "fight this way". Heck, if your interpretation is correct, you get less penalty for fighting with one scizore than two. Does that make any sense?
And brawlers absolutely have off hand attacks. Did you notice they lack the language from the monk stating they don't, even on unarmed strikes? Heck, it even states you get full strength bonus for attacks with an off hand weapon. That doesn't make them primary hands though, and this is important for stuff like power attack.
Wanna get super duper technical? The brawler's flurry gives the TWF feat. The brawler does not need to use two...
I have agreed all along that it doesn't work as intended. It doesn't even matter what is intended because, as you just pointed out, nothing really works at all!
My point was that you were applying TWF as if the character was using a one-handed weapon in his off-hand and calling it RAW. But there is no second weapon or off-hand being used. There is no off-hand being used because there is not statement that says using the main hand again is counted as an off-hand and there is no statement that the second attack is at 1/2 strength, which is the definition of off-hand.
I agree that there should be a penalty. I was trying to give support to show why it should be the -2 that monks suffer for their flurry and not the -4/-4 that you proposed a few posts above.
The Brawler rules say it is TWF with one weapon. They do not say what type of attack the "extra attacks" are (off-hand or primary). By default, we assume off-hand. But these off-hand attacks are at full strength, which isn't off-hand at all. Nothing indicates that one should apply one-handed weapon penalties to a light weapon, such as an unarmed strike.
That is where I think what you claimed as strict reading of RAW is mistaken. I think a strict reading can only lead to the result of no penalty.
But again, I really think the intended penalty is -2 to all attacks.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My point was that you were applying TWF as if the character was using a one-handed weapon in his off-hand and calling it RAW. But there is no second weapon or off-hand being used. There is no off-hand being used because there is not statement that says using the main hand again is counted as an off-hand and there is no statement that the second attack is at 1/2 strength, which is the definition of off-hand.
1. Brawler's have the unarmed strike class ability so, even holding something in both hands, they always have a second weapon (since UAS can be a knee, elbow, head, etc.).
2. 1/2 strength is not the definition of off-hand as there are feats and abilities that allow you to apply your full strength to off-hand attacks (see Double Slice feat).
So:
A) Brawler can use Brawler's flurry as TWF but does not have to use two different weapons for this ability and apply full strenght bonus to damage.
B) Brawlers can always UAS, which is a light weapon.
C) Use the TWF with light weapon in off-hand penalty.
Seems clear enough to me.
I have agreed all along that it doesn't work as intended. It doesn't even matter what is intended because, as you just pointed out, nothing really works at all!
My point was that you were applying TWF as if the character was using a one-handed weapon in his off-hand and calling it RAW. But there is no second weapon or off-hand being used. There is no off-hand being used because there is not statement that says using the main hand again is counted as an off-hand and there is no statement that the second attack is at 1/2 strength, which is the definition of off-hand.
I agree that there should be a penalty. I was trying to give support to show why it should be the -2 that monks suffer for their flurry and not the -4/-4 that you proposed a few posts above.
The Brawler rules say it is TWF with one weapon. They do not say what type of attack the "extra attacks" are (off-hand or primary). By default, we assume off-hand. But these off-hand attacks are at full strength, which isn't off-hand at all. Nothing indicates that one should apply one-handed weapon penalties to a light weapon, such as an unarmed strike.
That is where I think what you claimed as strict reading of RAW is mistaken. I think a strict reading can only lead to the result of no penalty.
But again, I really think the intended penalty is -2 to all attacks.
Full strength does not mean not off hand, as had been pointed out. Do not confuse definition and result.
Assuming they meant to say "attacks using the two station fighting rules and has the two weapon fighting feat", so that the ability actually does something, the extra attacks in TWF are off hand attacks. The only rules for getting extra attacks in that section are with off hand attacks. Off hand attacks, however, do not take a literal hand. They are just a concept. But if you're using the TWF rules, you're using the off hand rules.