Unchained Removed Iterative Attacks and Improved TWF

[Kamil Blecharczyk]

So here's small question:
Using Removed Iterative Attacks system Character with 6 BAB, 16 STR and two battle axes attacks. He has improved two weapons fighting. Does he:
a) Rolls at +5 -> +6 BAB, +3 STR, -4 TWF penalty. Ignores second attack penalty sentence from ITWF.
b) Rolls at +0 -> +6 BAB, +3 STR, -4 TWF penalty, -5 second attack penalty from improved two weapons fighting, because it uses lower attack bonus of two weapons.
I stand with answer a, but one of players doubts that unchained rules cancel part of feat. So what one interpretation is correct?

[Kazaan]

pfsrd wrote:

When fighting with two weapons, use the lower attack bonus of the two weapons. If you score one hit, you also score a hit with your off-hand weapon. If you have Improved Two-Weapon Fighting and score two hits, you also score a second hit with your off-hand weapon, for a total of four. If you have Greater Two-Weapon Fighting and score three hits, you also score a third hit with your off-hand weapon, for a total of six.

The attack penalty of ITWF gets rolled into the normal "beat by 5" paradigm of the whole sub-system. If you beat their AC by 0-4, you score one hit and, if using TWF rules, you deliver two strikes, one with each weapon. What you are doing is just rolling a single attack; essentially, your first attack determines all the rest. And since the ITWF off-hand attack couldn't possibly be your "first attack", the -5 penalty never enters play directly. But it is effectively accounted for because, if you beat their AC by 5-9, you get two hits which, if using TWF rules, delivers 4 strikes, two with each weapon. So, technically, both of you are wrong. You're not "ignoring" the -5 from ITWF because it's already accounted for by the system in the same way that the -5 for the second iterative attack is and you certainly don't need to add it in a second time. But, between the two, a is the less wrong option.

To illustrate, vs 15 AC:

Normal progression:
d20+5; if >= 15, hit
d20+5; if >= 15, hit
d20+0; if >= 15, hit
d20+0; if >= 15, hit

Each weapon has a discrete attack roll for four total rolls

Unchained Iteratives progression:
d20+5; if <= 10, miss; if 10<result<=14, glancing blow; if 14<result<=19, one attack with each weapon (2 total); if 19<result<=24, two attacks with each weapon (4 total)

You only make your first attack roll and determine all subsequent hits on how well that single roll fared; one roll determines all four attacks and the -5 from ITWF is automatically accounted for in the same way that the -5 for the second iterative is.

[Claxon]

Yeah, think of it like this, someone who isn't two weapon fighting

has a +9 to hit, which makes their "iterative" much more likely to hit in this system (20%.) So while you're likely to get get both of your first swing to succeed, you're much less likely to get iterative attacks to hit. Where as the person wielding on a single weapon will likely get their iterative to hit.

Of course, the odds move more in your favor if you use a light weapon in your off-hand since you take only a -2 instead of a -4.

I'm also not sure what to do about the fact that it is unlikely that your weapons will always be enchanted at the same rate, which means one hands attacks should be less likely to hit than the other.

I forget if the rules account for that or not.

[Kazaan]

Claxon wrote:

I'm also not sure what to do about the fact that it is unlikely that your weapons will always be enchanted at the same rate, which means one hands attacks should be less likely to hit than the other.

I forget if the rules account for that or not.

The lower-bonus weapon is the limiting reagent. If you are using TWF and one weapon has a total bonus of +5 and the other has +3, you roll d20+3 which functions for both weapons. So, in this system, it's best to have your two weapons as close to even in total attack bonus as feasible.