Could anyone summarize the broad strokes of the debate so far?
(I'm playing a brawler using a two-handed weapon in PFS so I'd like to know the various interpretations, but I don't know if I can parse through all 300 posts.)
It just seems that in terms of RAI the Brawler, who is a hybrid of the fighter (traditionally very good with 2 handed weapons) and the monk (not traditionally that good with 2-handed weapons) should not be worse at flurrying with a 7-branched sword than the monk is.
Thanks for the summary! Is there a certain post we are FAQing?
It just seems that in terms of RAI the Brawler, who is a hybrid of the fighter (traditionally very good with 2 handed weapons) and the monk (not traditionally that good with 2-handed weapons) should not be worse at flurrying with a 7-branched sword than the monk is.
First,
Both by its name, and by the fact that the class focuses on close weapons, and on common english usage "barroom brawler" it seems clear that the brawler focuses on close type "light" weapons.
As such it is not surprising that it is less good with 2h weapons.
Second
The edge cases we have been discussing are only 2h monk weapons. It really is a tiny edgecase.
Third
Trying to judge the opinions of posters to the thread, it seems to be the consensus that flurrying with a 2h weapon is that the penalty is -4/-4.
I believe that to be the opinion of
Ferious Thune, Melkiador, Toasted, BadBird, Talonhawke, Ventnor, Myself, Darksol, Oneyou
Opposing Bladelock, graystone.
Komoda see's both sides of the argument.
In my opinion, this will not get an FAQ as I believe the RAW are written are clear and non-contradictory.
First,
Both by its name, and by the fact that the class focuses on close weapons, and on common english usage "barroom brawler" it seems clear that the brawler focuses on close type "light" weapons.
As such it is not surprising that it is less good with 2h weapons.
Flavor is not a real argument, but if it was, there are a lot of pool cues and baseball bats, held 2 handed, that would make it to a barroom brawl. Did I also mention that the ability is called Brawler's Flurry (not Brawler's Two Handed Fighting)? Yeah, not rules, but since you put flavor on the table, the opposing argument is very tasty.
Second
The edge cases we have been discussing are only 2h monk weapons. It really is a tiny edgecase.
2h weapons are not an edge case since there are many 2h weapons that can be used to Flurry. This question also doesn't just cover 2h weapons. It also covers using 1 weapon and no 2nd off hand weapon.
Third
Trying to judge the opinions of posters to the thread, it seems to be the consensus that flurrying with a 2h weapon is that the penalty is -4/-4.I believe that to be the opinion of
Ferious Thune, Melkiador, Toasted, BadBird, Talonhawke, Ventnor, Myself, Darksol, OneyouOpposing Bladelock, graystone.
Komoda see's both sides of the argument.
In my opinion, this will not get an FAQ as I believe the RAW are written are clear and non-contradictory.
Tommy, You have illustrated a deep misunderstanding of a number of rules surrounding Two Weapon Fighting, Flurry, Handedness and how those rules are applied in game. Maybe hold off pronouncing what is absolutely clear RAW for everyone else until those basic rules are clear to you.
Also this is only one thread. Older threads have an almost universal consensus that it is -2/-2.
I don't know Tommy, this exact issue was raised in Dec 2014 and consensus at that time seemed to be that it was clear and obvious the penalties are only -2/-2.
I'll admit I'm jumping in late to the thread, but saying "RAW is clear" seems inaccurate, as RAW doesn't seem to cover this situation at all. AFAIK, RAW only refers to the case where there is an off-hand weapon, and in this case there is no off-hand weapon.
Count me in the camp of -2/-2 unless you can convince me otherwise.
UMMM no I'm in the -2/-2 camp for how i would rule and in the no clear rules camp for raw.
I don't know Tommy, this exact issue was raised in Dec 2014 and consensus at that time seemed to be that it was clear and obvious the penalties are only -2/-2.
I'll admit I'm jumping in late to the thread, but saying "RAW is clear" seems inaccurate, as RAW doesn't seem to cover this situation at all. AFAIK, RAW only refers to the case where there is an off-hand weapon, and in this case there is no off-hand weapon.
Count me in the camp of -2/-2 unless you can convince me otherwise.
In passing, I'll note that the previous thread was not universal (at all) in saying the penalty was -2/-2. Imbricatus and others indicated that the penalties were -4/-4.
But sure, Ill make a stab at convincing you.
First, here's the text from the faq
Let's assume you're a 6th-level fighter (BAB +6/+1) holding a longsword in one hand and a light mace in the other. Your possible full attack combinations without using two-weapon fighting are:
(A) longsword at +6, longsword +1
(B) mace +6, mace +1
(C) longsword +6, mace +1
(D) mace +6, longsword +1
All of these combinations result in you making exactly two attacks, one at +6 and one at +1. You're not getting any extra attacks, therefore you're not using the two-weapon fighting rule, and therefore you're not taking any two-weapon fighting penalties.
If you have Quick Draw, you could even start the round wielding only one weapon, make your main attack with it, draw the second weapon as a free action after your first attack, and use that second weapon to make your iterative attack (an "iterative attack" is an informal term meaning "extra attacks you get from having a high BAB"). As long as you're properly using the BAB values for your iterative attacks, and as long as you're not exceeding the number of attacks per round granted by your BAB, you are not considered to be using two-weapon fighting, and therefore do not take any of the penalties for two-weapon fighting.
The two-weapon fighting option in the Core Rulebook specifically refers to getting an extra attack for using a second weapon in your offhand. In the above four examples, there is no extra attack, therefore you're not using two-weapon fighting.
Using the longsword/mace example, if you use two-weapon fighting you actually have fewer options than if you aren't. Your options are (ignoring the primary/off hand penalties):
(A') primary longsword at +6, primary longsword at +1, off hand mace at +6
(B') primary mace at +6, primary mace at +1, off hand longsword at +6
In other words, once you decide you're using two-weapon fighting to get that extra attack on your turn (which you have to decide before you take any attacks on your turn), that decision locks you in to the format of "my primary weapon gets my main attack and my iterative attack, and my off hand weapon only gets the extra attack, and I apply two-weapon fighting penalties."
Under 3.0 and early 3.5 handedness mattered, which prompted the whole armor spike etc debate, with the end result that in late 3.5 and pathfinder the whole idea of "handedness" was discarded.
Ie. It doesn't matter if you wield a knife in your left hand or your right hand. It doesn't matter if you use an unarmed strike.
Quoting the rules - "once you decide you're using two weapon fighting to get that extra attack on your turn, that decision locks you into the format my primary weapon gets my main attack and my iterative attack, and my off hand weapon only gets the extra attack, and I apply two-weapon fighting penalties."
This is why upthread I said the rules are quite clear. If you have a monk with both hands tied behind his back, and he tries to get an extra attack by kicking - the rules are clear. He takes primary and offhand attack penalties, although no hands are involved.
That concept is important. Handedness does not matter. (There are some cases, like 2 hands of effort, that it does, but I'll get back to that).
So what if you're using a 2h weapon?
So under the normal rules, if youre using a (non double) 2h weapon, you cannot then use armor spikes (or similar) to make an extra attack. This is covered by the two hands of effort faq. http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qw9
Going further. Under normal rules, we already have the case model for weilding a 2h weapon and getting an extra attack.
A [double] two handed weapon is wielded in BOTH hands. "Double Weapons: Dire flails, dwarven urgroshes, gnome hooked hammers, orc double axes, quarterstaves, and two-bladed swords are double weapons. A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons, but he incurs all the normal attack penalties associated with two-weapon combat, just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon."
Concept to get out of this: Even tho one weapon is wielded in two hands, it still gets primary and offhand weapon penalties. EVEN THOUGH there is only one weapon.
This is important because others will have you believe that because the brawler can Brawler's Flurry with a 2h weapon there is no offhand weapon. But there is no offhand weapon with {double] weapons either, and yet the normal twf rules are followed.
Summarizing to this point:
1. The rules state that you are locked into a format:
a). whatever attack gets the extra attack gets the offhand penalty
b). The other attacks (primary, iterative) get primary penalty.
Continuing.
2. Brawler's Flurry gives you no way of getting an extra attack by itself. It does give you the benefit of TWF while doing a full attack action with restrictions. So any attempt to get an extra attack comes by way of the existing rule framework how to get an extra attack.
3. Brawlers Flurry gives you the abilty to flurry with one weapon instead of two. So if you have one kukri and a shield you can make the primary and extra attack with the kukri. In which case, all your attacks would be at -2/-2. (more on that later).
Likewise, you could BF with one temple sword, or even a 2h monk weapon.
4. Brawler's Flurry does nothing to change the penalties associated with TWF fighting. Absent clarifying text, the stated penalties apply.
In the existing rules, the penalties for getting an extra attack are -6/-10.
These are reduced if
a). the weapon with which the extra attack made is light.
b). the person making the attack has the TWF feat.
So. If a Brawler is armed with a kukri and shield, his penalty is -2/-2.
If he is armed with a temple sword and shield, his penalty is -4/-4.
Likewise, if he is armed with a Tiger fork, his penalty is -4/-4.
Thats the sum of the argument.
Tommy....
Bladelock, In an effort to keep the thread on track, over the last week I've not referred to you personally, nor responded to your persona attacks.
Please try to do the same.
...
Going further. Under normal rules, we already have the case model for weilding a 2h weapon and getting an extra attack.
A [double] two handed weapon is wielded in BOTH hands. "Double Weapons: Dire flails, dwarven urgroshes, gnome hooked hammers, orc double axes, quarterstaves, and two-bladed swords are double weapons. A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons, but he incurs all the normal attack penalties associated with two-weapon combat, just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon."
Concept to get out of this: Even tho one weapon is wielded in two hands, it still gets primary and offhand weapon penalties. EVEN THOUGH there is only one weapon.
...
Tommy, I appreciate what you're saying, but I just don't think the rules are there to support you. You use the example of double weapons, but in the example of double weapons, the rules clearly state how it works - you act as though wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon.
The missing link is that there is no equivalent RAW definition for how the Brawler's Flurry works. The rules still only refer to primary hand and off-hand weapons, with no provision for TWF with a single (non-double) weapon.
It sounds like there just is no RAW that speaks to the case where you are TWF with no off-hand weapon. Both FAQs you refer to concern cases where you are using multiple weapons. So I would defer to related precedents (involving TWF with a single weapon) to determine RAI, including double weapons being counted as light, and Flurry of Blows not taking -4/-4 penalties. I also personally feel that the "obvious" ruling is that the penalties are -2/-2 (it had never occurred to me that it could be -4/-4 until this thread,) and if the designers purposely wanted to break with the precedent set by Flurry of Blows and double weapons, they would have explicitly clarified, instead of leaving things so murky.
Rumpin, we all agree that except for the text of brawlers flurry, there are no raw for twf with a 2h weapon.
Since brawlers flurry only says that you may twf with a 2h weapon, and does not assign any changes to the penalties as weitten, the stated penalties apply.
Is the extra attack made with a light weapon? No? Then the penalties are -4/-4.
Rumpin, we all agree that except for the text of brawlers flurry, there are no raw for twf with a 2h weapon.
Since brawlers flurry only says that you may twf with a 2h weapon, and does not assign any changes to the penalties as weitten, the stated penalties apply.
Is the extra attack made with a light weapon? No? Then the penalties are -4/-4.
There are no "stated penalties". You are assuming that "Off-hand weapon is light" doesn't actually refer to the weapon at all, and instead means "second attack is made with a light weapon". But that's not how the rules are written, they don't talk at all about "primary attack" and "secondary attack", they refer to "primary hand" and "off hand".
To further rebut your interpretation of "off hand weapon really means second attack weapon", we can look at the text of Flurry of Blows, which includes the clause "whether the attacks are made with an off-hand or with a weapon wielded in both hands." If the monk's second flurry attack is considered an off-hand attack, as you seem to be arguing, then there's no need to use "whether ... or ...", they could have simply said "even if the attacks are made with an off-hand." But they specifically make a distinction, which indicates that "off-hand weapon" actually refers to the weapon itself, rather than supporting your notion that the off-hand weapon and the primary weapon are actually the same weapon, and off-hand vs primary just refers to the attack order.
Going back to the text of Brawler's Flurry:
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.
I could even argue that I am declaring "My primary weapon is a tiger fork, and my off-hand weapon is an unarmed kick, but due to the special language saying I do not need to use both weapons, I am making all of my attacks with the tiger fork." That is the only RAW way that I can think of to resolve this issue, because at least that is supported by the rules, whereas the -4/-4 interpretation relies on reading implicit assumptions into the rules that are never spelled out.
Tommy....Bladelock, In an effort to keep the thread on track, over the last week I've not referred to you personally, nor responded to your persona attacks.
Please try to do the same.
At no point have I attacked you Tommy. I stated facts about your misstatements and proclamations. And while you couched my understanding of the rules as "wrong," stating that they are unsupported by rules, referring to rules that you were either applying incorrectly or that you did not completely understand I have simply countered with my opinion of the rules and supported those opinions with documentation.
There is a chance that your OPINION is correct. However your opinion is not clearly supported by the rules. Moreover my opinion is supported and reinforced by a the core rules as well as the specific exceptions to the core rules listed in the Brawler class.
Double weapons have nothing to do with this discussion. Wielding weapons 2 handed is a question that you are sidestepping.
You are also misstating other peoples points.I don't know Tommy, this exact issue was raised in Dec 2014 and consensus at that time seemed to be that it was clear and obvious the penalties are only -2/-2.
I'll admit I'm jumping in late to the thread, but saying "RAW is clear" seems inaccurate, as RAW doesn't seem to cover this situation at all. AFAIK, RAW only refers to the case where there is an off-hand weapon, and in this case there is no off-hand weapon.
Count me in the camp of -2/-2 unless you can convince me otherwise.
In passing, I'll note that the previous thread was not universal (at all) in saying the penalty was -2/-2. Imbricatus and others indicated that the penalties were -4/-4.
If it is a weapon that can bused in a Brawler's Flurry (Monk or Close weapon groups) the penalties are treated as if using Two Weapon Fighting with a light weapon, regardless of the actual weapon used.
This is an argument for -2/-2. Several other threads came up with the same conclusion supporting -2.
The only point anyone was making for -4/-4 was if the brawler actually had a 2nd 1h weapon being used in their off hand.
Rumpin, we all agree that except for the text of brawlers flurry, there are no raw for twf with a 2h weapon.
Since brawlers flurry only says that you may twf with a 2h weapon, and does not assign any changes to the penalties as weitten, the stated penalties apply.
Is the extra attack made with a light weapon? No? Then the penalties are -4/-4.
There are no "stated penalties".
Normal: If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. When fighting in this way 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. If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light.
You are assuming that "Off-hand weapon is light" doesn't actually refer to the weapon at all, and instead means "second attack is made with a light weapon". But that's not how the rules are written, they don't talk at all about "primary attack" and "secondary attack", they refer to "primary hand" and "off hand".
Thats not correct. Look in verbiage for twf. -6 with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand, and a -10 penalty to the attack with your off hand.
Regular attacks are the attacks that you would be entitled to make without attempting to get the extra attack.
Also, from the FAQ: my primary weapon gets my main attack and my iterative attack, and my off hand weapon only gets the extra attack, and I apply two-weapon fighting penalties."
Sure, the could have made things easier by being tighter with language. But the concept is clear you main (regular) attack (and iteratives) gets a -6; the extra attack gets -10.
To further rebut your interpretation of "off hand weapon ..."
The actual full quote is: "A monk applies his full Strength bonus to his damage rolls for all successful attacks made with flurry of blows, whether the attacks are made with an off-hand or with a weapon wielded in both hands."
The only thing this text does is to specify that the str applied during the flurry of blows is full. Usually, the extra attack under twf gets .5str.
Rather than rebutting my point, it strengthens it. Armor spikes can be an offhand attack. But they involved no hands. UAS (kick) can be an offhand attack. It doesn't matter the source of the extra attack, or the number of hands used in it.
which includes the clause "whether the attacks are made with an off-hand or with a weapon wielded in both hands." If the monk's second flurry attack is considered an off-hand attack, as you seem to be arguing, then there's no need to use "whether ... or ...", they could have simply said "even if the attacks are made with an off-hand."
To the contrary: they include the wording to make clear that the same strength bonus applies whether you are using a one-handed extra attack or a two-handed one. It strengthens and reiterates the point that offhand attacks are not made with one hand, but rather any attack that is an extra attack, regardless if 2 hands (or 1 hand, or no hands) is used - is an offhand attack.
I could even argue that I am declaring "My primary weapon is a tiger fork, and my off-hand...
We agree. Yes, you can use brawler's flurry with a tiger fork and a kick. If you do, you get both reductions under TWF: light weapon, and twf feat.
all your attacks are -2/-2.
However, as soon as you use the tiger fork for the extra attack, the tiger fork is not light, and all your attacks are at -4/-4.
This thread has gone over 300 posts, and has deviated from the original question of Power Attack - I think we should start a new, clean thread to try to get FAQ clarification.
I think the main question we want answered is:
When using Brawler's Flurry to make multiple attacks with a two-handed monk weapon such as a tiger fork, are the two-weapon fighting penalties -2/-2 or -4/-4?
Are there any other issues that need clarification? Or is there a better way to phrase the question?
This thread has gone over 300 posts, and has deviated from the original question of Power Attack - I think we should start a new, clean thread to try to get FAQ clarification.
I think the main question we want answered is:
When using Brawler's Flurry to make multiple attacks with a two-handed monk weapon such as a tiger fork, are the two-weapon fighting penalties -2/-2 or -4/-4?
Are there any other issues that need clarification? Or is there a better way to phrase the question?
Need to know about flurrying with a single 1H weapon as well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Need to know about flurrying with a single 1H weapon as well.This thread has gone over 300 posts, and has deviated from the original question of Power Attack - I think we should start a new, clean thread to try to get FAQ clarification.
I think the main question we want answered is:
When using Brawler's Flurry to make multiple attacks with a two-handed monk weapon such as a tiger fork, are the two-weapon fighting penalties -2/-2 or -4/-4?
Are there any other issues that need clarification? Or is there a better way to phrase the question?
Noted. How about:
When using Brawler's Flurry to make multiple attacks with a one-handed or two-handed weapon such as a tiger fork or temple sword, are the two-weapon fighting penalties -2/-2 or -4/-4?
I call Foul Sir Rufus!
You claimed that that there was no verbiage that said attack. When I provided said verbiage you did not acknowledge, or attempt to refute.
likewise, a monk's flurry specifically allows you to make an offhand attack with a two handed weapon.
Since you can make a primary attack with an unarmed strike, and an offhand attack with a 2h weapon - that demolishes the argument the two hands of effort argument.
It also demolishes the argument that offhand refers to hand - for if you are using a 2h weapon, which hand is offhand? The term is meaningless.
Which leaves only the definition I promulgated standing.
Dispute? Or man up that you were wrong on the point.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
But in terms of your question, isn't it all just answered by asking the question
"Does offhand attack exclusively refer to an attack made to get an extra attack?"
Double weapons have nothing to do with this discussion. Wielding weapons 2 handed is a question that you are sidestepping.
Just because you don't like my answer doesn't mean I've sidestepped it. I've addressed it more than a dozen times. Just like I will do again.
When doing so, he may make one additional attack, taking a –2 penalty on all of his attack rolls, as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat.
...A monk applies his full Strength bonus to his damage rolls for all successful attacks made with flurry of blows, whether the attacks are made with an off-hand or with a weapon wielded in both hands.
You have made various claims (none supported by rules)
1. You've claimed that since a brawler is using 2h on one weapon there is no offhand weapon. Since there is no offhand weapon, you should apply light penalties.This is countered by the following arguments:
a). Hands used on a weapon has nothing to do with offhand. Ive pointed you to the FAQ, and I've pointed you to the TWF text, where it says that offhand is the extra attack.
NOTHING TO DO WITH HANDS.
b). There is no magical difference between 2hands on a 2h weapon and 2 hands on a double weapon, when it comes to offhand. Still 2 hands, one weapon.
Everyone can two hand a double weapon and twf.
Brawlers can TWF with a non double 2h weapon. That's the only exception the class feature states. It does not say that voids regular offhand penalties. You *hope, pray, assume it does.
But the rule in pathfinder is unless you have something explicit, in writing, the rules as written apply.
c). Monk's Flurry: explicitly says that a monk may make an offhand attack with a 2h weapon.
Your argument for the Brawler is that because he is using 2h on his primary attack, he must be using no hands (your invented term) for his offhand attack. No hands < offhand, therefore apply penalties as a light weapon.
Yet a monk can make a primary with a 2h weapon - and a secondary with a 2h weapon.
So either
A: Paizo created a rule for TWF
1: Created an exception for it for monks
2: Created an exception for brawlers that doesn't work,
3: Doesn't follow the clear text of the FAQ and TWF text.
or
B: My explanation (and all the other people in this thread ) is correct. And maybe you should just try to understand it.
2. You've also made the claim this explanation cannot be correct, because it violates the two hands of effort rules.
One's & toasted's response to that was - a)you either believe the FAQ; in which case you cannot brawler's flurry with a 2h weapon; or b) you believe brawler's flurry supercedes as a specific exception in which case the hands of effort faq is immaterial.
My response was multipart
c). Hands of effort prevents you from gaining an extra attack when you don't have a published exception allowing you to do so, such as Brawler's Flurry and/or Monk's Flurry.
d). But both Brawler's Flurry and Monk's Flurry violate the hands of effort already, and as such you can draw no inference from hands of effort.
A monk can primary & offhand with a tigerfork. 4 hands of effort. (by your argument, not mine). He can primary with an UAS and secondary with a tiger fork - three hands of effort.
A brawler can primary with a temple and make another attack with an unarmed kick and a Unarmed strike: punch. Three hands of effort.
So your idea that it must be no hands of effort.. FAILS, because we can see multiple cases where hands of effort doesn't factor into legal brawler/monk flurries.
So since I have (again) addressed your argument - can you dispences with the nonsense that I have sidestepped your argument?
If you think you have another argument, or that I haven't addressed your argument square on - set me straight as to what argument you are making, and I'll address it again.
I've been far more willing to address your arguments than you have been to address mine. Otherwise, please address point by point the issues I raised here.
You are also misstating other peoples points.
...
Not intentionally. I was wrong regarding Imbricatus.
I call Foul Sir Rufus!
You claimed that that there was no verbiage that said attack. When I provided said verbiage you did not acknowledge, or attempt to refute.
likewise, a monk's flurry specifically allows you to make an offhand attack with a two handed weapon.
Since you can make a primary attack with an unarmed strike, and an offhand attack with a 2h weapon - that demolishes the argument the two hands of effort argument.
It also demolishes the argument that offhand refers to hand - for if you are using a 2h weapon, which hand is offhand? The term is meaningless.
Which leaves only the definition I promulgated standing.
Dispute? Or man up that you were wrong on the point.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
But in terms of your question, isn't it all just answered by asking the question"Does offhand attack exclusively refer to an attack made to get an extra attack?"
No, a monk's flurry specifically allows you to make an off-hand attack or make a second attack with a two-handed weapon. The "or" indicating that these things aren't the same.
A monk applies his full Strength bonus to his damage rolls for all successful attacks made with flurry of blows, whether the attacks are made with an off-hand or with a weapon wielded in both hands.
I call Foul Sir Rufus!
You claimed that that there was no verbiage that said attack. When I provided said verbiage you did not acknowledge, or attempt to refute.
likewise, a monk's flurry specifically allows you to make an offhand attack with a two handed weapon.
Since you can make a primary attack with an unarmed strike, and an offhand attack with a 2h weapon - that demolishes the argument the two hands of effort argument.
It also demolishes the argument that offhand refers to hand - for if you are using a 2h weapon, which hand is offhand? The term is meaningless.
Which leaves only the definition I promulgated standing.
Dispute? Or man up that you were wrong on the point.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
But in terms of your question, isn't it all just answered by asking the question"Does offhand attack exclusively refer to an attack made to get an extra attack?"
No, a monk's flurry specifically allows you to make an off-hand attack or make a second attack with a two-handed weapon. The "or" indicating that these things aren't the same.
A monk applies his full Strength bonus to his damage rolls for all successful attacks made with flurry of blows, whether the attacks are made with an off-hand or with a weapon wielded in both hands.
Right - we agree they're not the same. But thats not the point I'm making.
You said: "they don't talk at all about "primary attack" and "secondary attack", they refer to "primary hand" and "off hand""
I showed they did indeed, use primary attack and offhand attack.
Second - if your argument is that offhandedness refers to hands - then answer this.
A monk can make an offhand attack with a 2h weapon. How is that possible. If you are saying it refers hands refers to actual handedness
how can that be?
Third, the argument was made that brawler uniquely can flurry with a 2h weapon, and therefore since no hands of effort remained, the remaining effort (somenow) had to be no hands and therefor light penalties (????) applied.
Fourth the argument was made regarding hands of effort. I showed both classes already violate that.
(Inventing no hands; ignoring written text, and assuming light penalties should be assumed).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It would be useful if you would try to counterpoint each point that I make, as I'm not sure you're getting or considering the argument.
Regarding your OR argument - it does not, in fact say "or". In fact it says "and".
These attacks can be any combination of unarmed strikes and attacks with a monk special weapon (he does not need to use two weapons to use this ability)
But I'm not sure I understand why you think thats relevent. I can better answer your argument, please detail what you think a 16th level monk armed with Tiger Fork can do.
Your saying flurry of blows lets him
a). UAS x 5
b). Tiger Fork x2?
c). Tiger Fork x2 UAS x 3
What are you saying exactly?
Why is it relevent to the argument. If a monk can make "an" offhand attack with a 2h weapon it still eliminates the hands of effort argument AND the argument that a brawler uses no hands because he is already using both hands for his primary weapon.
You're arguing that a monk can make a primary and a secondary attack with a 2h monk weapon (any combination) and that when a brawler does it, someone it must be at a -2/-2 because he has no hands ???
A monk has a specific penalty of -2 written into the flurry ability. A brawler doesn't.
If they wanted to give the brawler a flat -2, why not just say - a brawler can flurry like a monk, additionally using weapons from the close group.
But they didn't. Not even close. So why you assume the -2/-2 when they chose NOT to write it......
A monk can make an offhand attack with a 2h weapon. How is that possible. If you are saying it refers hands refers to actual handedness
how can that be?...
Regarding your OR argument - it does not, in fact say "or". In fact it says "and".
Citation please? Here is the SRD:
A monk applies his full Strength bonus to his damage rolls for all successful attacks made with flurry of blows, whether the attacks are made with an off-hand or with a weapon wielded in both hands.
Are you telling me the bolded "or" actually says "and"? And where is it said that a monk can make an offhand attack with a 2h weapon?
It would be useful if you would try to counterpoint each point that I make, as I'm not sure you're getting or considering the argument.
Tommy, we don't all have an unlimited amount of time to sink into this debate, and when you keep posting page-long arguments, it's not really clear how everything is related and what requires refutation. My point remains that "offhand" is not defined by RAW when flurrying with a single weapon, and until "offhand" is defined, there is no clarity on this issue. And I don't want to go another 200 posts debating this, I'd rather FAQ and move on with my life.
But I'm not sure I understand why you think thats relevent. I can better answer your argument, please detail what you think a 16th level monk armed with Tiger Fork can do.
A 16th-level monk could make 7 attacks with any combination of tiger fork and unarmed strike. As to the rest of your post, nowhere do the rules say that any of the flurry attacks from a monk with a two-handed weapon are "off-hand".
I haven't been saying this very often lately, but Tommy is right.
Is ok Scott. You're coming around = ).
And I think our rules discussions would go better face to face. Text is such an inconvenient medium to convey meaning.
Also agree btw on your comments on how it runs at table.
As to the rest of your post, nowhere do the rules say that any of the flurry attacks from a monk with a two-handed weapon are "off-hand".
I'll take your point, and not continue the lesser points.
The rules don't say that any of the flurry attacks with a two-handed weapon are "off-hand".
They say that the EXTRA ATTACK only is offhand, and incurs offhand penalties.
You persist in trying to tie offhand to actual hands. What the rules say is that once you qualify for TWF fighting your regular (or main or primary) attacks are made at primary penalties.
The extra attack is made at off hand penalties. Thats it.
As to where: Last paragraph of the FAQ.
Under the Normal: section of TWF fighting
A 16th-level monk could make 7 attacks with any combination of tiger fork and unarmed strike.
Huh? Can you walk me through this, how a 16 level monk makes 7 attacks? (my question was presuming no feat selection.. was your answer?)
Huh? Can you walk me through this, how a 16 level monk makes 7 attacks? (my question was presuming no feat selection.. was your answer?)
A 16th-level monk could make 7 attacks with any combination of tiger fork and unarmed strike.
'Tis listed right there in the main Monk class abilities table. "Flurry of Blows Attack Bonus" at level 16 is listed as "+14/+14/+9/+9/+4/+4/–1". Effective BAB while flurrying is +16 so the monk gets main attack + 3 iteratives + 3 extra attacks for Flurry giving him the benefits of Greater Two-Weapon Fighting.
Huh? Can you walk me through this, how a 16 level monk makes 7 attacks? (my question was presuming no feat selection.. was your answer?)
A 16th-level monk could make 7 attacks with any combination of tiger fork and unarmed strike.
Flurry for a 16th level monk is +14/+14/+9/+9/+4/+4/–1 thats 7 attacks simply for being a monk that is level 16 using a flurry.
Edit: Gah. I've already agreed to cut the "or" argument. And I poorly worded it, expecting only to involve with twf, not itwf or gtwf.
Cutting the rest of the post.
Solid analysis in favor of why Brawler' Flurry should be -4/-4 when using a 1h or 2h weapon
Scott it is possible that -4/-4 is correct and that the 1 weapon, that is wielded in one or both hands by a Brawler, counts as both a primary and an off hand weapon. To make that happen several things need to be modified in TWF that are not specified or alluded to anywhere in the Brawler, two weapon fighting, or handedness text.
1. 1 weapon needs to count as 2 weapons, or at least a double weapon for that one weapon to perform as both a primary and off hand weapon. This is because TWF is only defined by having 2 weapons, one that is primary and one that is the off hand.
2. Previously undefined use of a weapon wielded in 2 hands needs to be assumed to be defined as a 1 hand off weapon during a flurry.
3. Additional "hands of effort" need to be applied in order for there to be a 2 handed primary effort as well as a 1 or 2 handed off handed effort.
All of these issues seem to point away from a -4/-4 use of rules for a Brawler flurry. For this to be entertained it must be accepted that Brawler Flurry has specific exceptions to the current TWF rules.
It is my opinion that the exceptions I will list below are better, less problematic fits for the Brawler Flurry.
The Brawler Flurry has 2 lines in it's flurry description that point directly to there being no need for an off hand attack while using Two Weapon Fighting. The first of the lines allows the brawler to use 1 weapon while 2 weapon fighting. The off hand attack is only defined by a second weapon that the brawler does away with. The next paragraph further supports the likelihood that there is no need for an off hand weapon to take advantage of TWF while Flurrying. It gives specific rules for using a weapon wielded in 2 hands while flurring. Off hand weapons are undefined when wielding a weapon 2 handed.
**TLDR**
Our opinions diverge based on our understanding of how the off hand weapon and the attack associated with it function while flurring. Correct me if I am wrong, but you feel that the 'Brawler exception' allows the weapon to be both the primary and the off hand weapon.
My opinion is that the 'Brawler exception' removes the need for the off hand weapon, thereby making all the attacks primary.
If a ruling comes down that the weapon switched back and forth from primary to off hand then I will also agree with you. Until then I think it creates more confusion and just seems less likely to me.
Citation required. I've shown you what the rules say; now you show me. Or follow your own advice and hold off.Tommy, You have illustrated a deep misunderstanding of a number of rules surrounding Two Weapon Fighting, Flurry, Handedness and how those rules are applied in game.
I am not, nor have I ever in this thread had an issue with the basic Two Weapon Fighting rules. However there have been many rules that have been stated to support one opinion of how Brawler Flurry that are wholly incorrect. That is what my comment was referencing. Are you asking me to cite the basic rule errors that have been used in this argument?
- Repeatedly conflating 2 handed weapons with double weapons (being used as double weapons).- Stating that wielding a weapon 2 handed is defined in 2 weapon fighting because there are double weapons.
- Stating that because a double weapon does x1 str damage with one end of the weapon and x.5 with the other end that it is proof that wielding a weapon 2 handed is in fact wielding it with a primary and an off hand, despite an "off hand" being undefined when 2 handing a weapon.
- The idea that because flurry has a str multiple of x1 that by the rules it must be treated as a 1 hand weapon.
I can post the direct quotes to these and others.
Also this is only one thread. Older threads have an almost universal consensus that it is -2/-2.
So, that is another matter, and not an invalid one. Tommy and I are talking about what the rules say, and you are talking about the way the game is played. None of what is being discussed would make somebody's character build illegal to bring to a Pathfinder Society Table. The question is what would happen when you start to try to Brawler's Flurry with your Temple Sword. You are saying that Pathfinder Society GMs generally understand the rules to be that you can make all your attacks with your 'Sword just like a Monk could with only -2s to Attack. We're saying that a PFSGM would be right in imposing a -4 Penalty on all your attacks. I think this would be a minor inconvenience for most Brawlers. If your GM wants to give you a -4, say, "Fine, my off-hand attack will be an Unarmed Strike." and that will end the discussion at the table.
Meanwhile, if it is the case that most people in Pathfinder Society are playing the game against the rules in this way, Paizo should fix the rules. I consider it likely that the -4 penalty is an unintended consequence, but intended or not, that is what the rules say, and PFSGMs have the right to rule it that way until Paizo fixes this.
I have to admit that I haven't followed the links to any of the other threads. Are there any official rules posts on any of them? I'm guessing not, or you would have cited them already, but I feel the need to ask.
The only reason I mentioned other threads was because Tommy continued to state that general pubic opinion was behind him based on this one thread. That simply was not true. I was once again addressing something that simply wasn't true even though it deviated from the rules discussion.
Scott a clear summary, with rules cited, of my opinion is here.
Lets start with the relevant Brawler Flurry rules:
"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."
In Summary Brawlers Flurry allow the following.
A. It allows you the benefit of the TWF feat while Flurrying with only one weapon, negating the need for a second off hand weapon. TWF with or without the feat is undefined with one weapon and no 2nd off hand weapon.
B. It allows you to TWF while using monk weapons, close weapons, and unarmed strikes, in any combination.
C. As a subset of that, you can wield weapons 2handed as part of the flurry, an ability that is undefined in standard TWF'ing
D. It allows you to substitute combat maneuvers.
E. It allows you to Flurry with one weapon.
F. It specifies how to str modifiers are applied when wielding light, 1h and 2h weapons.
G. It specifies you may not flurry with natural weapons.
--------------------------------------------------------
How does this mesh with the current Two Weapon Fighting and Handedness rule? See below:
A. It[Brawler's Flurry] allows you the benefit of the twf feat while Flurrying.
An off hand attack in TWF is defined by the following line:
"If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon."
As mentioned above in (E.) Brawler is not required to use off hand weapon to gain an extra attack, as flurry specifically says a Brawler can flurry with one weapon rather than a second off hand weapon.
Brawler also allows for two weapon fighting with a weapon wielded in 2 hands which is undefined in two weapon fighting. It is undefined because it is not possible for a weapon wielded 2 handed to be wielded in an off hand. It can't be in the off hand because wielding a weapon 2 handed requires 2 hands of effort leaving no option for an additional hand of effort.
also see handed rules here:
This designation is a measure of how much effort it takes to wield a weapon in combat. It indicates whether a melee weapon, when wielded by a character of the weapon’s size category, is considered a light weapon, a one-handed weapon, or a two-handed weapon.
Light: A light weapon is used in one hand. It is easier to use in one’s off hand than a one-handed weapon is, and can be used while grappling (see Combat). Add the wielder’s Strength modifier to damage rolls for melee attacks with a light weapon if it’s used in the primary hand, or half the wielder’s Strength bonus if it’s used in the off hand. Using two hands to wield a light weapon gives no advantage on damage; the Strength bonus applies as though the weapon were held in the wielder’s primary hand only. An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon.
One-Handed: A one-handed weapon can be used in either the primary hand or the off hand. Add the wielder’s Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with a one-handed weapon if it’s used in the primary hand, or 1/2 his Strength bonus if it’s used in the off hand. If a one-handed weapon is wielded with two hands during melee combat, add 1-1/2 times the character’s Strength bonus to damage rolls.
Two-Handed: Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively. Apply 1-1/2 times the character’s Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon.
See FAQ clarifying hands of effort..
At the time of writing two weapon fighting the only options for TWF hand effort were light or 1 hand effort. Flurry introduces "no hand effort" to the off hand and "2 handed effort" to the primary hand. As the off hand is the only determination of two weapon fighting penalties, and with flurry there is never an off hand effort because it is wholly undefined using 1 weapon or while 2handing a weapon so the twf penalty should reflect the lightest off hand effort penalty available, which is -2.
Citation required. I've shown you what the rules say; now you show me. Or follow your own advice and hold off.Tommy, You have illustrated a deep misunderstanding of a number of rules surrounding Two Weapon Fighting, Flurry, Handedness and how those rules are applied in game.
I am not, nor have I ever in this thread had an issue with the basic Two Weapon Fighting rules. However there have been many rules that have been stated to support one opinion of how Brawler Flurry that are wholly incorrect. That is what my comment was referencing. Are you asking me to cite the basic rule errors that have been used in this argument?
- Repeatedly conflating 2 handed weapons with double weapons (being used as double weapons).
- Stating that wielding a weapon 2 handed is defined in 2 weapon fighting because there are double weapons.
- Stating that because a double weapon does x1 str damage with one end of the weapon and x.5 with the other end that it is proof that wielding a weapon 2 handed is in fact wielding it with a primary and an off hand, despite an "off hand" being undefined when 2 handing a weapon.
- The idea that because flurry has a str multiple of x1 that by the rules it must be treated as a 1 hand weapon.I can post the direct quotes to these and others.
No, these are not quotes. Which you seem to really have a problem providing. These are your opinions.
Addressing Points 1 & 2:
Here's a quote from me from the very first time I addressed your "no hands" argument. Pg 4 of the previous thread.
If you use a weapon with the "double" tag - you are using one weapon.
There is never a primary or off hand - until you try to get an extra attack. This is always true ANY time you fight with TWF.
You can TWF with NO weapons wielded, for example, with both hands tied behind your back. (For example, with armor spikes, unarmed strikes, etc.)
TWF entitles you to get an extra attack with your off hand.
Brawler's Fury says - you can use any close weapon, any unarmed strike, and any monk weapon for *any* of the attacks you make with TWF.
You can use it for the primary, you can use it for the offhand.
My next quote about your no hands of effort
But I'm spot on about the logic. You made the argument that Brawler's Fury allowed you to TWF with a single 2h weapon and there was no such thing as an off hand weapon.
This is pretty much emphatically disproven, because you can already TWF with a single 2h weapon and it emphatically DOES require a primary and offhand weapon.
Anyway - at no time did I say 2h weapons and double weapons are the same. What I said is that your logic of no hands of argument are already disproven by the faq, by the rules as written, by the example of monks wielding 2h weapons in a flurry, and double weapons.
I said further, the class feature itself says there are offhand attacks, contradicting your position. ("A brawler applies full damage...whether .. offhand .etc")
I pointed out you are presuming the extra offhand attack AT FULL DAMAGE , all the while claiming there was no offhand attack. It is logically the same as having your cake and eating it too.
Either you don't understand my argument, or you're willfully mischaracterizing it. Your failure to quote is suggestive.
Addressing Point 3.
No Bladelock.
I never said anything like
- Stating that because a double weapon does x1 str damage with one end of the weapon and x.5 with the other end that it is proof that wielding a weapon 2 handed is in fact wielding it with a primary and an off hand, despite an "off hand" being undefined when 2 handing a weapon
[spoiler]
You should try understanding what your opponents are saying, before you try to mischaracterize it.
I said (numerous times) that OFF HAND IS NOT UNDEFINED WHEN WIELDING A WEAPON IN 2 H.
Not because of damage. But because of the rules. Ie: monks flurrying with a 2h weapon. Anyone TWF with a double weapon.
Again, offhand is UNRELATED to your mythical construct of grip. You hold a weapon in one hand or two. Based on the type of damage, you get a damage bonus.
ALL OF WHICH IS ENTIRELY UNRELATED TO OFFHAND. WHICH HAS TO DO SOLEY WITH WHETHER OR NOT YOU TAKE AN EXTRA ATTACK.
I did an entire page of explanation on the point. I explained that your class features, and the weapon you wield may prevent you from qualifying for twfing. Ie the 2 hands of effort rules. But once you qualify, for whatever reason
OFFHAND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HANDS. Must have said that 100 times.
And its still true.
Finally [spoiler]
- The idea that because flurry has a str multiple of x1 that by the rules it must be treated as a 1 hand weapon.
No, what I was arguing was the the jotungrip faq states that if you treat a weapon as 1h for one thing, you treat it as 1 h for all things.
The construct of doing full damage on a off hand attack does not mean it is a 1 h attack - but it does mean it ISN'T a light weapon on an offhand attack.
If it *isn't* a light weapon for the purposes of damage, it isn't light handed weapon for the purposes of attack penalty. Another argument that your -2/-2 suggestion is wrong.
But I shouldn't have made this argument. If I can't get you to understand twf'ing, there is not possibility of getting you to understand this argument.
A. It allows you the benefit of the TWF featMore than that, the Brawler actually has the Feat. The Benefit of the 2 weapon fighting feat is that you have reduced penalties for when you make an extra attack with an off-hand weapon.
That means that when you use Brawler's Flurry, somehow or another, you are making an off-hand weapon attack.
Brawlers are allowed to make this off-hand attack with any weapon they want (on that list), even the weapon in their primary hand, even if they are using a 2 handed weapon, they are allowed to make the off-hand attack with that. That's what makes Brawler's Flurry better than just having the 2 weapon fighting Feat.
But that doesn't change the fact that when they use this ability, they are 2 weapon fighting. The 2 weapon rules say that when someone with the 2 weapon fighting Feat attacks with an off-hand weapon that isn't a light weapon, they take a -4/-4. Nothing in the Brawler's Flurry Class Ability changes that.
This is the issue at hand. You feel that Brawler Flurry allows the Brawler an exception to how they use the off hand.
- Allowing the primary weapon to act as both primary and off hand- Allowing a weapon wielded in 2 hands act as an off hand weapon
Both of these are simply not defined in two weapon fighting. This forces new rules to be assumed that are never discussed in Brawler, two weapon fighting or handedness rules.
My opinion is that since Brawler calls out the ability to gain and use the two weapon fighting feat without the need for a second off hand weapon that the Brawler allows for an exception to use two weapon fighting without any off hand. The fact that wielding 2 handed is undefined with 2 weapon fighting and off hand weapons further supports this idea.
Either could be right.
No Bladelock.
None of the dozen people that have said this have this position.
We are telling you that your understanding of TWF is WRONG.
OFFHAND has nothing to do with hands. It is simply an extra attack.
Brawlers flurry says they can make twf with 2h monk weapons.
When you choose to make an extra attack with a weapon - everything else follows from the TWF rules. Is the extra attack light? No? The penalty is -4/-4
No Bladelock.
None of the dozen people that have said this have this position.
We are telling you that your understanding of TWF is WRONG.
OFFHAND has nothing to do with hands. It is simply an extra attack.
Brawlers flurry says they can make twf with 2h monk weapons.When you choose to make an extra attack with a weapon - everything else follows from the TWF rules. Is the extra attack light? No? The penalty is -4/-4
You are really testing the limits of my patience Tommy.
Hands is short for handedness, or hands of effort. What is wrong with you??
My understanding of the rules is clear, as is my opinion on how Brawler's Flurry should work. If you don't understand what what my argument is then please refrain from directing any additional posts to me. Truly beginning to think there is something wrong with you.
Simple question Bladelock
This is the rule: (FAQ which has the weight of RAW).
Once you decide you're using two weapon fighting to get that extra attack on your turn, that decision locks you into the format my primary weapon gets my main attack and my iterative attack, and my off hand weapon only gets the extra attack, and I apply two-weapon fighting penalties."
Explain what that means, in the context of a two weapon thrower build, who is throwing knives.
Ah so Hands means whatever you want, whenever you want it too, eh?
Ok, Mr. Bladelock.
Addressing 2 of your arguments
A).
So in some of your posts you say the weapon that matters. Since the weapon is gripped in two hands, it means there are not other hands available to be used for the other attack.
If it is the primary weapon that matters, explain how it is that a 11th level two weapon thrower, that starts with a weapon in both hands.
He throws his left knife. He throws his right Knife.
So if it is the WEAPON that determines the penalties - he just threw his primary and offhand weapons at the opponent. He doesn't have the same weapon - so how does he make 4 attacks.. hmm?
In reality the thrower is allowed to continue to draw and throw weapons. Once you qualify for twf, it has nothing to do with the weapon in hand.
B. In other of your posts, you are saying it is the hands that matter; that the primary and the offhand can not be the same.
Ok. So if your same thrower throws 4 daggers from his one hand - how is that possible, hmmm?
As I said Tommy, it is you who do not understand my argument. I understand your argument. I understand how two weapon fighting works and how it differs from making regular iterative attacks with one or two weapons. Brawler introduces exceptions to two weapon fighting. The only question is which exceptions are to be used. You are not directing your comments to a child who you need to test. You thinking that is an appropriate way to interact doesn't say good things about you.
Why don't you tell me what my argument is? Why don't you tell me why I'm telling you that quoting standard core two weapon fighting rules without Brawler exceptions is problematic?
...or don't.
You thinking that is an appropriate way to interact doesn't say good things about you.
A: What was that about not talking about people hmm?
B: And what does a repeated failure to address an argument; and an inability to explain the FAQ say about your argument. Hmm?I have asked you to explain the last paragraph of the FAQ several times. You never have. So until you do.. I'll not. Besides which once you do understand how TWF fighting works - there will be no reason to explain your previous beliefs.
The way you believe TWF works does not work. Not for brawlers. Not for throwers. Not for Double weapons. Not for monk flurries.
Which if you had to explain how you thought it worked would be revealed. Which is why you won't.
As I said Tommy, it is you who do not understand my argument. I understand your argument. I understand how two weapon fighting works and how it differs from making regular iterative attacks with one or two weapons. Brawler introduces exceptions to two weapon fighting. The only question is which exceptions are to be used. You are not directing your comments to a child who you need to test. You thinking that is an appropriate way to interact doesn't say good things about you.
Why don't you tell me what my argument is? Why don't you tell me why I'm telling you that quoting standard core two weapon fighting rules without Brawler exceptions is problematic?
...or don't.
No Mr. Bladelock. You keep claiming you understand how TWF fighting works.
I have asked you to explain the last paragraph of the FAQ several times. You never have. So until you do.. I'll not. Besides which once you do understand how TWF fighting works - there will be no reason to explain your erroneous belief.
As I said, it is you who do not understand specific trumps general. Brawler has specific rules that trump the general twf'ing rules. The question is which rules are being modified.
You asking asinine basic questions about iterative attacks from one hand, that have nothing to do with the handedness discussion that pertains to Brawler's Flurry, speaks more to your lack of understanding about the argument than my refusal to play this silly game with you.