paizo.com Recent Posts in Improved Two-Weapon Fighting: Wording/Application Clarificationpaizo.com Recent Posts in Improved Two-Weapon Fighting: Wording/Application Clarification2018-02-10T04:17:22Z2018-02-10T04:17:22ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Improved Two-Weapon Fighting: Wording/Application ClarificationJoeElfhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uv2t?Improved-TwoWeapon-Fighting#412018-02-10T13:57:56Z2018-02-10T13:56:12Z<p>So...</p>
<p>Answer to Question 1: If you take Precision as a 3rd tier Mythic Champion and a 12th level fighter with GTWF, you apply that +5 offset to the 2nd attack of each hand to end up with attacks like so:
<br />
B: +12/+12/+7 main and +12/+12/+7 offhand (the situational TWF penalty isn't reduced per the feat, but that's just the -2/-2 that needs to be additionally applied; the -5 gets dropped for each hand, as that's the iterative penalty)</p>
<p>Answer to pseudo-Question 2: If you take Precision a 2nd time as a 4th tier Mythic Champion with GTWF, you apply that +5 offset to the 3rd attack of each hand to end up with attacks like so:
<br />
B: +12/+12/+12 main and +12/+12/+12 offhand (the situational TWF penalty isn't reduced per the feat, but that's just the -2/-2 that needs to be additionally applied; the -5 gets dropped for each hand, as that's the iterative penalty)</p>So...
Answer to Question 1: If you take Precision as a 3rd tier Mythic Champion and a 12th level fighter with GTWF, you apply that +5 offset to the 2nd attack of each hand to end up with attacks like so:
B: +12/+12/+7 main and +12/+12/+7 offhand (the situational TWF penalty isn't reduced per the feat, but that's just the -2/-2 that needs to be additionally applied; the -5 gets dropped for each hand, as that's the iterative penalty)
Answer to pseudo-Question 2: If you take Precision a 2nd...JoeElf2018-02-10T13:56:12ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Improved Two-Weapon Fighting: Wording/Application Clarificationdarth_gatorhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uv2t?Improved-TwoWeapon-Fighting#402020-01-12T05:15:03Z2018-02-10T04:17:29Z<p>I've never understood the point of asking a question, qualifying it with what essentially amounts to, "I don't care what you say, you can't prove it to me," and then continuing to argue the point or ask for an answer. Particularly for no benefit. If you're not going to accept an answer from anyone short of Sean K. Reynolds or Jason Buhlman, why bother coming to the Rules Forum to ask in the first place? To add to the absurdity, you claim no one can even know the answer short of the author, but you're looking for an answer from Paizo employees. The wording for Improved Two-Weapon Fighting was first written in the 3rd Edition <i>Player's Handbook</i> sometime prior to the year 2000. It's been ported nearly verbatim from 3rd Ed. to 3.5 to Pathfinder. The same wording was even used in both the Star Wars RPG and the Revised Star Wars RPG from Wizards of the Coast. </p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">3E PHB, pg. 83, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting wrote:</div><blockquote>In addition to the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you get a second attack with the off-hand weapon, <b><i>albeit</i></b> at a -5 penalty.</blockquote><div class="messageboard-quotee">3.5E PHB, pg. 96, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting wrote:</div><blockquote>In addition to the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you get a second attack with it, <b><i>albeit</i></b> at a -5 penalty.</blockquote><div class="messageboard-quotee">Star Wars RPG, pg. 94, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting wrote:</div><blockquote>In addition to the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you get a second attack with the off-hand weapon, <b><i>albeit</i></b> at a -5 penalty.</blockquote><div class="messageboard-quotee">Star Wars RPG Revised Core Rulebook, pg. 111, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting wrote:</div><blockquote>In addition to the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you get a second attack with the off-hand weapon, <b><i>albeit</i></b> at a -5 penalty.</blockquote><div class="messageboard-quotee">PFRPG CRB, pg. 128, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting wrote:</div><blockquote>In addition to the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you get a second attack with it, <b><i>albeit</i></b> at a -5 penalty.</blockquote><p>If you'll only accept an answer from one of the authors/developers who wrote the rule, you should head over to the Wizards of the Coast website and see if you can get a hold of Monte Cook, 'cause that rule wasn't written by Paizo
<p>The meaning of the rule, including the use of the word 'albeit' is quite clear. When you take the feat Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, you gain a second attack with the off-hand weapon, but you make that attack with a -5 penalty. Greater Two-Weapon Fighting then gives you a third attack at a -10 penalty. These penalties are NOT TWF penalties. TWF penalties are specifically called out (and are the ONLY TWF penalties in the game) in table 8-7: Two-Weapon Fighting Penalties, on pg. 202 of the PFRPG CRB. If you want an official answer, just look at the table heading. By RAW, the ONLY penalties for Two-Weapon Fighting are explicitly listed on that table.</p>
<p>Finally, Hero Lab is a piece of character creation/management software developed by Lone Wolf Development in conjunction with several RPG publishers, including WotC and Paizo. If you build a fighter with ITWF and taking one instance of Precision, the attacks are listed at a -2 penalty for fighting with two weapons and having the TWF feats; no penalty on the second off-hand attack other than the -2 Two-Weapon Fighting penalty. I did a quick build with 12 levels and Strength and Dex of 18. The attack progression is +14/+14/+9 with the main hand and +14/+14 with the off-hand.</p>
<p>That is the closest thing you will ever get to an official answer. Pretty much everyone that's responded here seems to agree that's how it's supposed to work, and they don't see anything confusing about the rule. As others have pointed out, this is far from the first time someone has asked a question looking for some kind of affirmation that their (seeming) refusal to grasp an obviously simple rule's meaning is evidence the rule needs to be rewritten. As I said, if you want the author/developer who wrote the rule to weigh in, you're in the wrong place. Go look up Monte Cook. Jonathan Tweet, and Skip Williams; they're the ones who wrote the rule.</p>I've never understood the point of asking a question, qualifying it with what essentially amounts to, "I don't care what you say, you can't prove it to me," and then continuing to argue the point or ask for an answer. Particularly for no benefit. If you're not going to accept an answer from anyone short of Sean K. Reynolds or Jason Buhlman, why bother coming to the Rules Forum to ask in the first place? To add to the absurdity, you claim no one can even know the answer short of the author,...darth_gator2018-02-10T04:17:29ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Improved Two-Weapon Fighting: Wording/Application ClarificationSeventhsunhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uv2t?Improved-TwoWeapon-Fighting#392018-02-10T03:59:51Z2018-02-10T03:59:51Z<p>Alright Pathfinder peoples, courtesy of Graystone, we have the Xill Matriarch from the Occult Bestiary page 60.</p>
<p>The Xill Matriarch has Improved Two-Weapon Fighting. It doesn't have Greater Two-Weapon Fighting.</p>
<p>It has this stat block. Melee: mwk short sword +19/+14/+9 (1d6+5/19–20), mwk short sword +19/+14 (1d6+5/19–20), claw +18 (1d4+5 plus grab), bite +13 (1d3+2 plus paralysis </p>
<p>It also has the Extraordinary Ability: Matriarch Weapon Mastery (Ex)
<br />
A xill matriarch never takes penalties on attack rolls when fighting with multiple weapons, adds her full Strength modifier on damage
<br />
rolls with off-hand attacks, and treats her claws as
<br />
primary attacks even when also wielding weapons. She is
<br />
considered to have the Two-Weapon Fighting and Double
<br />
Slice feats for the purpose of fulfilling prerequisites.</p>
<p>We see that the Xill takes no penalty on their attacks from Two-Weapon Fighting, but the off-hand is clearly listed in the stat block because it doesn't have a third attack. It is combined with its own progression, not with the primary attack. And it still reduces by -5 despite the Xill taking no penalties from Two-Weapon Fighting. </p>
<p>My conclusion at this point is that -5 to the attack granted by ITWF is not a game mechanic penalty. It's an iterative attack at a -5 disadvantage. </p>
<p>Well done. </p>
<p>I'm now going to pour through the bestiary and look for another monster that might refute this.</p>Alright Pathfinder peoples, courtesy of Graystone, we have the Xill Matriarch from the Occult Bestiary page 60.
The Xill Matriarch has Improved Two-Weapon Fighting. It doesn't have Greater Two-Weapon Fighting.
It has this stat block. Melee: mwk short sword +19/+14/+9 (1d6+5/19–20), mwk short sword +19/+14 (1d6+5/19–20), claw +18 (1d4+5 plus grab), bite +13 (1d3+2 plus paralysis
It also has the Extraordinary Ability: Matriarch Weapon Mastery (Ex)
A xill matriarch never takes penalties on...Seventhsun2018-02-10T03:59:51ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Improved Two-Weapon Fighting: Wording/Application ClarificationSeventhsunhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uv2t?Improved-TwoWeapon-Fighting#382018-02-10T03:35:21Z2018-02-10T03:35:21Z<p>Sunnovagun.</p>
<p>Graystone, you're the first person with truly objective help. I tip my hat to you.</p>
<p>Now I have to spend the rest of the night trying to disprove it, just to be certain.</p>Sunnovagun.
Graystone, you're the first person with truly objective help. I tip my hat to you.
Now I have to spend the rest of the night trying to disprove it, just to be certain.Seventhsun2018-02-10T03:35:21ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Improved Two-Weapon Fighting: Wording/Application Clarificationgraystonehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uv2t?Improved-TwoWeapon-Fighting#372018-02-10T03:19:56Z2018-02-10T03:19:56Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Seventhsun wrote:</div><blockquote>Yes... perhaps there is a module, magazine article, another game (someone mentioned Hero Lab, but I've yet to research what this is) or any other officially stamped Paizo product where an NPC has the two-weapon fighting tree and the mythic precision ability.</blockquote><p>The xill matriarch should answer that for you. It shows that the extra attacks gained by the two weapons feats aren't "penalties from two-weapon fighting".
<p>The xill matriarch never takes penalties on attack rolls when fighting with multiple weapons [ie two weapon fighting] but her offhand attacks in two weapon fighting are +19/+14, showing the -5 for the second offhand attacks aren't "penalties from two-weapon fighting".</p>Seventhsun wrote:Yes... perhaps there is a module, magazine article, another game (someone mentioned Hero Lab, but I've yet to research what this is) or any other officially stamped Paizo product where an NPC has the two-weapon fighting tree and the mythic precision ability.
The xill matriarch should answer that for you. It shows that the extra attacks gained by the two weapons feats aren't "penalties from two-weapon fighting". The xill matriarch never takes penalties on attack rolls when...graystone2018-02-10T03:19:56ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Improved Two-Weapon Fighting: Wording/Application ClarificationSeventhsunhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uv2t?Improved-TwoWeapon-Fighting#362018-02-10T03:07:51Z2018-02-10T03:07:51Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Chess Pwn wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">N N 959 wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Seventhsun wrote:</div><blockquote> So then there is no official reference anywhere? No one has a product stat block or a FAQ? </blockquote><p>Reference to what exactly, that off hand attacks are not granted by high BAB? Are you asking for a reference for something that doesn't exist?
<p>I don't know what a "product stat block" would be in this case.</blockquote>I think his quest is to have the mythic things that removes TWF penalties to remove the -5 for ITWF. So he's wanting a stat block for an enemy that has mythic and ITWF to see if it still has the -5 or not. </blockquote><p>Yes... perhaps there is a module, magazine article, another game (someone mentioned Hero Lab, but I've yet to research what this is) or any other officially stamped Paizo product where an NPC has the two-weapon fighting tree and the mythic precision ability. Any which way it's represented, it would a specific and final answer, not by players.
<p>Also, I have no bias in the discussion. I have no PCs with either of these abilities/feats. This is a discussion that came up in my playgroup and I'm interested in finding an answer because I tend to trust empirical data. I gain nothing and lose nothing from a clarified answer other than certainty and I've changed my mind three times through the course of these posts. </p>
<p>It really feels like someone else, somewhere in the discussion, inserted a bias for me. Maybe it was easier to feel right that way?</p>
<p>I don't agree with many of the points that have been made, that is true. There have been argumentative tactics used thus far ranging from the imprecise use of absolutes, to quasi-putdowns, and on to logical fallacies (several instances of "affirming the consequent"). BUT, that doesn't mean the answers given by the many helpful people aren't correct. You can be right and not know why. </p>
<p>I'll keep looking around the Pathfinder world for a answer. If I find it, I'll happily post it here, either way.</p>Chess Pwn wrote:N N 959 wrote: Seventhsun wrote: So then there is no official reference anywhere? No one has a product stat block or a FAQ?
Reference to what exactly, that off hand attacks are not granted by high BAB? Are you asking for a reference for something that doesn't exist? I don't know what a "product stat block" would be in this case.I think his quest is to have the mythic things that removes TWF penalties to remove the -5 for ITWF. So he's wanting a stat block for an enemy that...Seventhsun2018-02-10T03:07:51ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Improved Two-Weapon Fighting: Wording/Application ClarificationDavor (alias of Manijin)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uv2t?Improved-TwoWeapon-Fighting#352018-02-10T02:59:01Z2018-02-10T02:56:08Z<p>The ability removes the penalty from two-weapon fighting. The penalty from the feat Improved Two-Weapon Fighting and Greater Two-Weapon Fighting is a penalty from the feat, not from the action of two-weapon fighting.</p>
<p>As for improved two-weapon fighting's "albeit," it just means "at the cost of", or some other similar thing. You guys are WAY overthinking this. The clearest, most reasonable interpretation of the interaction of these rules (the two-weapon fighting chain and Precision) is that, since it increases the bonuses of non-highest BAB attacks, but doesn't remove two-weapon fighting penalties, the attack bonus for a 15th level, full BAB character with improved two-weapon fighting would look like:</p>
<p>+13/+13/+8/+8/+3/+3</p>
<p>With Precision, it becomes:</p>
<p>+13/+13/+13/+13/+8/+8</p>
<p>Without the two-weapon fighting penalty clause in the ability description, and taking the ability twice, you could reasonably assume that your round of attacks became:</p>
<p>+13/+13/+15/+15/+13/+13</p>
<p>Which would be nonsensical.</p>The ability removes the penalty from two-weapon fighting. The penalty from the feat Improved Two-Weapon Fighting and Greater Two-Weapon Fighting is a penalty from the feat, not from the action of two-weapon fighting.
As for improved two-weapon fighting's "albeit," it just means "at the cost of", or some other similar thing. You guys are WAY overthinking this. The clearest, most reasonable interpretation of the interaction of these rules (the two-weapon fighting chain and Precision) is that,...Davor (alias of Manijin)2018-02-10T02:56:08ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Improved Two-Weapon Fighting: Wording/Application ClarificationN N 959https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uv2t?Improved-TwoWeapon-Fighting#342018-02-10T02:14:26Z2018-02-10T02:14:26Z<p>Fought a Xill in PFS scenario. NOT FUN. Especially while fighting a bunch of Daemons.</p>Fought a Xill in PFS scenario. NOT FUN. Especially while fighting a bunch of Daemons.N N 9592018-02-10T02:14:26ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Improved Two-Weapon Fighting: Wording/Application Clarificationgraystonehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uv2t?Improved-TwoWeapon-Fighting#332018-02-10T01:22:38Z2018-02-10T01:22:38Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Chess Pwn wrote:</div><blockquote>I think his quest is to have the mythic things that removes TWF penalties to remove the -5 for ITWF. So he's wanting a stat block for an enemy that has mythic and ITWF to see if it still has the -5 or not. </blockquote><p>Oh, if that's the case, I can do that: Well ALMOST that, not mythic but something that removes your penalties.
<p><a href="http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/outsiders/xill/xill-matriarch/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">xill matriarch</a></p>
<p>Matriarch Weapon Mastery: never takes penalties on attack rolls when fighting with multiple weapons.</p>
<p>Melee mwk short sword +19/+14/+9 (1d6+5/19–20), mwk short sword +19/+14 (1d6+5/19–20), claw +18 (1d4+5 plus grab), bite +13 (1d3+2 plus paralysis)
<br />
Ranged mwk composite longbow +18/+13/+8 (1d8+5/×3), mwk composite longbow +18/+13 (1d8+5/×3)</p>Chess Pwn wrote:I think his quest is to have the mythic things that removes TWF penalties to remove the -5 for ITWF. So he's wanting a stat block for an enemy that has mythic and ITWF to see if it still has the -5 or not.
Oh, if that's the case, I can do that: Well ALMOST that, not mythic but something that removes your penalties. xill matriarch
Matriarch Weapon Mastery: never takes penalties on attack rolls when fighting with multiple weapons.
Melee mwk short sword +19/+14/+9...graystone2018-02-10T01:22:38ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Improved Two-Weapon Fighting: Wording/Application Clarificationnicholas storm (alias of Jon Otaguro 428)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uv2t?Improved-TwoWeapon-Fighting#312018-02-10T00:39:59Z2018-02-10T00:39:59Z<p>Very few people care about mythic. So I agree with trinity that you should do whatever you want.</p>Very few people care about mythic. So I agree with trinity that you should do whatever you want.nicholas storm (alias of Jon Otaguro 428)2018-02-10T00:39:59ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Improved Two-Weapon Fighting: Wording/Application ClarificationChess Pwnhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uv2t?Improved-TwoWeapon-Fighting#302018-02-09T23:41:01Z2018-02-09T23:41:01Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">N N 959 wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Seventhsun wrote:</div><blockquote> So then there is no official reference anywhere? No one has a product stat block or a FAQ? </blockquote><p>Reference to what exactly, that off hand attacks are not granted by high BAB? Are you asking for a reference for something that doesn't exist?
<p>I don't know what a "product stat block" would be in this case.</blockquote><p>I think his quest is to have the mythic things that removes TWF penalties to remove the -5 for ITWF. So he's wanting a stat block for an enemy that has mythic and ITWF to see if it still has the -5 or not.N N 959 wrote:Seventhsun wrote: So then there is no official reference anywhere? No one has a product stat block or a FAQ?
Reference to what exactly, that off hand attacks are not granted by high BAB? Are you asking for a reference for something that doesn't exist? I don't know what a "product stat block" would be in this case.I think his quest is to have the mythic things that removes TWF penalties to remove the -5 for ITWF. So he's wanting a stat block for an enemy that has mythic and ITWF...Chess Pwn2018-02-09T23:41:01ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Improved Two-Weapon Fighting: Wording/Application ClarificationN N 959https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uv2t?Improved-TwoWeapon-Fighting#292018-02-10T01:13:26Z2018-02-09T23:25:25Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Seventhsun wrote:</div><blockquote> So then there is no official reference anywhere? No one has a product stat block or a FAQ? </blockquote><p>Reference to what exactly, that off hand attacks are not granted by high BAB? Are you asking for a reference for something that doesn't exist?
<p>I don't know what a "product stat block" would be in this case.</p>Seventhsun wrote:So then there is no official reference anywhere? No one has a product stat block or a FAQ?
Reference to what exactly, that off hand attacks are not granted by high BAB? Are you asking for a reference for something that doesn't exist? I don't know what a "product stat block" would be in this case.N N 9592018-02-09T23:25:25ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Improved Two-Weapon Fighting: Wording/Application ClarificationSeventhsunhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uv2t?Improved-TwoWeapon-Fighting#272018-02-09T22:50:31Z2018-02-09T22:50:31Z<p>Thanks again amigo. Very informative, deeply insightful, etc... </p>
<p>So then there is no official reference anywhere? No one has a product stat block or a FAQ?</p>Thanks again amigo. Very informative, deeply insightful, etc...
So then there is no official reference anywhere? No one has a product stat block or a FAQ?Seventhsun2018-02-09T22:50:31ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Improved Two-Weapon Fighting: Wording/Application ClarificationN N 959https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uv2t?Improved-TwoWeapon-Fighting#262018-02-09T18:21:18Z2018-02-09T18:21:18Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Seventhsun wrote:</div><blockquote>The ability doesn't say penalties from "improved two-weapon fighting". We have to choose to assume that the sentence refers to the entire feat tree and not to the two-weapon fighting penalty table.</blockquote><p>I don't see that. There is a determinative clause in the ability that I've seen others reference:
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Precision wrote:</div><blockquote> your attack bonus on the additional attacks you gain by having a high base attack bonus is 5 higher</blockquote><p>The additional attack from ITWF is not an attack you gain from a high BAB. As someone pointed out in either this thread or the other, it is an attack you can acquire <i>from a feat</i> if you meet the prerequisites. There are three prerequisites: TWF (feat), Dex of 17, and a BAB of +6. Increasing one's BAB does not give any additional off hand attacks.
<p>As written, Precision doesn't work with any attacks grated from the TWF feat chain. </p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Quote:</div><blockquote>That's why I was hoping that it'd be easier to just establish that ITWF was an actual penalty, or just a lower BAB. Then Precision takes care of itself. </blockquote><p>That wouldn't solve the problem. Your additional off hand attacks are coming from a feat, not your increasing BAB, regardless of how you interpret ITWF or GTWF.
<p>In order for the rules to work the way you want, ITWF and GTF, would have to have been simply reducers on attacks already granted. For example, if the combat rules for TWF rules said you get an off-hand attack for every primary attack then Precision might apply.</p>Seventhsun wrote:The ability doesn't say penalties from "improved two-weapon fighting". We have to choose to assume that the sentence refers to the entire feat tree and not to the two-weapon fighting penalty table.
I don't see that. There is a determinative clause in the ability that I've seen others reference: Precision wrote:your attack bonus on the additional attacks you gain by having a high base attack bonus is 5 higher
The additional attack from ITWF is not an attack you gain from a...N N 9592018-02-09T18:21:18ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Improved Two-Weapon Fighting: Wording/Application ClarificationSeventhsunhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uv2t?Improved-TwoWeapon-Fighting#252018-02-09T01:43:45Z2018-02-09T01:38:54Z<p>And again, we have a bit of room for language interpretation...</p>
<p>The ability doesn't say penalties from "improved two-weapon fighting". We have to choose to assume that the sentence refers to the entire feat tree and not to the two-weapon fighting penalty table. ITWF can't fall under situational because it's a constant adjustment to the roll.</p>
<p>That's why I was hoping that it'd be easier to just establish that ITWF was an actual penalty, or just a lower BAB. Then Precision takes care of itself.</p>And again, we have a bit of room for language interpretation...
The ability doesn't say penalties from "improved two-weapon fighting". We have to choose to assume that the sentence refers to the entire feat tree and not to the two-weapon fighting penalty table. ITWF can't fall under situational because it's a constant adjustment to the roll.
That's why I was hoping that it'd be easier to just establish that ITWF was an actual penalty, or just a lower BAB. Then Precision takes care of itself.Seventhsun2018-02-09T01:38:54ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Improved Two-Weapon Fighting: Wording/Application ClarificationJoeElfhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uv2t?Improved-TwoWeapon-Fighting#242018-02-09T01:20:00Z2018-02-09T01:16:08Z<p>The 3rd tier Mythic Champion ability in question:
<br />
Precision (Ex): Your deadly attacks are far more likely to hit their target than those of others. Whenever you make a full attack, your attack bonus on the additional attacks you gain by having a high base attack bonus is 5 higher. This ability can't give any of these attacks a higher attack bonus than your base attack bonus. For example, a 12th-level fighter normally has a base attack bonus of +12/+7/+2; with this ability, his base attack bonus is +12/+12/+7. This ability doesn't reduce the penalties from two-weapon fighting or other situational penalties on attack rolls (such as Combat Expertise, Power Attack, fighting defensively, or harmful conditions). You can select this ability more than once. Each time you select it, the attack bonus on additional attacks increases by another 5.</p>
<p>Question 1: If you take Precision as a 3rd tier Mythic Champion and a 12th level fighter, do you get attacks like so:</p>
<p>A: +12/+12/+7 main and +12/+7/+2 offhand (it says the TWF penalty isn't reduced per the feat)
<br />
OR
<br />
B: +12/+12/+7 main and +12/+12/+7 offhand (the situational TWF penalty isn't reduced per the feat, but that's just the -2/-2 that needs to be additionally applied; the -5 gets dropped for each hand, as that's the iterative penalty)</p>
<p>The math of the attacks is easier to keep track of if the answer is B. More attacks use the same bonus, and it's more mythic.</p>
<p>But you are getting quite the increase in accuracy for just 1 ability.</p>
<p>Question 2: If Question 1 has answer A, can you take Precision a 2nd time as a 4th tier Mythic Champion, to apply that to the offhand to end up with the numbers of answer B now?</p>The 3rd tier Mythic Champion ability in question:
Precision (Ex): Your deadly attacks are far more likely to hit their target than those of others. Whenever you make a full attack, your attack bonus on the additional attacks you gain by having a high base attack bonus is 5 higher. This ability can't give any of these attacks a higher attack bonus than your base attack bonus. For example, a 12th-level fighter normally has a base attack bonus of +12/+7/+2; with this ability, his base attack...JoeElf2018-02-09T01:16:08ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Improved Two-Weapon Fighting: Wording/Application ClarificationSeventhsunhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uv2t?Improved-TwoWeapon-Fighting#232018-02-09T00:17:05Z2018-02-09T00:17:05Z<p>That's really great! Thank you for taking the time to respond.</p>
<p>The level of personal investment is bordering on incredulous.</p>That's really great! Thank you for taking the time to respond.
The level of personal investment is bordering on incredulous.Seventhsun2018-02-09T00:17:05ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Improved Two-Weapon Fighting: Wording/Application ClarificationN N 959https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uv2t?Improved-TwoWeapon-Fighting#222018-02-09T02:51:40Z2018-02-08T19:34:22Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Seventhsun wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
Improved Two-Weapon Fighting indicates that the PC receives a second attack with their off-hand at a -5 penalty, however the feat is only available at base-attack-bonus +6. Then the wording states that the attack comes "albeit at a -5 penalty". The nature of the problem is the dichotomy that the prerequisite and the wording creates. "Albeit" means "in spite of the fact...", and therefore pertains to another condition. </blockquote><p>"Albiet" is used because the first additional attack granted by TWF is at your Full BAB (less TWF penalties). So the ITWF is telling you that you're getting another additional attack, but, this one is at -5. This is essentially what Dave Justus is telling you. However, I would submit that in this context, "albeit" might be better translated as "unfortunately."
<p><i>You get another attack, unfortunately, this one takes an additional -5 penalty.</i></p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Quote:</div><blockquote>What is the condition? Is it that the attack is at a -5 because the condition is that it comes with the second base attack? </blockquote><p>The "condition" is that you're taking -5, even though you're getting another off hand attack. So although ITWF is giving you another off hand attacks, this additional one isn't as good as the first off hand attack.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Quote:</div><blockquote>Or is it a third added attack, attached to the first base attack, and the condition is actually self-referencing the penalty?</blockquote><p>No. It is not "self-referencing" because there is no attack progression table for off hand attacks. Though it is not coincidence TWF attacks penalties match the BAB progression, you only get the additional attacks by taking the feats.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Quote:</div><blockquote>My very first question was to seek out what the condition was that satisfied the sentence.</blockquote><p>Answered.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Quote:</div><blockquote>The use of the word "albeit" in the feat may be in reference to the intention or implication of base attack bonus and prerequisite. Or it may be verbosity.</blockquote><p>It's intended to provide an understanding of what is intended: That your additional off hand attack is not as good as your first off hand attack. Since, as I mentioned, there is no TWF iterative attack table or rule, it is not clear <i>a priori</i> that additional off hand attacks would be penalized.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Quote:</div><blockquote> Absolutely none of us can know what was the intended condition.</blockquote><p>This is an overstatement and while we may technically not "know" the intention without speaking to the author, that doesn't mean the intention isn't crystal clear.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Quote:</div><blockquote>I was hoping that one of you fine folks had seen this discussion in another format where an Admin had officially commented, and this being my first foray on the board, I'd naively hoped Admins perused the Rules Questions</blockquote><p>The designers and "Admins" don't normally get involved unless there is legitimate ambiguity concerning a rule and its interaction with some other rules...and...there is perceived benefit in clearing up that confusion.
<p>In this case, I've never heard of anyone trying to wrestle out some obscure intention of the TWF mechanic as you're proposing. You have to understand 7sun, that for experienced readers/posters of the rules forums, your approach on this subject feels very familiar. You have some way you want the rules to work and you're not finding consensus with the other players/GM. You're asking for an official response on something that there is no general confusion about and then insisting we can't "know" the answer without an official response, ergo, your position is as valid as any others. A familiar strategy.</p>
<p>In the OP you said this:</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Quote:</div><blockquote> The nature of the problem is the dichotomy that the prerequisite and the wording creates.</blockquote><p>I don't see any dichotomy created by the prerequisite and the wording. The +6 requirement is obviously intended to create or rather maintain the style/gameplay created by normal TWF at level 1. In essence, the original designers of 3.5 must have thought it made sense that as your BAB Iterative attacks increased, you can improve you TWF to get even more additional attacks.
<p>To put it more succinctly, the designers wanted to preserve the 1 to 1 ratio of Primary and Off Hand attacks through the TWF feat chain.</p>
<p>Why do it this way? That's a question of art, not logic and what's more, Paizo didn't write those rules, so they probably can't even tell us why even if they were so inclined. So based on your criteria, it is unlikely that anyone at Paizo "knows" what was intended by any of the rules they took from 3.5, including ITWF.</p>Seventhsun wrote:Improved Two-Weapon Fighting indicates that the PC receives a second attack with their off-hand at a -5 penalty, however the feat is only available at base-attack-bonus +6. Then the wording states that the attack comes "albeit at a -5 penalty". The nature of the problem is the dichotomy that the prerequisite and the wording creates. "Albeit" means "in spite of the fact...", and therefore pertains to another condition.
"Albiet" is used because the first additional attack...N N 9592018-02-08T19:34:22ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Improved Two-Weapon Fighting: Wording/Application ClarificationPossibleCabbagehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uv2t?Improved-TwoWeapon-Fighting#212018-02-10T08:41:28Z2018-02-07T23:35:49Z<p>Basically the way the rules forum works is as a collective knowledge base that helps people understand how a rule should be applied. Only in cases where a rules issue is particularly thorny will an official response happen in a FAQ and from time to time those rulings will abrogate the published text.</p>
<p>Absent a FAQ (which you will very rarely receive), if people quoting rules text is insufficient, generally the best thing to do is to consider what interpretation of a rule generates the most desirable results by whatever standard of desirability is agreed upon by the players. We can tell you about RAW but in actual play RAI is a better standard.</p>
<p>I would offer that any reading of "improved two-weapon fighting" other than "you get to make a second attack with your offhand weapon, but at a penalty of 5 more than your first attack with an offhand weapon" would run the risk of making two-weapon fighting vastly stronger than other fighting styles. So that is easily the most desirable interpretation.</p>Basically the way the rules forum works is as a collective knowledge base that helps people understand how a rule should be applied. Only in cases where a rules issue is particularly thorny will an official response happen in a FAQ and from time to time those rulings will abrogate the published text.
Absent a FAQ (which you will very rarely receive), if people quoting rules text is insufficient, generally the best thing to do is to consider what interpretation of a rule generates the most...PossibleCabbage2018-02-07T23:35:49ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Improved Two-Weapon Fighting: Wording/Application ClarificationSeventhsunhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uv2t?Improved-TwoWeapon-Fighting#202018-02-07T23:25:04Z2018-02-07T23:25:04Z<p>I have to say thanks to all of you. It's amazing that there is such an interested and active fan base on these boards.</p>
<p>I'd like to point out, and respectfully because I think it's so amazing, that in my very first post I acknowledged that there were two ways to view the text. My very first question was to seek out what the condition was that satisfied the sentence. </p>
<p>Absolutely none of us can know what was the intended condition. We can stamp our foot with certainty and say that the other persons' certainty is mistaken, but then our own opinion is still an assumption. </p>
<p>The use of the word "albeit" in the feat may be in reference to the intention or implication of base attack bonus and prerequisite. Or it may be verbosity.</p>
<p>The use of the word "penalty" might be an editor's device to keep an explanation short, cutting out long BAB discussions, unaware that it would later cause a problem. Or it may be a very specific game mechanic.</p>
<p>I was hoping that one of you fine folks had seen this discussion in another format where an Admin had officially commented, and this being my first foray on the board, I'd naively hoped Admins perused the Rules Questions.</p>
<p>But because we cannot answer it without official help, the only action that will follow here is a rehashing of the same exact debate.</p>
<p>Thanks again.</p>I have to say thanks to all of you. It's amazing that there is such an interested and active fan base on these boards.
I'd like to point out, and respectfully because I think it's so amazing, that in my very first post I acknowledged that there were two ways to view the text. My very first question was to seek out what the condition was that satisfied the sentence.
Absolutely none of us can know what was the intended condition. We can stamp our foot with certainty and say that the other...Seventhsun2018-02-07T23:25:04ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Improved Two-Weapon Fighting: Wording/Application ClarificationDave Justushttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uv2t?Improved-TwoWeapon-Fighting#192018-02-10T03:25:53Z2018-02-07T22:15:26Z<p>Albeit's best definition is usually 'although' but 'in spite of the stated fact' or 'despite the stated thing' are also usual. The 'stated fact' would be what was just said, what is said next would be something you might not expect from the first 'fact'</p>
<p>For example: He was old, albeit strong. The stated fact is he was old, from that you might expect him to be weak, but despite the stated fact that he was old, he is strong. </p>
<p>So: you get a second attack with [your off hand weapon], albeit at a –5 penalty. </p>
<p>The 'stated fact' is that you get a second attack with this weapon, what you might not expect is that you have to take a -5 penalty on this attack (compared to the first attack with that weapon.) </p>
<p>It is really pretty plain, and there isn't any other way to read it. While their is BAB bonus prerequisite for that feat, other than needing to satisfy it it has nothing to do with what the feat grants (although obviously their was a conscious choice to have the penalty for this match the penalty for iterative attacks).</p>
<p>So I guess in conclusion, the wording of the feat is clear, albeit confusing to you.</p>Albeit's best definition is usually 'although' but 'in spite of the stated fact' or 'despite the stated thing' are also usual. The 'stated fact' would be what was just said, what is said next would be something you might not expect from the first 'fact'
For example: He was old, albeit strong. The stated fact is he was old, from that you might expect him to be weak, but despite the stated fact that he was old, he is strong.
So: you get a second attack with [your off hand weapon], albeit at a...Dave Justus2018-02-07T22:15:26ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Improved Two-Weapon Fighting: Wording/Application ClarificationGisherhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uv2t?Improved-TwoWeapon-Fighting#182018-02-07T19:33:16Z2018-02-07T19:33:16Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">SheepishEidolon wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Chemlak wrote:</div><blockquote>Also, the rules <i>never</i> refer to so-called “iterative attacks” (seriously, search your rulebooks), as that term doesn’t exist. They are extra attacks gained from high BAB.</blockquote><p>'Never' is a strong word and pretty much begs to be challenged. Unchained uses 'iterative attacks' for a <a href="http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/unchained/gameplay/replacingIterativeAttacks.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">whole section</a>. Some more examples can be found in the <a href="http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/bestiary/creatureTypes.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Bestiary</a> and in the <a href="http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/technologyGuide/weapons.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Technology Guide</a>.
<p>So it stands to reason that some writers adopted the community (?) term. Could hardly find the word 'iterative' in the CRB, though - took the PDF reader till page 406 ('ending the campaign') for the first hit. </blockquote><p>And a number of FAQs use the term, including <a href="http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9onf" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">this one</a> which explains the use of the word (which matches Chemlak's description).
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Quote:</div><blockquote>an "iterative attack" is an informal term meaning "extra attacks you get from having a high BAB"</blockquote><p>I wouldn't consider the extra attacks from ITWF and GTWF to be iteratives because you don't get them from merely having a high BAB. You have to actually take feats to get them. That said, the successive -5 penalties is clearly meant to mimic that of iteratives.SheepishEidolon wrote:Chemlak wrote:Also, the rules never refer to so-called “iterative attacks” (seriously, search your rulebooks), as that term doesn’t exist. They are extra attacks gained from high BAB.
'Never' is a strong word and pretty much begs to be challenged. Unchained uses 'iterative attacks' for a whole section. Some more examples can be found in the Bestiary and in the Technology Guide. So it stands to reason that some writers adopted the community (?) term. Could hardly find...Gisher2018-02-07T19:33:16ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Improved Two-Weapon Fighting: Wording/Application ClarificationSheepishEidolonhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uv2t?Improved-TwoWeapon-Fighting#172018-02-07T18:06:42Z2018-02-07T18:06:42Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Chemlak wrote:</div><blockquote>Also, the rules <i>never</i> refer to so-called “iterative attacks” (seriously, search your rulebooks), as that term doesn’t exist. They are extra attacks gained from high BAB.</blockquote><p>'Never' is a strong word and pretty much begs to be challenged. Unchained uses 'iterative attacks' for a <a href="http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/unchained/gameplay/replacingIterativeAttacks.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">whole section</a>. Some more examples can be found in the <a href="http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/bestiary/creatureTypes.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Bestiary</a> and in the <a href="http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/technologyGuide/weapons.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Technology Guide</a>.
<p>So it stands to reason that some writers adopted the community (?) term. Could hardly find the word 'iterative' in the CRB, though - took the PDF reader till page 406 ('ending the campaign') for the first hit.</p>Chemlak wrote:Also, the rules never refer to so-called “iterative attacks” (seriously, search your rulebooks), as that term doesn’t exist. They are extra attacks gained from high BAB.
'Never' is a strong word and pretty much begs to be challenged. Unchained uses 'iterative attacks' for a whole section. Some more examples can be found in the Bestiary and in the Technology Guide. So it stands to reason that some writers adopted the community (?) term. Could hardly find the word 'iterative' in...SheepishEidolon2018-02-07T18:06:42ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Improved Two-Weapon Fighting: Wording/Application ClarificationChemlakhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uv2t?Improved-TwoWeapon-Fighting#162018-02-07T15:58:24Z2018-02-07T15:57:55Z<p>Forum ate my edit.</p>
<p>So to paraphrase in a new post: Matthew’s probably right; precision probably works with ITWF and GTWF “because Mythic” (to quote SRM regarding Undetectable); and as a guy who GMs a level 20+ tier 6 game, precision is the <i>least</i> of the GM’s worries when it comes to Mythic.</p>Forum ate my edit.
So to paraphrase in a new post: Matthew’s probably right; precision probably works with ITWF and GTWF “because Mythic” (to quote SRM regarding Undetectable); and as a guy who GMs a level 20+ tier 6 game, precision is the least of the GM’s worries when it comes to Mythic.Chemlak2018-02-07T15:57:55Z