Improved Two-Weapon Fighting: Wording / Application Clarification


Rules Questions


We're an experienced playgroup who is looking for a clarification that will likely only be provided by a developer or admin. I'd like to thank anyone who might have a link to any specific answer provided by admins in the past. Aside from that, I appreciate the opinions of fellow gamers, but I'm looking for an official answer.

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.

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?

Or is it a third added attack, attached to the first base attack, and the condition is actually self-referencing the penalty?

Please note that I'm not asking what the penalty is (i.e. what kind of penalty it is), but what is the condition to which the rule implies.

Thank you for your time.


Think of it as an iterative attack with the off-hand weapon. When a character reaches +6 BAB, they gain an iterative attack. First swing at full attack bonus, second swing at -5 (+6/+1 [with mods]).

Two-weapon fighting gives you an additional attack with your off-hand weapon. Improved two-weapon fighting gives you the equivalent of an iterative off-hand weapon (thus the -5).

It's best not to get too bogged down in the choice of wording in the rules; that way lies madness.

A full attack from a PC with ITWF should look like:
+6 (mods)/+1 (mods) [Main hand]...+6 (mods)/+1 (mods)[Off-hand]

I hope this helps. I'm a bit drunk, so apologies if I completely misunderstood the question.


Thank you for your reply, but the reason the wording is so important in this case is that your response is one of two very precise ways to look at the feat. 1). It's an iterative attack with the off-hand, or 2). It's an extra attack gained which simply comes at a -5 penalty. In the description of the feat either the word "albeit" or the word "penalty" were used incorrectly.

That's why I fear the question can only be answered in an official capacity.


Good luck in your quest for an official response. It’s almost certainly not going to happen, but the probability isn’t quite zero.

As DrunkRlyeh suggested, you are working the language really hard here. ‘Albeit’ does mean ‘although’ which does have ‘in spite of the fact that’ as a definition, but parsing things that hard is likely to just create confusion. You are better off just using the more casual forms ‘although’, ‘however’, or ‘but’.

So the line ‘In addition to the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you get a second attack with it, albeit at a –5 penalty’ means ‘In addition to the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you get a second attack with it, but at a –5 penalty.’ It’s telling you that, unlike the first off-hand attack, the one granted by this feat has an extra –5 penalty.


Seventhsun wrote:

Thank you for your reply, but the reason the wording is so important in this case is that your response is one of two very precise ways to look at the feat. 1). It's an iterative attack with the off-hand, or 2). It's an extra attack gained which simply comes at a -5 penalty. In the description of the feat either the word "albeit" or the word "penalty" were used incorrectly.

That's why I fear the question can only be answered in an official capacity.

It isn’t an iterative attack. It is an extra attack that has a -5 penalty.


Thank you gentlemen. You've now highlighted the very nature of the problem.

There are two very precise interpretations of this feat, either of which could be correct, both answers are based on how you chose to read the words written in the text. Both of your interpretations are opinion, and in both cases, as you express your opinions you suggest that the language of the text is less important than your explanation.

To Gisher I point out that however you breakdown the word "albeit" if it is a -5 penalty, there is no conditional modifier needed in the sentence. "You get another off-hand attack at a -5 penalty." But, although, however, are only needed if there is another condition. To DrunkInRlyeh I point out that if it is an iterative attack then it wouldn't be a "penalty". It would be another attack at your 2nd base attack bonus.

I very much appreciate that you took the time to comment, but if we spin back to my very first post you'll notice why I paid so close an attention to the language.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I’m not sure I understand why it matters if it’s technically an iterative or not.


A (first) iterative attack is an attack at a -5 penalty. Whether it's technically iterative or not makes no difference.

There are plenty of sample stat blocks of characters with Improved Two-weapon Fighting if you want to know what their total attack bonuses are.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

And "albeit" doesn't really mean anything here. It's just a fancy way of saying "although" or "but".


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Seventhsun wrote:

Thank you for your reply, but the reason the wording is so important in this case is that your response is one of two very precise ways to look at the feat. 1). It's an iterative attack with the off-hand, or 2). It's an extra attack gained which simply comes at a -5 penalty. In the description of the feat either the word "albeit" or the word "penalty" were used incorrectly.

That's why I fear the question can only be answered in an official capacity.

The devs almost never do "official responses".

Trust us when we tell you it's best o think of the attack granted by ITWF as your off-hand iterative attack.

The attack is performed at your full BAB - 5 - other relevant penalties.

If you're wielding two light weapons and using TWF your main hand and off-hand attacks should have the same attack bonus (assuming you're not getting weird bonuses which apply to only one attack or one hand or something like that). So the attack granted by ITWF should have the same bonus as your first iterative attack.

Please don't get lost in the minutiae of wording. If you keep tilting at that windmill you will find yourself ostracized from the majority of the community.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Words can have more than one meaning.

The meaning you are assigning to "albeit" in this case seems clearly not the meaning which was intended.

Others have already provided more logical interpretations... and the fact that countless existing stat blocks confirm those to be correct.


Gents, the problem is that we have two different products that aren't working in conjunction, due to this simple wording, and I'd hoped that the Developers would want their products to be cohesive.

With the 3rd Tier Champion ability in the Mythic Adventure Book "Precision" it specifically states that it doesn't undo "two-weapon fighting penalties". As you've pointed out, it's intuitive that the "Improved Two-Weapon Fighting" is about adding a fourth attack at the following Base Attack bonus. BUT the feat as it is written in the Core Rulebook uses the word "penalty", so now the language becomes very important. If you look for a thread on this you'll see people arguing both sides, which is fair, because it can be interpreted either way. It's all just opinion until there is an official response.

If you could provide stat blocks that from an official Paizo product with NPC with "Improved Two-Weapon Fighting" and "Precision" I will be deeply obliged.


Ah.

This question.

Feel free to add to the FAQ requests there, but I doubt it will be answered. As far as I can tell, very few people play Mythic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
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-levelfighter 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.

I'd have thought "penalties for two-weapon fighting" referred only to the table here.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

While not official, Hero Lab has implemented precision as reducing the penalty to extra attacks from the TWF skill tree, and it’s likely they did so with guidance from Paizo.

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.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

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.


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 the CRB, though - took the PDF reader till page 406 ('ending the campaign') for the first hit.


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 the word 'iterative' in the CRB, though - took the PDF reader till page 406 ('ending the campaign') for the first hit.

And a number of FAQs use the term, including this one which explains the use of the word (which matches Chemlak's description).

Quote:
an "iterative attack" is an informal term meaning "extra attacks you get from having a high BAB"

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

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 –5 penalty.

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.)

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).

So I guess in conclusion, the wording of the feat is clear, albeit confusing to you.


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 persons' certainty is mistaken, but then our own opinion is still an assumption.

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.

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.

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.

But because we cannot answer it without official help, the only action that will follow here is a rehashing of the same exact debate.

Thanks again.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

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 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.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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 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."

You get another attack, unfortunately, this one takes an additional -5 penalty.

Quote:
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?

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.

Quote:
Or is it a third added attack, attached to the first base attack, and the condition is actually self-referencing the penalty?

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.

Quote:
My very first question was to seek out what the condition was that satisfied the sentence.

Answered.

Quote:
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.

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 a priori that additional off hand attacks would be penalized.

Quote:
Absolutely none of us can know what was the intended condition.

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.

Quote:
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

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.

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.

In the OP you said this:

Quote:
The nature of the problem is the dichotomy that the prerequisite and the wording creates.

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.

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.

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.


That's really great! Thank you for taking the time to respond.

The level of personal investment is bordering on incredulous.


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 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.

Question 1: If you take Precision as a 3rd tier Mythic Champion and a 12th level fighter, do you get attacks like so:

A: +12/+12/+7 main and +12/+7/+2 offhand (it says the TWF penalty isn't reduced per the feat)
OR
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)

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.

But you are getting quite the increase in accuracy for just 1 ability.

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?


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.


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 high BAB. As someone pointed out in either this thread or the other, it is an attack you can acquire from a feat 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.

As written, Precision doesn't work with any attacks grated from the TWF feat chain.

Quote:
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.

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.

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.


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?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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 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 to see if it still has the -5 or not.


Very few people care about mythic. So I agree with trinity that you should do whatever you want.


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 (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)
Ranged mwk composite longbow +18/+13/+8 (1d8+5/×3), mwk composite longbow +18/+13 (1d8+5/×3)


Fought a Xill in PFS scenario. NOT FUN. Especially while fighting a bunch of Daemons.

Scarab Sages

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, 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:

+13/+13/+8/+8/+3/+3

With Precision, it becomes:

+13/+13/+13/+13/+8/+8

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:

+13/+13/+15/+15/+13/+13

Which would be nonsensical.


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 has mythic and ITWF to see if it still has the -5 or not.

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.

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.

It really feels like someone else, somewhere in the discussion, inserted a bias for me. Maybe it was easier to feel right that way?

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.

I'll keep looking around the Pathfinder world for a answer. If I find it, I'll happily post it here, either way.


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 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".


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.


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 attack rolls when fighting with multiple weapons, adds her full Strength modifier on damage
rolls with off-hand attacks, and treats her claws as
primary attacks even when also wielding weapons. She is
considered to have the Two-Weapon Fighting and Double
Slice feats for the purpose of fulfilling prerequisites.

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.

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.

Well done.

I'm now going to pour through the bestiary and look for another monster that might refute this.

Liberty's Edge

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 Player's Handbook 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.

3E PHB, pg. 83, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting wrote:
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, albeit at a -5 penalty.
3.5E PHB, pg. 96, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting wrote:
In addition to the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you get a second attack with it, albeit at a -5 penalty.
Star Wars RPG, pg. 94, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting wrote:
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, albeit at a -5 penalty.
Star Wars RPG Revised Core Rulebook, pg. 111, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting wrote:
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, albeit at a -5 penalty.
PFRPG CRB, pg. 128, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting wrote:
In addition to the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you get a second attack with it, albeit at a -5 penalty.

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

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.

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.

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.


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 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:
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)

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / Improved Two-Weapon Fighting: Wording / Application Clarification All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.