I don't think this is correct, the AoO is at your full attack bonus
"You make your attack of opportunity at your normal attack bonus, even if you've already attacked in the round."
There is no TWF text that states the penalty exists outside the full round attack they are taken in, compare to Power Attack "You must choose to use this feat before making an attack roll, and its effects last until your next turn"
"An attack of opportunity "interrupts" the normal flow of actions in the round" So you can use either weapon at your full attack bonus less any penalties like power attack.
(IMHO) Summary of this and many other discussions on this forum:-
I don't mind being restricted by the rules. Working within the (clear or implied) limitations makes me use my imagination and tactics to get the most out of the game.
I dislike being restricted by the rules because I want to be able to optimise everything and build the character I want to get the most out of the game. I only want to be limited by my imagination so any limitations in the rules must be clear and irrefutable.
Different styles of play that can make rules discussions quite awkward.
You don't roll to hit the eye's, you just 'cause the light to burst in front of a single creature', so all you need is line of effect to that creature. It's effectiveness is decided by Fortitude not Reflex; armour, cover (apart from total) etc. do not affect the spell.
No need to overcomplicate it's a 0 level minor debuff.
Edit: missed a comma
TOS+ laptop sheet does pretty much all necessary calculations and you can apply effects; spells, feats and situational stuff etc.
When I first moved to PFRPG it was a godsend as I'd pretty much jumped straight from Second ed with a brief dip into 3.5 and keeping track of all the new stuff was a nightmare. We still use it to check effects we are unsure of like how ability damage works and so on.
I've used it to do some cheat sheets for other players - we have a dyslexic on the team as well as a chap whose post heart op meds make him a little fuzzy. It cross checks my maths which is handy.
People aren't trying to have a civil discussion they are telling me I'm wrong. The civil/uncivil discussion has been done before. Letric was actually asking so I answered him.
If you were wielding and therefore threatening with both weapons at the same time you should be able to TWF with them. If you can't you aren't wielding them simultaneously, so you can't threaten with both simultaneously. To me it's obvious to many people on here it's nonsense. I'm not saying I am right and they are wrong, just that's how I and everyone I've ever played with* see it and play it. So without a FAQ expect table variance.
*It hasn't actually come up that much so I'm assuming there, I'll ask next time my present group play and let you know.
Shield Bash Attacks: You can bash an opponent with a heavy shield. See "heavy shield" on the Martial Weapons table for the damage dealt by a shield bash with a heavy shield. Used this way, a heavy shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon. For the purpose of penalties on attack rolls, treat a heavy shield as a one-handed weapon.
The specific entries for shield do not say they are counted as a one-handed or light weapon per se but only "For the purpose of penalties on attack rolls" it is called out as a specific case for a specific type of attack, shield bash. It's inclusion in the weapon tables is explained in that way as well.
The RW or not stuff is beside the point if it was just to be counted as any other weapon weapon it should be "Used this way, a heavy shield is a martial bludgeoning one-handed weapon".
To me it's you chaps that are house ruling due to exploiting the wording of the shield entry to allow you to do something you want rather than what was intended.
But hey as you say that's just me and my opinion, you won't ever play in a game with me, forget I spoke.
Maybe if you chaps didn't have so much invested in arguing for 10' & 5' AoOs, you wouldn't react so vehemently and things wouldn't get so heated.
Leaping down someone's throat, sneering at them and shouting them down isn't usually the best way to get your points across, even when you are right.
Straph listened, discussed and admitted he was wrong when the proof was given, then when badgered used sarcasm and when bullied further said you win and left.....
In other words "you are wrong because you are old and biased". Which could be taken as an ad hominem attack, or as a convenient way to dismiss my points - purely because they come from me.
My editions of Pathfinder are digital and therefore the latest editions.
It refers to an asterisk * the books were referred to as *books to denote them being non-core.
I don't think you'll find what you are looking for as there isn't a description that says a shield bash acts as a Light or One-Handed Weapon for anything other than attack roll penalties.
Improvised weapon is the only way I can see it working and if I was DMing I would probably count a shield as (at least) one size larger due to the size, shape and weight as per the Improvised weapon rules.
The thread I linked to above covers all the arguments put forward so far.
Ay up @BlackBloodTroll we did that discussion already, remember?
Another one Squeezing through a space that is less than half the size of your usual space.
I was just going through Sneak Attack rules and got into a bit of a tussle over the wording.
Now I've always taken that to mean a condition that reduces a target's Dex bonus to AC for example Entangled gives a -4 to Dex.
So I had a look through conditions and made the following list
And of course Flatfooted from Surprise.
Bold are where the formula loses/denied its Dex bonus to AC is used, except Helpless where it is explicitly stated that Sneak Attack can be used.
Assuming my original premise was incorrect does anyone know of any more conditions that use the correct formula/mention Sneak Attack/render you Flatfooted?
I had a quick scan to see if this had come up in the thread but didn't find it and so
Here´s what I found:
Mark Moreland wrote:
Jason Bulmahn later followed that up (after much b+@!&ing in the thread) with:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
That's from 2011 and I don't see a FAQ on it? I also note that many of the same faces appear in each thread that touches upon this.So I'll take the same view as Jason and Mark (which is easy as I agree with it) and until a definitive FAQ appears that's how I'll play it, when I GM. I won't spend long arguing the toss about it when a player, as it causes bad blood.
Been an informative thread though and most entertaining.