We actually just used some of the pawns the other day (I was late to the game).
They were "ok". Normally we just use numbered poker chips & wood/cardboard blocks. Why? Because I can now say "I hit orc #1" or something like that.
It's why we stopped using minis for all but boss monsters
And that's the problem - the artwork on the sets is great. There just aren't enough of each critter, not enough in the right sizes, and they aren't numbered, so how is the DM to keep track of (in the case of an APG coven) which witch is which?
My suggestion is to focus more effort to sell bases of the different sizes, blank cardboard sheets, and good scalable jpgs/pdfs (not all battle maps use the same scale).
This way if I want to print up my own orc horde I can.
It depends upon who's DMing in our group. Our current DM isn't keen on allowing anything other than PF (or even in 3.5 anything other than core - which I really hated).
When I DM it's all fair - even the 3.0 stuff.
So the order of precedence is: PF then 3.5 then 3.0
So for instance you would use fireball or power attack as defined in PF because they have been updated.
But if you want to use a spell or PrC from a 3.0 splat book go right ahead. We may have to do a quick conversion but that's easy.
undead usually are...but my brother (who was playing an antipaladin at the time) actually built shelves inside his zombie horse
Another option you can use are chests with a permanent shrink item. It obviously wont work for the magic gear, but it'll carry cash, food, tents etc with no problem.
AND you can store those in a haversack/bag of holding/portable hole with no problem
The way we ran it (before giving up XP) was an extra 10% XP per level behind you were, so in your example, if each character got 1,000xp, the two 4th level guys would get 1,200xp. They'll catch up quicker.
That's pretty much exactly the way we do it. + / - 10% per level difference.
Don't ever mistake my silence for consent or indifference—especially this time of year when not only do I have my normal duties, I'm also judging RPG Superstar. My work time is stretched very thin over many projects, and most of those projects have deadlines that cannot slip any more than they already have. I am a fireman... my job is to put out fires. And if the city is burning, the fireman can't pause to do a calendar shoot or rescue a kitten from a tree.
Only if the whole Paizo staff does the calendar shoot wearing chain mail bikinis ;). Then it should go to the top of the priority list
A spell-like ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description. In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell.
So in the case of a half-fiend or half celestial who wants to use their "unhallow/hallow" ability it would take the full 24 hours of what? Meditating?
Or can they just concentrate for a round and zap it's hallowed or unhallowed ground?
It really is every other level (starting at 2). And they really can combine it so you could have 5/0, 4/1, etc.
Here's a couple more ideas you could also use instead do spell power vs defense
1. There are a couple feats that let you lower spell resistance that you could give instead
2. There are weapon powers that will also lower spell resistance. Let them apply those effects to damage dealing spells
2a. Heck almost any weapon or armor power can be added to a spell
3. You could give spell mastery/signature spell for school spells so they can spontaneously convert. Think "spell mantles" or Magelords
4. No need for bonded object for school spells
5. Free improved counter spell/reactive counter spell for school spells
6. A morale or circumstance bonus for 1round equal to the level of school spell they cast or for a num of rounds = cha mod (maybe if they select this power twice) as a good hope or heroism spell
Put together a list of powers/feats (including +1spell power/defense) and let them choose one every level
Everyone who takes it will have a different mix of powers. It's almost like having archetypes for PRCs.
My group Loved it when I did that with the spellfire channeller.
Nice job. There are a couple things I've done in my version
* The 3rd school acts just like the other 2 (costs double to cast) - why invent a new mechanic?
* We decided that we wanted greater flexibility in the class so instead of defense & power it was an either/or. Meaning that ever other level you got a "+1" that you could add to either spell defense or spell power.
* The character got to keep (and increase) their existing school powers.
If one looks in the Beastiary under "drow" and then in the ARG you can see that the base critter is essentially the same.
Until you add in the "noble" powers.
Using the ARG you have to be a minimum 13th level to get all the feats that would make you a "noble" and you can never get the full set of stat modifiers.
So which one is the "true" noble drow? Because that CR3 cleric in the bestiary can't actually exist (according the the ARG).
Here's the wiki on it, everyone. And it's how I'm going to rule it.
And poison is junk. It's crazy stupid expensive, hard to get ingredients, and everyone over level 5 is immune to it in some way. Ravages on the other hand, you can never be immune to it. You just pray you can beat the DC if you're evil. And no, you do not have to be the epitome of good to use the feat. If that was the case the prereq would be LG and nothing else. I've seen NG and CG that border on CN regularly who have all of the exalted feats, and no DM I've ever seen has made them lose it. Now, not be the epitome of law or chaos, and you can expect to lose your paladin abilities. Go figure.
And evil does have an evil healing ability, thanks to that of Fire Mountain Games. Clerics can channel to heal evil and wound good guys at the same time. Win-Win for them.
If your touch attack deals damage, then yes, you'd deal damage with the feat. Otherwise, no. A monk can't touch you and do unarmed damage unless it specifically states so. Liches on the other hand can. House rules can be made to stipulate otherwise.
"The wiki"? No, that's one guy's houserules that you just happen to like because it supports your point. The closest there is to an actual wiki is the RAW according to the books themselves. In fact here's another discussion about this very topic from the WOTC forums
So let's sart with RAW.
BoED - Introduction wrote:
The Book of Exalted Deeds is for players who aren’t satisfied by slapping a good alignment label on their character and then acting no different from the neutral characters in the party. This book is all about how to make a good alignment mean something, and how to live up to the ideals implied in that alignment.
And...
BoED - Introduction wrote:
Many players would just as soon overlook these questions, believing they detract from the fun of the game. There’s nothing wrong with that. For groups that want to address these issues, however, the Book of Exalted Deeds opens the way. At the same time, it presents a whole host of new opportunities for player characters of good alignment and righteous conviction: new feats, spells, prestige classes, magic and mundane items, and rules to help address the situations they face. These goodies aren’t just for the cleric and paladin, either characters who sometimes are the sole voices of morality in an adventuring party. While paladins and good clerics will certainly find much of use, characters of all classes can benefit from the new mate-rial in the Book of Exalted Deeds—if they are willing and able to walk the straight and narrow path of the exalted.
And...
BoED - Feats wrote:
This book introduces a new type of feat: the exalted feat. Only intelligent characters of good alignment and the highest moral standards can acquire exalted feats, and only as a gift from powerful agents of good deities, celestials, or similar creatures.
These feats are thus supernatural in nature (rather than being extraordinary abilities, as most feats are). A character must have the DM’s permission to take an exalted feat. In many cases, a ritual must be performed; often this simply amounts to a character swearing a sacred vow, for example, in the presence of a celestial being. A character who willingly and willfully commits an evil act loses all benefits from all his exalted feats. She regains these benefits if she atones for her violations (see Sin and Atonement in Chapter 1).
Aura of Good: A character with at least one exalted feat radiates an aura of good with a power equal to her character level (see the detect good spell), as if she were a paladin or a cleric of a good deity.
All three of these point out that any DM who lets characters act anything other than GOOD (L/N/C doesn't matter) is asleep at the switch. Those characters WILL lose their exalted feats. You're not gonna Meteor Storm the orc encampment where you will kill "innocent" children and non-combatants.
Btw, LG is not the "epitome of good". Actually that honor goes to NG (good without considerations to the ethics of law & chaos). Playing characters who are *that* good is tough. Read Chapter 1 in BoED about the nature of good. There's a lot to consider.
Now let's talk about "poison". The only 2 classes that gain any poison immunity are druid and monk. Otherwise you have to hope you can find or make magic items to help. And there's no garauntee that you will be able to do that. Periapt of Proof against poison is a 27k magic item. And how many other "neck" slot items are there? So I don't know where you can say anyone above 5th level is immune.
"Touch attacks" According to the feat description
BoED - Feats - TOUCH OF GOLDEN ICE wrote:
Benefit:Any evil creature you touch with your bare hand, fist, or natural weapon is ravaged by golden ice (see Ravages and Afflictions in Chapter 3: Exalted Equipment for effects)
When was th last time you "touched" someone with your bite/claws/slam/tail/fist? Unless you were going to "flurry of b*tchslaps" maybe? That's why the DC doesn't change. So that your high level monsters have a chance to stick around.
Oh, and remember, let's say you bring their DEX down to 0. So the bad guy is helpless. What are you going to do about it? You can't just kill them. Because killing a helpless foe is an evil act - bye bye exalted feats...
Playing a paladin/cleric/exalted character right is a challenge. Playing an exalted paladin or cleric is even harder.
Play the game you want and have fun doing doing so. I would say that if you're going to make changes (or you feel that something is "nerfed or useless") understand why it was done that way in the first place before you make the change. Your games will be the better for it.
Old School DM: "You see an ancient huge red dragon" (1e = 88 hp)
PF TH-Fighter: "<7 minute delay while numerous bonuses and current buffs are added> I hit it, hit it, hit it, hit it, and hit it. That's <3.5 minute delay while dice are rolled and numbers (huge numbers) are added> 367 points of damage. I kill it and its grandchildren. I hit it so hard it parts of the dragon have travelled back in time and told proto-red dragons not to bother evolving. I have destroyed red dragons as a species!"
Old School DM: "Er, right. Shall we continue the adventure?"
PF TH-Fighter: "What adventure? Why?"
Old School DM: "The one you made the character up for, that adventure."
PF TH-Fighter: "What? No, I built the Fighter to destroy your dragon. I'm now going to build a Gunslinger who will destroy all Mindflayers!"
Old School DM: "Ah due to copyright issues there are no Mindflayers in PF."
PF TH-Fighter: "Copyright my butt. Those Mindflayers heard about my Gunslinger and asked not to be imported from 3.5e D&D."
Old School DM: "I think I understand the sudden rise in Retro-Clones..."
The closest I remember we're in the 3.5 savage species books. Which let you use the abilities of the critter you shape into
A better option in this case might be magic items that duplicate the racial abilities that can be enchanted to function within a polymorph effect. Like wild armor
It's probably a no-brainer act, but so is being good and using their feat. Unless you're a LG paladin, you're not really going to fall off the wagon, nor have some kind of life crisis about whether you should do something or not.
I've already found the solution to my problem and DC stacks.
You missed the point about exalted feats... You are held to a paladin level (or greater) level of goodness
Stop looking at the BoED as a bunch of cool powers. Inherent in those abilities is the philosophy behind them. Yes touch of golden ice is nice. It only affects evil because it turns their inherent evil and moral corruption against them
And the static dc prevents high level monks from dominating the game.
Also please remember its always on. You turn it off.
Well, yes. But it's sure a heck of a lot easier to be a GM today.
I don't think it's really possible to seamlessly merge a rules-heavy system such as PF with the 'old-style' way of running a campaign. Today, the player gets to tell the GM what modifiers to apply: "I've got this feat that adds 2 to my roll under these circumstances, I've put three levels into the skill, a +1 modifier from my attribute, and I've got a miscellaneous enhancement bonus that gives me another +1". Back in the day I'd just decide (possibly with the help of a hidden die roll) whether the fighter in plate mail tripped over the half-buried rock. While that looks as though the DM was in control of the game, that's not really the case - while I'd use what today is referred to as a circumstance bonus, that would depend on how the player had run the character. If the fighter had a history of blindly rushing in to get to the enemy, rather than cautiously checking before setting foot in a strange place, I'm far more likely to have him fall flat on his face.
I'll grant you it's easier from a mechanics standpoint. Everything you just described takes away most of the "fudging" we used to do, even though in the case you just described the "circumstance" bonus/penalty with the dm rolling the die would still work. Heck, half the time for stuff like that we *still* roll a die to "see if it matters" before we even figure out the difficulty.
It is great that there are people like you that can do this as a complete free form and have it all work out. That is amazing.
Most of us do not have that ability and probably never will. I have seen one other GM that could do a good job of running like that. He was a blast to play with. Everyone else I've seen try that, it just does not work. It either comes accross as the players just listening to the GM tell a drug addled dream or it is very disjointed and unconnected where the...
And you decided you couldn't learn that skill when? None of us had it. It takes a while to acquire because (as a DM) you have to learn that you actually aren't in control of the game. Your players are.
Scripted modules and adventure "paths" are one thing, tournament style (aka PFS) is another, and "free form" is something else again (though it can easily be combined with the former, not so much the latter).
Remember, there's 1 DM and a bunch of players - be prepared to allow them to come up with their own ideas about what is going on in your campaign world (sit back and enjoy it actually) and then grab the best ideas they've come up with and make THAT your game. I've clearly remember one game night where my players game up with a series of political plots about what could be happening with the various groups in my world (this was a forgotten realms campaign) that just blew me away. I was smart enough to ditch everything I planned and make that the skeleton of the plot which took almost a year to play out. And it spawned years of plotlines after that. We still use (after 15 years or more) some of the threads from those campaigns in our current games - especially when I'm the DM (in FR). For example those old characters got to hire the latest bunch to do some adventuring for them because they were just "too busy". What's more, since I still have some of the same people in our group I had them role play their old characters as they hired the new group - with the "new" players/characters doing the negotiating.
In fact, maybe the best way to think of it is that it's a collective game - not YOUR game. Let yourself just be there to run the mechanics of the world rather than to "tell your story" or run your plot. The players will choose where to explore. Unused dungeons and plots are always there for you when you need to jump start things. Even if the only thing you do is change the name of the bad guy and move the adventure to the new city the players decided to check out, rather than the one you originally planned.
To get back to your doubts about acquiring these skills, our current DM is one of those "original" players. He's been gaming with me for about 20 years now. And it's taken him about a year of gaming to learn how to do this consistently. Do we still have our "deux ex machina" moments? Yeah. But they're getting fewer and more and more often they're actually the world reacting to what *we* are actually doing as players (we just don't see the big picture yet, but the pieces are there and we're putting it together).
So you'll make mistakes. We still do. Heck sometimes those mistakes become your favorite house rules...ahhh sepia snake sigil, itemize, bigby's construction crew, zombie bombs...good times, good times.
I think there's a third element in play. A lot of gamers, especially those recidivists who are playing Pathfinder because D20 is the only game they're willing to play. Quite frankly it's age. Many of us have fondness of "old school gaming" because when it wasn't "old", neither were we. :)
There were heaps of rules we ignored, adapted or interpreted ( weapon speed, weapon vs armor etc) This would have sucked for us if we ever played tournament but we only did that once in over 30 years of gaming.
I think this may be at the core of the excellent discussion we're having here. I started AD&D in 1979. Have played constantly ever since and 1e & 2e we kept ignoring and adapting rules. Granted that gave us some of our favorite memories...especially when the rules changes came about because we misread something in a spell description and just liked the way it worked so we kept it.
The looseness in the older systems let you do that. By contrast in the modern 3x games the very complexity of the rules means that any house-rules will have much greater ripple effects.
My wizard had ONE HIT POINT at level 1 and DEATH OCCURRED IMMEDIATELY at zero hit points. He literally could have been killed outright by a RAT BITE. There was no "unconscious", not even "unconscious until -10 hit points". You hit zero, you were dead, dead, dead.
And if you DID die, and you were raised, you lost XP, you lost treasure and you lost constitution points, which cost you permanent hit points if you happened to drop to a new con bonus tier.
And "running away" did not mean "panic!" It meant you had TACTICS for running away, which usually involved spells or items that slowed down your pursuers, like caltrops or marbles.
.
Dude, you and I played the same character. 1hit point & I even failed my roll to learn MAGIC MISSILE. And don't forget the flour balls. Saved my brother from a giant toad once...
In my games over the years we've always considered it a staff (as in a weapon)
Which means you *could* enchant it using craft arms & armor as well as craft staff.
The craft staff feat doesn't say that you must use a stick of wood. I've got a fighter/cleric now (of Gorum) that is looking at making his Two Handed Sword a "staff".
Let's start with the fact that the PRD's existence itself is AWESOME.
I no longer have to lug books with me to every game but still get to use them when we game at my place :)
The one request I'd make is that the PRD pages be "zoomable" on the tablet. If there are links spaced too close together (not to mention eyesight) it gets hard to select the correct link.
Whereas here in the forum I can zoom in and out as needed.
Thanks again for doing such a great job. You keep that up I'll have to keep buying stuff...
Actually, you do not need the feat to craft items with another person, the Core Rulebook already has rules on it.
Read Cooperative Crafting again. I have bolded the beneficial portions:
Pathfinder SRD wrote:
You can assist another character in crafting mundane and magical items. You must both possess the relevant Craft skill or item creation feat, but either one of you can fulfill any other prerequisites for crafting the item. You provide a +2 circumstance bonus on any Craft or Spellcraft checks related to making an item, and your assistance doubles the gp value of items that can be crafted each day.
situation: wizard and cleric working together
Actually the RAW (in that specific feat - I bolded specifically what I'm referring to) implies that if I wanted to make a scroll of cure light wounds both the wizard and the cleric would have to have scribe scroll.
Thus that portion of the wording contradicts both the CRB AND Sean's answer to my earlier post/questions.
In an upcoming sourcebook, we're going to write additional material for the magic item crafting rules, further explaining and clarifying the nuances of how this works. I'm going to look over existing threads, FAQ entries, and FAQ-flagged threads, but I don't want anything to slip through the cracks, so I'm asking here: Is there anything else about the magic item crafting rules that could use more explanation or examples?
{snip}
Any other questions like this?
Hi Sean, (me again)
Whilst flipping through the APG the other day I stumbled across the feat "Cooperative Crafting" The text of which implies that if 2 or more people want to work on an item one of them has to have this feat. Doesn't this go against your last answer to me (from Wed, Aug 29, 2012, 05:14 PM)? Or did your answer assume that one (or more) of the team had that feat?
Of course could that also be a holdover from 3.5 when it cost XP to create an item? And so this became the way to share XP costs?
Thanks for the opportunity Sean. I'm fairly sure I've seen something along these lines in the thread but just in case I didn't...
Spell-Trigger & Spell-Completion Items
- a constant debate I've seen here on the boards and around my own gaming table (with 2 DMs we have 2 different house rules). Does the *crafter* (the person with the feat) personally have to have the spell? Examples: Can a Sorcerer (with the spell) and Wizard (with the feat) team up to create a scroll of one of the Sorc's spells known?
The same thing would apply towards any other combination of classes where 1 character has the creation feat and another (or multiples) have the spells
Would there possibly be a question of divine vs arcane getting in the way (such as wizard with scribe scroll and cleric with flame strike)?
Here's another variation: Could a sorc (or any other arcane class) teach a wizard a spell to put in his spellbook directly? Or would they be forced to go through the scroll creation route?
Even trickier: could a multiclass Wiz/Sorc (say 5 & 5) transcribe their spells known into their spellbook?
As someone who has been DMing since 1980 I've noticed a few trends here...
The biggest one being the "I'm the DM and what I say goes" style
What I've found over the years is that approach doesn't work too well in the long term. BUT as a short term way to keep the game moving for *that session* it does wonders.
So what we've done is take the approach that between games we'll discuss as a group whatever house rules got made and figure out what to do with them.
With regards to magic items:
Default answer: yes (even for infinite use). Now figure out the cost. Discuss either 1 on 1 or as group depending upon circumstance. Everyone realizes pretty soon whether an item is available or not pretty quick at that point. Besides - it's FUN to design magic items (that is why we play a game after all isn't it? Fun?).
Incidentally from "Sword & Fist" (3.0) there was the bow of true arrows (almost like the toy we're talking about here) that was priced at 4k. Spell trigger so a 1 level dip was needed but so what. The point is it only applies to your 1st attack after casting anyway (which could be an AOO...)which will always be at your highest attack roll anyway.
And even if you mess up on the pricing - the item is too cheap for what it does - you can compensate for it. Tougher monsters, thieves, unwanted attention, offers to buy, more frequent encounters, etc.
There's all sorts of way to compensate without being autocratic.
To add to this, you not only have Sean(rules team), but James(design team) saying the same thing. If they had to make an FAQ I am sure we can all guess what the answer would be. I wish I had a way to contact the 3.5 devs because I am sure if this is FAQ'd people would say the rule is being changed when in fact it is not.
In this case we sorta can...the book of exalted deeds, book of vile darkness, champions of valor, & champions of ruin (all 3.5) all discuss this. What is inherently good, inherently evil, etc. they even go into what changes you would have to make if you wanted to play a more "relativistic" game.
While anyone can agree or disagree with what's covered, once we started using those books in our games they took on amazing depths and became much richer. Like going from black & white to full color.
That penalty is being applied to the offhand because you are using TWF, otherwise you get no extra attack, and no penalty. If you disagree then please state why.
When obtaining the ITWF and GTWF feats you are still using TWF so the penalty still applies to the off-hand. The feat allows you additional off-hand attacks while using the TWF style, but with a penalty tacked on to it also. If you want to be rid of the penalty then one must no longer TWF.
Bobson the Literalist: LOVE the new alias - I'll have to do the same at some point {grin}
concerro & others: The discussion appears to have shifted here from my original post...
The TWF style is less the issue than than the effects (and more specifically the wording) of the ITWF & GTWF feats. We have feats all over the game that essentially re-write the rules (agile maneuvers, etc).
Given how often feats & class powers carve out all sorts of exceptions and the emergence of byzantine rules situations is not surprising.
Also given the assumption I made at the beginning (that a more specific rule always overrides a more general one) was never challenged we'll run with that.
The problem in the RAW (vs. the RAI) is that the feats both say you get an extra attack at a *specific* penalty. DONE! No mention of what to apply the penalty to. Rules convention is that attack penalties all base off the base attack bonus. Gaming tradition (going back to DnD 3.0) is that these penalties are off the second hand's attack (with the -x original penalty in place).
The table (Table: Two-Weapon Fighting Penalties), if it truly was the "complete instructions" would have included 2 more lines to account for the ITWF & GTWF feats. All of which were published in the same book.
It (obviously) springs from the cut-n-paste nature of how the book was assembled.
To address concerro directly, (and please remember that we are talking about what the words literally are (a very clintonian way of arguing to be sure, but it works in law and therapy...) when you are gaining additional attacks (ITWF & GTWF) with your off hand weapon you are no longer (by definition) fighting "this way" since you now have additional attacks, using additional feats.
So until one of the devs (SKR maybe?) chimes in and clearly states what they officially meant, the table under Monk FoB) is wrong.
And if Vital Strike is a badly written feat, so is TWF/ITWF/GTWF.
So it looks like we have two interpretations here: JohnBear's, and most everyone else's.
{snip}
So unless there's something I missed, the former makes everything work without contradicting anything else, while the latter creates two discrepancies which would then need to be reconciled.
I think this thread is done.
"Most penalties stack" actually means absolutely nothing because it is too vague. Thus we read into it what we want it to mean (probably "all applicable penalties stack").
I started this thread because the TWFing rules were extremely specific in how they were written (especially compared to the vagueness mentioned above) in that they talked about specific "attacks" with a specific hand. Not the style or "all attacks".
Apparently all of us (myself included) read into the rules what we were expecting to see based upon our past association with different flavors of the game.
The exact wording of the text implies that the penalties do not stack, thus the RAW needs to be updated.
Do force effects help against Brilliant Energy?
Do force effects help against Touch attacks? (while we're at it)
All I can find in the rules is that force effects help against incorporeal touch attacks...
Fwiw, we've added to our homebrew character sheets (since the 3.0 days actually...) a "ghost touch" armor class just to handle those pesky incorporeal touch attacks.
But to answer your question, because of the existence of the incorporeal touch attack we reasoned (way back when) that barring something explicit in the RAW force effects are ineffective against touch attacks; since a touch could be touching your shield or armor and "not you".
You must use your current off-hand attack bonus to determine your iterative off-hand attack bonuses.
That's a mind read (and a common hold over from 3.5 apparently, as we all go with that in actual play...) Nowhere in the RAW does it actually say that.
Y'know, I was originally going to post another "how could you think that?" post, but after reading the rule text, I think I have to agree with JohnBear. Not in the intent, but in the actual text.
{snip}
Definitely FAQ/errata worthy, if just...
Thanks Bobson. Here's what I was just typing whilst you were apparently doing the same...
In answer to AvalonXQ's request (and Trikk's notes) here is how I came upon the results that I did.
Assumptions:
1) Descriptive text ALWAYS overrides tables
2) Base attack bonus of +20, yielding normal combat progression of +20 / +15 / +10 / +5
3) Character has TWF, ITWF, and GTWF
4) Ignore all stat bonuses
5) Both weapons are considered to be "light" (let's keep the math simple)
References
In an effort to make sure that we are all using the same references I will be pulling the rules from the
following website: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/
For the sake of speed and neatness I will include the relevant rules here inside spoiler tags
Two-Weapon Fighting
Spoiler:
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. 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 when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in two ways. First, if your off-hand
weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light. Second, the
Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6.
Table: Two-weapon Fighting Penalties summarizes the interaction of all these factors.
{snip}
Table: Two-Weapon Fighting Penalties
Circumstances Primary Hand Off Hand
Normal penalties –6 –10
Off-hand weapon
is light and Two-Weapon Fighting feat –2 –2
Two Weapon Fighting Feat
Spoiler:
You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands. You can make one extra attack each round with the
secondary weapon.
Prerequisite: Dex 15.
Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary
hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6. See Two-Weapon Fighting in Combat.
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.
Improved Two Weapon Fighting Feat
Spoiler:
You are skilled at fighting with two weapons.
Prerequisites: Dex 17, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: 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.
Normal: Without this feat, you can only get a single extra attack with an off-hand weapon.
Greater Two Weapon Fighting Feat
Spoiler:
You are incredibly skilled at fighting with two weapons at the same time.
Prerequisites: Dex 19, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +11.
Benefit: You get a third attack with your off-hand weapon, albeit at a –10 penalty.
Let's start with the case where the character has none of the feats. They take a -6 penalty to all attacks with
the PRIMARY HAND (says so with "attacks" being plural). THEN it says you take a penalty of -10 to the ATTACK
(singular) with your off hand. OK so far...we're all in agreement.
TWF just changes the penalty (in this case to a -2 to all attacks with the PRIMARY hand and a -2 to the attack
with the off hand). Again, we're all in agreement.
Now the tricky part.
Nowhere does it say that the "-2" penalty applies to additional attacks with the off hand. Just the one attack.
Which makes sense because at that point you only *have* one additional attack.
ITWF says that you get an *additional attack* at a -5 penalty. Given that the initial "-2" for TWF comes off the
highest attack, so would this -5. Note that the feat does NOT say that you get *an additional" penalty. just
that you get "a penalty". Furthermore, under the basic rules for Two Weapon Fighting, it EXPLICITLY calls out
*all* attacks with your *primary* hand.
The exact same reasoning and logic prevails with GTWF.
Thus to make the actual TEXT of the rules here agree with the tables (for instance Monk Flurry) the text of the
ITWF and GTWF feats must change to read: "albeit at an additional -X penalty to the offhand weapon
".
That's all I'm saying.
Without that change out BAB(20) character has attacks like this:
Primary hand: +18 / +13 / +8 / +3
Off hand: +18 / +15 / +10
With that change out BAB(20) character has attacks like this:
Primary hand: +18 / +13 / +8 / +3
Off hand: +18 / +13 / +8
Which is what the tables (and most convention) says should be the case.
If anyone can find in the RAW where this reasoning does not apply please point it out. Otherwise the Devs should
Y'know, I was originally going to post another "how could you think that?" post, but after reading the rule text, I think I have to agree with JohnBear. Not in the intent, but in the actual text.
{snip}
Definitely FAQ/errata worthy, if just...
Thanks Bobson. Here's what I was just typing whilst you were apparently doing the same...
In answer to AvalonXQ's request (and Trikk's notes) here is how I came upon the results that I did.
Assumptions:
1) Descriptive text ALWAYS overrides tables
2) Base attack bonus of +20, yielding normal combat progression of +20 / +15 / +10 / +5
3) Character has TWF, ITWF, and GTWF
4) Ignore all stat bonuses
5) Both weapons are considered to be "light" (let's keep the math simple)
References
In an effort to make sure that we are all using the same references I will be pulling the rules from the
following website: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/
For the sake of speed and neatness I will include the relevant rules here inside spoiler tags
Two-Weapon Fighting
Spoiler:
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. 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 when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in two ways. First, if your off-hand
weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light. Second, the
Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6.
Table: Two-weapon Fighting Penalties summarizes the interaction of all these factors.
{snip}
Table: Two-Weapon Fighting Penalties
Circumstances Primary Hand Off Hand
Normal penalties –6 –10
Off-hand weapon
is light and Two-Weapon Fighting feat –2 –2
Two Weapon Fighting Feat
Spoiler:
You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands. You can make one extra attack each round with the
secondary weapon.
Prerequisite: Dex 15.
Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary
hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6. See Two-Weapon Fighting in Combat.
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.
Improved Two Weapon Fighting Feat
Spoiler:
You are skilled at fighting with two weapons.
Prerequisites: Dex 17, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: 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.
Normal: Without this feat, you can only get a single extra attack with an off-hand weapon.
Greater Two Weapon Fighting Feat
Spoiler:
You are incredibly skilled at fighting with two weapons at the same time.
Prerequisites: Dex 19, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +11.
Benefit: You get a third attack with your off-hand weapon, albeit at a –10 penalty.
Let's start with the case where the character has none of the feats. They take a -6 penalty to all attacks with
the PRIMARY HAND (says so with "attacks" being plural). THEN it says you take a penalty of -10 to the ATTACK
(singular) with your off hand. OK so far...we're all in agreement.
TWF just changes the penalty (in this case to a -2 to all attacks with the PRIMARY hand and a -2 to the attack
with the off hand). Again, we're all in agreement.
Now the tricky part.
Nowhere does it say that the "-2" penalty applies to additional attacks with the off hand. Just the one attack.
Which makes sense because at that point you only *have* one additional attack.
ITWF says that you get an *additional attack* at a -5 penalty. Given that the initial "-2" for TWF comes off the
highest attack, so would this -5. Note that the feat does NOT say that you get *an additional" penalty. just
that you get "a penalty". Furthermore, under the basic rules for Two Weapon Fighting, it EXPLICITLY calls out
*all* attacks with your *primary* hand.
The exact same reasoning and logic prevails with GTWF.
Thus to make the actual TEXT of the rules here agree with the tables (for instance Monk Flurry) the text of the
ITWF and GTWF feats must change to read: "albeit at an additional -X penalty to the offhand weapon
".
That's all I'm saying.
Without that change out BAB(20) character has attacks like this:
Primary hand: +18 / +13 / +8 / +3
Off hand: +18 / +15 / +10
With that change out BAB(20) character has attacks like this:
Primary hand: +18 / +13 / +8 / +3
Off hand: +18 / +13 / +8
Which is what the tables (and most convention) says should be the case.
If anyone can find in the RAW where this reasoning does not apply please point it out. Otherwise the Devs should
I think he wants the rules written so there can be no wrong interpretation, but it will never happen.
"Interpretations" will always happen, and it doesn't matter (especially in a game setting) *how* anyone chooses to interpret the rules provided all the players in the group agree with the interpretation.
What I identified was an area where the descriptive text and the tables did not agree with each other - which is an editing issue.
Of course, I already posted about this earlier in the thread but the OP chose to ignore it as it proved him wrong. The worst type of rules lawyer are those who present bad cases and cannot stand being proven wrong.
Have you considered that sometimes RL gets in the way of posting on a message board?
I'll go through it all when I address AvalonXQ's request later today during my lunch break
I have a related question. An unarmed attack can be a kick, right? Does that mean I can use TWF and a 2-handed weapon? Chop with Axe, kick with iron boot?
That is the way I would read it (for monks at least pg 58 CRB). For other non-monkey types not so much.
That being said, I thing it's such a cool idea I'd allow it <grin>. It'd be similar to shield bashing with a buckler I'd say (or at least spin off that)
I looked it up, and you're right, it isn't written properly. I beleive in 3.5 it was more explicit that it allows BAB extra attacks with the off hand.
Even so, the 2-weapon fighting entrie states specifically that the penalty is to the specific one attack granted by attacking with the off hand. "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 when you fight this way." You'll see that it says THE attack with your off hand, while specifying attack or attacks above.
As written, there is no penalty. This is still clearly an oversight, and some sort of errata aught to address it in future editions. As intended, however, the -2 is to all attacks made. You would be correct in your assertion that no text can prove this, however. At least, I can't find one.
I agree with you on the intention (it's how I've always played the game) I just had too much caffeine last night and so spent a couple hours looking for a rule I was SURE had to be there. And when I couldn't find it I figured I'd post here.
It's been a while - how do we submit questions for an official FAQ or Errata again?
