Seventhsun's page

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

The level of personal investment is bordering on incredulous.

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.

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.

Is the attack granted by this feat at +6 Base Attack an iterative attack or is it an added attack with a -5 penalty?

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.

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.

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.

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.