|
I don't know why, but I always assumed that the strikes with two weapons (or both ends of a double weapon) were so practically simultaneous that they were still a standard action. But in re-reading the full attacks section for another thread, I noticed for the first time that "If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough, because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon or for some special reason you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks." So that means ANY time you take more than one swing, it's got to be a full attack.
That was always one of the perks to me of TWF and double weapons, not just that you got 2 attacks, but that you got two QUICK attacks and could still move. Bummer.
3.5 had a few (non-OGL) ways to get around that restriction, however. The tempest PrC (Complete Adventurer) had Two-Weapon Spring Attack as a 5th level class ability, which let you attack with two weapons on a Spring Attack. The Two-Weapon Pounce feat (Player's Handbook II) allowed you to attack with two weapons on a charge.
Yeah, it doesn't really make much sense, does it?
I take issue with the basic assumption made by d20 that extra weapons/limbs mean more attacks. In some sense, I suppose it provides more opportunity for attacks, but it gets a little preposterous when dragons start hitting you with their wings and tail.
Ah well, I've long since come to terms with how silly the whole thing is. It would have to be a really great improvement to be worth changing.
Well, Duh! :P
I've always house ruled that TWF allows two quick attacks (after all even at the best they are both -2 to hit) and if you had improved TWF then you needed a full attack,
using the theory if you have multiple attack with the primary hand (full attack) then you could get multiple attacks with the secondary hand by use of I-TWF (also full attack).
There are many reasons to fight with one weapon instead of two weapons,
1) the use of the second weapon makes both attacks less likely to hit
2) you dont have a slot free for the feat (making the penalites even worse)
3) you are using a shield
4) you need one hand free for spell casting (somatic components)
Anyway good point. I think that rule should be changed allowing the extra attack from the off handto be allowed as/included in the standard action.
|
|
On the multi-attacks thing, I'm thinking now that maybe instead of multiple attacks on standard action it'd be better to allow some movement inside a full attack as a standard option (and maybe have some feats to allow multiple attacks as a standard action, but less good).
If you reserved multiple attacks on a standard action to TWFers, even though I can see the logic of allowing the off-hand component of the first iterative attack, that would make sword and board even less attractive, I think.
On the multi-attacks thing, I'm thinking now that maybe instead of multiple attacks on standard action it'd be better to allow some movement inside a full attack as a standard option (and maybe have some feats to allow multiple attacks as a standard action, but less good).
If you reserved multiple attacks on a standard action to TWFers, even though I can see the logic of allowing the off-hand component of the first iterative attack, that would make sword and board even less attractive, I think.
Well in OLD 3.5 if I were going to shield bash I would feat myself this way: Improved shield bash, two weapon fighting.
So there for they WERE two weapon fighters,even though they used a shield as the other weapon. which technically wasnt all that great to begin with, because two weapon defense could give you the same AC rating as a light shield. With a light shield counting as a light weapon.
But in pathfinder now, it seems to make more "sense" to wait for shield master so you dont really start getting extra attacks with the shield right off the bat. But as you progress you are more economical because once you take shield master, your two weapon fighting feat is a waste, unless you plan on swtiching fighting styles around.
I always thought a shield should count for more AC than it does.
Sword and board fighters would be much more attractive if in fact the item they used was more attractive.
Bucklers offer 1 ac, Light Shields 2 AC, heavy shields 4 AC and the ominous tower shield 5 AC.
Therefor a heavy +5 shield gives you 9 AC. Stack in your full plate +5 for another 13 AC. And thats 22 AC just from items. By the time a fighter had that kind of stuff, hed have ample other class features to bump his AC.
It's only a few points of bump to the items, but lets face it why do people use shields? Protection!
I have been allowing it for years...it was a year before I figed out by RAW ya couldn't do it.
It really was never unbalancing in any of my games
|
|
I always thought a shield should count for more AC than it does.
Sword and board fighters would be much more attractive if in fact the item they used was more attractive.Bucklers offer 1 ac, Light Shields 2 AC, heavy shields 4 AC and the ominous tower shield 5 AC.
Therefor a heavy +5 shield gives you 9 AC. Stack in your full plate +5 for another 13 AC. And thats 22 AC just from items. By the time a fighter had that kind of stuff, hed have ample other class features to bump his AC.
It's only a few points of bump to the items, but lets face it why do people use shields? Protection!
I don't mind the base AC mods from shields, but I'd like to see higher enhancement bonuses available for both shields and armour and for them to be cheaper (basically what CoL proposed a while back).
|
Yeah, it doesn't really make much sense, does it?
I take issue with the basic assumption made by d20 that extra weapons/limbs mean more attacks. In some sense, I suppose it provides more opportunity for attacks, but it gets a little preposterous when dragons start hitting you with their wings and tail.
Ah well, I've long since come to terms with how silly the whole thing is. It would have to be a really great improvement to be worth changing.
I totally disagree, a dragon should be able to hit with everything, that was one of the great changes back in 2e, taken from a dragon article.
I totally disagree, a dragon should be able to hit with everything, that was one of the great changes back in 2e, taken from a dragon article.
By that token, everyone should be able to hit with every limb they're not standing on. (Even one they're flying with.) I'm sorry but this always seemed silly to me. I know dragons are contractually obligated to be unstoppable, scary things, but I have a lot of difficulty picturing those 6 separate limb attacks working in the course of one full action.
They're dragons. I agree that a bird shouldn't be able to do that. Maybe not even a winged demon (like the ballhog). But a dragon - yes. They hit you with their bite, their claws, their wings, their tail - and they are good at it! Because. They. Are. Dragons.