Never mind what's "realistic" -- let's think in terms of the sheer cheese that becomes possible once you establish a precedent for this kind of rules-lawyering. As pointed out, once you allow this, every TWF in the world will take THF with a longsword and then use a short sword for a light off-hand weapon.
I don't think it's any "cheesier" than using TWF with a greatsword and armor spikes (which is perfectly legal). I just don't think the rules support a hybrid of TWF and THF for double weapons.
I don't think it's any "cheesier" than using TWF with a greatsword and armor spikes (which is perfectly legal). I just don't think the rules support a hybrid of TWF and THF for double weapons.
Heh... I thought you were going to bring up the animated shield for a second... with of course is a core rule that allows you to get all the benefits of THW or TWF and of a shield, for an absurdly low price! Core rule or not, the animated shield is made of cream and mold culture, not wood or steal.
P.S. IMH, armor spikes should be defensive-only (i.e., inflict damage on creatures grappling you).
P.S. IMH, armor spikes should be defensive-only (i.e., inflict damage on creatures grappling you).
How about TWF with a greatsword and a swift kick in the balls (a.k.a. an unarmed strike)?
How about TWF with a greatsword and a swift kick in the balls (a.k.a. an unarmed strike)?
Nice one! But shouldn't your opponent's codpiece prevent him from feeling that too much? That is, unless you've got spikes on your armored boots! (If you tried this while wearing magical slippers, you'd probably break your foot.)
Rules-wise, though, they've sort of already covered that, inasfar as it requires yet another feat to make an unarmed strike without provoking an attack of opportunity (doubtless from a weapon scarier than a foot, for that matter).
How about TWF with a greatsword and a swift kick in the balls (a.k.a. an unarmed strike)?Nice one! But shouldn't your opponent's codpiece prevent him from feeling that too much? That is, unless you've got spikes on your armored boots! (If you tried this while wearing magical slippers, you'd probably break your foot.)
Rules-wise, though, they've sort of already covered that, inasfar as it requires yet another feat to make an unarmed strike without provoking an attack of opportunity (doubtless from a weapon scarier than a foot, for that matter).
By the same thought shouldn't the armor stop the great sword? This is what the attack roll is for.
You are allowed to attack with an unarmed strike and provoke the attack of opportunity. Nothing in the rules states otherwise.
Personally I would allow someone to do something like the following:
1. Attack with each end of a staff as two weapon fighting
2. Follow up with a secondary attack that is two handed (a simple shift of the hands, perhaps a thrusting action)
I don't see this as cheese at all. It's a normal part of several martial arts that use a staff, and could be easily done with a two bladed sword as well. I could even see someone attacking with a long sword and a short (or even spear) stab in with the short, leave it in the wound then grab the long sword with both hands and attack again.
1. Attack with each end of a staff as two weapon fighting
2. Follow up with a secondary attack that is two handed (a simple shift of the hands, perhaps a thrusting action)I don't see this as cheese at all.
So, in your games, if anyone plays a TWF with a longsword and a short sword, they get 1.5x STR bonus on all longsword attacks, and they can use Backswing as well to get 3x Str bonus instead of 1x, and if they Power Attack they get the 3x multiplier. And then they just jerk out the shortsword and get a bunch of extra attacks besides! And if the opponent is still up, they can take the free kick attack you're allowing, and use it to try and trip the enemy besides. And they still haven't taken a head butt attack as well, although the rules don't say that they can't.
Indeed, why stop with a longsword? They can use a greatsword with Power Attack and Backswing, and then drop it from one hand and pull out a short sword to get all those secondary attacks, and then head butt, and then body slam with armor spikes, and then trip with a foot as well. And maybe shield slam with their animated shield? I personally see everything after the greatsword attacks as gratuitous cheese, but YMMV.
Double Weapons: Dire flails, dwarven urgroshes, gnome hooked hammers, orc double axes, quarterstaffs, and two-bladed swords are double weapons. A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons, but he incurs all the normal attack penalties associated with two-weapon combat, just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon.
The character can also choose to use a double weapon two handed, attacking with only one end of it. A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can’t use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.
Emphasis mine above.
These two statements certainly imply that you can't switch usage within a round, and that's certainly how I'd rule it. Otherwise it's a nightmare as players will 'forget' to apply the -2 to their first, two-handed attack because 'they weren't using it as two weapons at the time'.
I was looking all over for that rule, and I kept reading over it, Thanks for the quote.
I gotta say, this has always seemed straightforward to me. With double weapons you either get to use them as a 2-handed weapon or as two-weapon fighting. It pretty clearly states that you cannot do both. I agree with others that say allowing characters to start switching within a combat round opens the door to some potentially troubling munchkinism. Switching at the start of a new round is perfectly acceptable, but not within a round.
I can also see the case for allowing a higher BAB feat that would allow for this sort of thing, though. That might be kind of cool for specialty fighters to take, without opening up the Pandora's box of 2-handed weapons and shields. Good discussion!
|
I'm usually against anyone that uses "the rules don't say you can't either" arguement. However this may be academic as it seems certain of the feats we're talking about didn't make the final cut...
Anyway if a character invests in as many feats as are required to pull this off it's not really gamebreaking to let them do it. I've always been a By the Book DM, a real LN stickler but we're here to have fun and letting people use their feats is fun.
--Vrock-et Science
...A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon fighting with two weapons, but he incurs all the normal associated with two-weapon combat, the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon.
The character can also choose to use a double weapon two handed, attacking with only one end of it. A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can’t use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.
There's certainly many things you can choose to emphasize...
It says you may make secondary attacks, taking attack penalties like normal 2WF, but nowhere does it say you are not considered to be wielding it 2-Handed.
It does say you NEED to wield a double-weapon in 2 hands to use it as a double-weapon.
Nothing tells you not to apply the normal damage modifier for wielding a weapon in 2 hands.
"Switching grips" is silly and un-necessary.
If you are wielding a (non-Light) weapon in 2 Hands, you increase your STR damage bonus.
For off-hand attacks, you reduce it by 50%, which should result in 75%, but main-hand damage is normal 150%.
2-Handed Wielding is nowhere defined as an exclusive 'mode' in opposition to 2WF, only that it applies when you are wielding a weapon in 2 Hands... Which is necessary to use Double Weapons. It doesn't even seem an unreasonable outcome for spending ANOTHER Feat (Exotic Wpn Prof) besides the already Feat-heavy 2WF chain.
|
"Switching grips" is silly and un-necessary.
If you are wielding a (non-Light) weapon in 2 Hands, you increase your STR damage bonus.
For off-hand attacks, you reduce it by 50%, which should result in 75%, but main-hand damage is normal 150%.
IMO you have a strong case but it depends on understanding the main-hand STR damage bonus of x1 as not literally meaning x1 but as "normal attack bonus from STR for weapon" and the off-hand meaning "half normal bonus from STR for weapon" and not x1/2.
There is a nice simplicity to this reading ... but of course others are going to understand it differently. Maybe its clearer in the new book, but I'm not holding my breath.
I know there's been a lot of cutting and pasting above, and since I don't have my books I have to rely on what's been posted already. But, it "pretty clearly states" it to me. You either get to use 1 end of the weapon (if using it 2-handed) or both ends of the weapon (if using it as two weapons). Either/or, not both. This pertains to use within a combat round, of course. There's nothing preventing you from using it one way one round and another way the next.
But, as in all things D&D, the rules are merely a guide. There's nothing wrong with allowing both in a given round if it works for you. Enjoy!
Contributor
|
So, in your games, if anyone plays a TWF with a longsword and a short sword, they get 1.5x STR bonus on all longsword attacks, and they can use Backswing as well to get 3x Str bonus instead of 1x, and if they Power Attack they get the 3x multiplier. And then they just jerk out the shortsword and get a bunch of extra attacks besides!1. Attack with each end of a staff as two weapon fighting
2. Follow up with a secondary attack that is two handed (a simple shift of the hands, perhaps a thrusting action)I don't see this as cheese at all.
I can't speak for Abraham, but I'd always "pair" the attacks. That is:
-attack at full BAB (either one Two-handed strike, or the pair of TWF)
-attack at BAB-5 (see above)
-etc.
If ANY of these "pairs" would be TWF attacks, then ALL attacks suffer the -2. The most cheese I can see from this is when people do not have the improved TWF feats. Then there is no reason not make any attacks after the first as Two-handed strikes. But, of course, the Backswing and Overhand Chop feats only work on the 1st attack of the round anyways...
Hyperbole
Sure, with all those penalties racking up they'll almost never hit. Also I wouldn't allow the extra attacks for the attacks they are using the two handed weapon with, after all the time they would be swinging the second weapon is used on swinging the two handed weapon instead.
Also look at the way I presented it:
Say the monk has +6/+1 normally and he is using the staff with a 14 str (and weapon focus), he wants to power attack with it, and plans for his last attack to be two handed.
So starting he has a high water mark of +9/+4. He's two weapon fighting with the equivalent of a one handed and light weapon so that drops that down to +7/+7/+2. On the last attack he's taking the two handed swing, so he doesn't get a fourth attack. He's going to power attack on these attacks (since you have to pay in full on all attacks, he'll take the bonus on all attacks too) with his BAB that's - 2 to hi so he ends at +5/+5/+0.
So his attack routine will look like this:
+5 (1d6+6 *str 14 = 2 power attack = 4) Primary Hand
+5 (1d6+3 *str 14 = 2 / 2 off hand power attack = 2) Secondary Hand
+0 (1d6+9 *str 14 = 2 *1.5 power attack = 6) two handed attack
OR he could have just two handed both attacks with a power attack:
+9/+4 - 2 = +7/+2
+7 (1d6+9 *str 14 = 2*1.5 power attack = 6) two handed attack
+2 (1d6+9 *str 14 = 2*1.5 power attack = 6) two handed attack
OR he could have simply two weapon fought and power attacked:
+5 (1d6+6 *str 14 = 2 power attack = 4) Primary Hand
+5 (1d6+3 *str 14 = 2 / 2 off hand power attack = 2) Secondary Hand
+0 (1d6+6 *str 14 = 2 power attack = 4) Primary Hand
+0 (1d6+3 *str 14 = 2 / 2 off hand power attack = 2) Secondary Hand
The damage comes out almost the same in all three cases, with various trade offs in how likely you are to hit.
It's not as huge as you are suggesting.
it "pretty clearly states" it to me. You either get to use 1 end of the weapon (if using it 2-handed) or both ends of the weapon (if using it as two weapons). Either/or, not both.
NOTHING exists which counterposes those as mutually exclusive modes.
If you wield a non-Light weapon with 2 Hands, you increase the STR damage bonus. Period.Nothing in the 2WF rules counters the fact you are qualifying for the bonus damage by holding the weapon with two hands, it only tells you to use the same ATTACK PENALTIES as if you were 2WF'ing with 1h+Light weapons. If the intention was that a Double Weapon should for all purposes be considered actual 1H+Light weapons held separately, it should say so (which would then preclude the need for special call-out of 2WF ATTACK PENALTIES). But it didn't.
It's not as huge as you are suggesting.
Another example: fighter 11 (BAB +11), Str 18 (+4), Power Attack (-3), Backswing, TWF, GTWF.
and off-end +10/+5 for 1d6 + 2 (Str) + 3 (PA) = 1d6+5.
Damage if all attacks hit: 5d6+40 (mean 57.5).
and same end for +7/+2 for 1d6 + 6 (Str) + 9 (PA) = 1d6+15.
Damage if all attacks hit: 3d6+51 (mean 61.5, slightly better than TWF, with slightly better hit probabilities).
then shift grip for +10/+5 for 1d6+5 each on top of that.
Damage if all attacks hit: 5d6+61 (mean 78.5, much better than either case above).
I'd say that's a pretty respectable difference. Respectable enough that no one would go with a longsword/short sword TFW, or a greatsword THF, when they can instead go greatsword THF AND short sword TWF, which the rules-lawyering in this thread suggests is perfectly reasonable.
It's not as huge as you are suggesting.Another example: fighter 11 (BAB +11), Str 18 (+4), Power Attack (-3), Backswing, TWF, GTWF.
Ok to use your current example (please note that backswing isn't in from what I've seen to date but I'm including it) and the fact you left off improved two weapon fighting, I'm going to assume you meant to include all of the basic two weapon fighting chain:
+15/+10/+5 Basic attack routine:
+13/+13/+8/+8/+5 Two weapon fighting
+10/+10/+5/+5/+2 Two weapon fighting Power attack
+12/+7/+2 Two handed fighting with power attack
Now to go with the 'hybrid' method you would take all the penalties for both two weapon fighting and power attack on all attacks, as the rules state for using two weapon fighting and power attack.
SO:
+10 (1d6+4+9+4 (avg 21)) First attack -- two handed (str/pa/bs)
+5 (1d6+4+6 (avg 14)) Second attack -- two weapon fighting primary (str/pa)
+5 (1d6+2+3 (avg 9)) Second attack -- two weapon fighting off hand (str/pa)
+2 (1d6+4+6 (avg 14)) third attack -- two weapon fighting primary (str/pa)
+2 (1d6+2+3 (avg 9)) third attack -- two weapon fighting off hand (str/pa)
Complete hit: 67 damage
So he gives up the second attack at his highest BAB to get that first one done two handed, however regular two weapon fighting with power attack would be:
+10 (1d6+4+6 (avg 14)) First attack -- two weapon fighting primary (str/pa)
+10 (1d6+2+3 (avg 9)) First attack -- two weapon fighting off hand (str/pa)
+5 (1d6+4+6 (avg 14)) Second attack -- two weapon fighting primary (str/pa)
+5 (1d6+2+3 (avg 9)) Second attack -- two weapon fighting off hand (str/pa)
+2 (1d6+4+6 (avg 14)) third attack -- two weapon fighting primary (str/pa)
+2 (1d6+2+3 (avg 9)) third attack -- two weapon fighting off hand (str/pa)
Complete Hit: 69 damage
Two weapon fighting with bs and pa:
+12 (1d6+4+9+4 (avg 21))
+7 (1d6+6+9 (avg 19))
+2 (1d6+6+9 (avg 19))
Complete Hit: 59
I'm not currently certain how the weapon training has gone in the final so I've left it out, however it doesn't really matter what all you throw on it the basics are going to remain the same. PA isn't a huge thing for two handed people compared to two weapon people since you get X2 on your primary hand and X1 on your secondary = x3 total or x3 with a two handed weapon. str and a half on two handed = str on primary + 1/2 str on secondary. The only real question is how many swings are you taking, and how many penalties do you want to add on.
two weapon fighting = two handed fighting with more swings and more penalties.
All penalties from all sources effect all attacks made as part of the same full attack action. As per normal rules.
When two handed fighting as I've shown in both cases you don't get extra attacks for two weapon fighting, it's either/or I'm just letting them choose on each "set" of the attack.
Truthfully it's no different than a creature using a two handed weapon and a natural weapon at the same time in effect.
So he gives up the second attack at his highest BAB to get that first one done two handed.
Your proposal, Abraham, isn't exactly the same as what most people in the thread are claiming is possible, however -- in fact, it's a darn sight more reasonable. But most people here, unlike you, are not dealing with "sets" of attacks or anthing that subtle. Indeed, some are going so far as to claim that all attacks made with both heads of a double weapon should gain all of the benefits of a two-handed weapon, and also all of the benefits of two-weapon fighting... a situation so loopy I won't even run the numbers for it.
Also, I do not believe that THF strength bonuses should stack with TWF attacks, even for double weapons. The sacrifice is power for speed. I do think you're fighting one way or the other per iteration. Anyway, Kirth, that part of the discussion has been in the debate for a while, so try to narrow your strokes a little as you paint the wall.
There are quite a number of proposals floating around now, so let me address them all individually per your demand. Your proposal mirrors Abraham's more recent one, and sounds fine, because it entails giving up a TWF attack for the THF one. That is not what many others are proposing, however:
This is less egregious than Quandary's abuses...
Hahahahaha... :-)
Seriously though, I just don't see the problem with needing ANOTHER Feat for Exotic Proficiency on top the Feat/Stat-Heavy 2WF chain, but being able to be disarmed of your fancy doubly-enchanted double weapon just as easily as anybody else's SINGLE weapon (final doesn't give a bonus vs. disarm for 2-handed wielding).
That, and naturalistically, it seems reasonable that a guy able to use both arms' strength with a Quarterstaff will exert more strength with each end than someone swinging 2 clubs in separate hands. Sure, that goes against the "separate but equal" structural school of RPG design, but such "modes" are NEVER mentioned, even indirectly (like saying 2WF with a dual weapon actually is considered as separately held 1H+Light and supersedes your actual 2-Handed grip.)
final doesn't give a bonus vs. disarm for 2-handed wielding.
This is one issue that you and I seem to agree on. A double weapon is held in both ands, and should therefore be harder to disarm.
Abraham, at one point, said, "Personally I would allow someone to do something like the following: 1. Attack with each end of a staff as two weapon fighting; 2. Follow up with a secondary attack that is two handed (a simple shift of the hands, perhaps a thrusting action)." That sounds like taking your full selection of TWF attacks, and also getting a secondary attack on top of them -- like 3-weapon fighting for free. Hopefully I...
I meant as I posted above, that the attacks are done by set. In the monk's case he does indeed benefit from getting the same number of attacks, however the penalties are still higher, and all in all I see it as a quirk of the math, not as a flaw or cheezy munchkiny thing.
final doesn't give a bonus vs. disarm for 2-handed wielding.This is one issue that you and I seem to agree on. A double weapon is held in both ands, and should therefore be harder to disarm.
Right, +4 seems reasonable...
(Locked Gauntlets give +10 - though if you still lose, it seems you should lose your HAND too)I'm also the type to have tight surroundings penalize/prevent using inappropriately sized weapons - it's common sense that a completely newbie player would probably ASSUME.
I would add that weapon size alone doesn't really cover all that though.
For example using a polearm in a small narrow corridor would be fairly easy, however using a battle axe in the same space would probably be more difficult.
I would add that weapon size alone doesn't really cover all that though.
For example using a polearm in a small narrow corridor would be fairly easy, however using a battle axe in the same space would probably be more difficult.
Yeah, that's exactly how I play, I just didn't detail it all...
(Slashing/Bludgeoning vs. Piercing generally is a good rule of thumb as well as "Size" generically.)It's nice because it gives spears more utility, since they aren't so hot stat-wise...
I would add that weapon size alone doesn't really cover all that though.
For example using a polearm in a small narrow corridor would be fairly easy, however using a battle axe in the same space would probably be more difficult.
Yeah, that's exactly how I play, I just didn't detail it all...
(Slashing/Bludgeoning vs. Piercing generally is a good rule of thumb as well as "Size" generically.)
It's nice because it gives spears more utility, since they aren't so hot stat-wise...
You know, I'm actually rather fond of the short spear. You got piercing and slashing, with a ranged attack and the ability to set (iirc). That's a lot of versatility for a single one handed weapon. Granted the damage isn't much but I'd be willing to do a martial version that has a broader head does a 1d8 damage and gets all of the above.
I meant as I posted above, that the attacks are done by set.
OK, that helps. I thought you were proposing that a 1st level fighter with TWF, for example, could somehow get 3 attacks/round with a quarterstaff -- which I think we both agree would be a cheesy munchkin thing.
If I understand yours and Rezdave's proposal, a 6th level fighter with TWF and ITWF could do one of the following:
For the record, I'm totally OK with any of these options; they all seem fair and balanced.
I do NOT agree, however, with the other people claiming he can do this:
And I obviously don't agree with the person who saye he can attack at +4/+4/-1/-1 for 1d6 + 1.5 STR with each blow.
Hopefully that adequately narrows my brush strokes.
I go full-hog and use an (Exotic) "Great Spear" (actually, Double Greatspear with one character) that does 2d6, but it's not throwable (any more than a longsword) ...I'm also into it because for savage Barbarian/Ranger types, it just seems more evocative.
|
|
But most people here, unlike you, are not dealing with "sets" of attacks or anthing that subtle. Indeed, some are going so far as to claim that all attacks made with both heads of a double weapon should gain all of the benefits of a two-handed weapon, and also all of the benefits of two-weapon fighting... a situation so loopy I won't even run the numbers for it.
That's not what was originally proposed... I don't know how it got there?
When I crunched it with a character with +6/+1 BAB, a double weapon only (in this case a quarterstaff), and the backswing, twf, and double slice feats would go like this:
+4 (1d6+ Str x2) 2H w/ backswing
-1 (1d6+ Str x1) TWF primary hand
-1 (1d6+ Str x1) TWF off-hand w/ double slice
So in all cases the character takes a -2 penalty to all attacks in a full attack, gets x2 str damage on his initial attack only and gets x1 str damage on his off hand attack.
The only requisites are you take a full attack for backswing and you fight TWF for double slice. You could only really do that consistantly with a double weapon, which might get more players to use them.
--Vrock, Paper, Scissors
I go full-hog and use an (Exotic) "Great Spear" that does 2d6, but it's not throwable (any more than a longsword) ...I'm also into it because for savage Barbarian/Ranger types, it just seems more evocative.
Understandable, however I really like the ranged option since I can still use a shield, have my strength damage added in, and do it all with just one weapon type.
*****
To Kirth:
Yeah that's what I'm saying. I didn't realize there was a different way to do it (and agree that the option of stacking two handed and two weapon fully on top of one another is odd), it just seemed the obvious answer to me to allow it and still be balanced.
That's not what was originally proposed... I don't know how it got there?
That was Quandary's suggestion, if I understood it correctly.
When I crunched it with a character with +6/+1 BAB, a double weapon only (in this case a quarterstaff), and the backswing, twf, and double slice feats would go like this:
+4 (1d6+ Str x2) 2H w/ backswing
-1 (1d6+ Str x1) TWF primary hand
-1 (1d6+ Str x1) TWF off-hand w/ double slice
Assuming this guy also has ITWF, then you, Abraham, Rezdave, and me are all on the same page.
If not, then if he did would it look like:+4 (1d6 + Str x 2) with backswing
+4 (1d6 + Str) Primary hand
-1/-1 (1d6 + Str) off-hand
Which you'll note adds an additional attack at +4 to the mix on top of what Abraham and Rezdave advocate.
|
That's not what was originally proposed... I don't know how it got there?That was Quandary's suggestion, if I understood it correctly.
When I crunched it with a character with +6/+1 BAB, a double weapon only (in this case a quarterstaff), and the backswing, twf, and double slice feats would go like this:
+4 (1d6+ Str x2) 2H w/ backswing
-1 (1d6+ Str x1) TWF primary hand
-1 (1d6+ Str x1) TWF off-hand w/ double slice
Assuming this guy also has ITWF, then you, Abraham, Rezdave, and me are all on the same page.
If not, then if he did would it look like:+4 (1d6 + Str x 2) with backswing
+4 (1d6 + Str) Primary hand
-1/-1 (1d6 + Str) off-handWhich you'll note adds an additional attack at +4 to the mix on top of what Abraham and Rezdave advocate.
Sorry, Kirth ... I thought I had my head wrapped around what your saying but...
Wouldn't this be with TWF:
+4 (1d6+ Str x2) 2H w/ backswing
-1 (1d6+ Str x1) TWF primary hand
-1 (1d6+ Str x1) TWF off-hand w/ double slice
And this be ITWF:
+4 (1d6+ Str x2) 2H w/ backswing
-1 (1d6+ Str x1) TWF primary hand
-1 (1d6+ Str x1) TWF off-hand w/ double slice
-4 (1d6+ Str x1) ITWF off-hand w/ double slice
Maybe I'm totally lost ... any help?
Doesn't it boil down to what you declare as your full-attack option? I don't see any 'messing about with my grip on my weapons' as an option for a full attack - you do a standard attack and see: either do a move action or launch into the remainder of your iteration.
The iteration is generally predetermined, based on what the standard action is IIRC. Happy to be corrected if I'm NOT remembering correctly of course.
So an 18th level cleric who is proficient with a quarterstaff with a strength of 20 would have a BAB;
13/8/3
18/13/8 with strength
Would the cleric need TWF feat to wield a quarterstaff? Does this feat reduce to a -2 penalty on attacks?
I tried to read some of the above posts but it's very confusing when the character has three attacks using a quarterstaff.
So an 18th level cleric who is proficient with a quarterstaff with a strength of 20 would have a BAB;
13/8/3
18/13/8 with strength
Would the cleric need TWF feat to wield a quarterstaff? Does this feat reduce to a -2 penalty on attacks?
I tried to read some of the above posts but it's very confusing when the character has three attacks using a quarterstaff.
You don't need the feat to use a double weapon, all it does is give you an extra attack.
The cleric could:
Make 3 attacks without bothering about the TWF rules at all: +18/+13/+8
Make 4 attacks without the TWF feat: +14/+9/+4 with his primary hand, +10 with his offhand
Make 4 attacks with the TWF feat: +16/+11/+6 with his primary hand, +16 with his offhand
So an 18th level cleric who is proficient with a quarterstaff with a strength of 20 would have a BAB;
13/8/3
18/13/8 with strength
Would the cleric need TWF feat to wield a quarterstaff? Does this feat reduce to a -2 penalty on attacks?
I tried to read some of the above posts but it's very confusing when the character has three attacks using a quarterstaff.
You don't need the feat to use a double weapon, all it does is give you an extra attack.
The cleric could:
Make 3 attacks without bothering about the TWF rules at all: +18/+13/+8
Make 4 attacks without the TWF feat: +14/+9/+4 with his primary hand, +10 with his offhand
Make 4 attacks with the TWF feat: +16/+11/+6 with his primary hand, +16 with his offhand
Thanks for the info Bearded Ben