|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I'm sure this must have been addressed somewhere, but I've had no luck finding it ...
I'm looking at someone welding a quarterstaff...
Using a two handed weapon (Quarterstaff) with 2 hands:
+1-1/2 STR mod damage
Fighting with Quarterstaff as two weapons (still using 2 hands):
primary attack: +STR mod damage
off hand attack:+1/2 STR mod damage
How do the above interact with each other?
How do they interact with feats:
Double Slice (offhand full strength bonus)
Backswing (Take full-attack action with 2-handed weapon add 2xSTR mod to damage to first attack).
Thanks for any clarification ...
Gully
|
I'm sure this must have been addressed somewhere, but I've had no luck finding it ...
I'm looking at someone welding a quarterstaff...
Using a two handed weapon (Quarterstaff) with 2 hands:
+1-1/2 STR mod damageFighting with Quarterstaff as two weapons (still using 2 hands):
primary attack: +STR mod damage
off hand attack:+1/2 STR mod damageHow do the above interact with each other?
How do they interact with feats:
Double Slice (offhand full strength bonus)
Backswing (Take full-attack action with 2-handed weapon add 2xSTR mod to damage to first attack).Thanks for any clarification ...
Gully
If you use if as a two-handed weapon, you get the +1.5*Strength bonus.
If you use it as two weapons, it functions as two attacks with one at +1 Str and one at +0.5 Str.
You get either an extra attack or one attack at higher modifier. It interacts with feats depending on how you use it. Use it as a two-handed weapon and it functions as one, use it as two one handed weapons and it functions as them.
You can swap uses between rounds but each round you have to either swing it like a massive baseball bat, or jab with both ends.
What he said. In any given round, you're using it either as a two-handed weapon or a double weapon, and the appropriate rules apply.
|
|
If you use if as a two-handed weapon, you get the +1.5*Strength bonus.
If you use it as two weapons, it functions as two attacks with one at +1 Str and one at +0.5 Str.
You get either an extra attack or one attack at higher modifier. It interacts with feats depending on how you use it. Use it as a two-handed weapon and it functions as one, use it as two one handed weapons and it functions as them.
You can swap uses between rounds but each round you have to either swing it like a massive baseball bat, or jab with both ends.
Excellent ... so the main point is, it is one way or another for the full round. If you have multiple attacks (due to BAB) then one can't be 2-handed and another be 2-weapon.
Thanks!
|
Well if you have multiple attacks I could see you taking a big swing with it as a 2-H weapon on your fist attack, then shifting your grip and using both ends to gain an extra attack. However you would suffer the -2 penalty on that initial 2-H attack.
It's not really that much different than a TWF who has 2 poisoned weapons. Round one, move to enemy A and attack with primary weapon (poison dose A used). Round two, move action to enemy B but you still wanna poison them so you use the off hand weapon as your primary attack but can only do 1/2 str damage (using poison dose B).
--System Vrock Save!
|
|
Well if you have multiple attacks I could see you taking a big swing with it as a 2-H weapon on your fist attack, then shifting your grip and using both ends to gain an extra attack. However you would suffer the -2 penalty on that initial 2-H attack.
Would you then allow the Backswing Feat on the first attack ... or not allow it because your not using it 2-handed for the full action?
I'll have to clarify with any DM but I'm interested in all thoughts.
Backswing (Combat)
You are skilled at using your return swing to deal additional damage your foes.Prerequisites: Overhand Chop, base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: When making a full-attack action with a two-handed melee weapon, add double your Strength bonus to the damage roll of your first attack. If your base attack bonus is +11 or higher, add triple your Strength bonus to the damage roll of your first attack.
Normal: You normally add 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier to damage rolls with a two-handed weapon.
|
That brings up an interesting interaction, since you can mix a flurry of blows with between any monk weapons and unarmed attacks, would it be possible to get a single "two-handed" strike with a pair of kicks...
I'm thinking there should be a trade-off...obviously you would need to lose one attack at least. Since powerful staff attack require a bit of set-up in martial arts.
Would you then allow the Backswing Feat on the first attack ... or not allow it because your not using it 2-handed for the full action?
Backswing assumes you're using a 2-handed weapon as a 2-handed weapon, so only if you're using the quarterstaff as a big baseball bat will you get the x2 or x3 STR damage modifier (in place of the standard x1.5 STR damage modifier for using a 2-handed weapon).
You can't use backswing if you're fighting with two weapons, or in this case using the quarterstaff as two weapons. So your damage modifiers are x1 STR and x0.5 STR (offhand). Don't forget the two weapon fighting modifiers to hit also. Also, don't forget you don't get the offhand attack unless it's a full attack action, so any time you're moving and attacking, it's best to use the staff as a big bat. Good luck!
|
|
Prolly for the best not allowing a single two handed attack with the rest of the flurry, though with flexible staves it's fairly easy to do a flurry.
during a flurry, no monk weapon is considered off handed I believe. just as the unarmed strikes are at full STR, and actual monk weapons can be used freely in place of a flurry strike.
|
|
With a versitile weapon like the quaterstaff or even the Urgrosh I don't see why you couldn't use both feats. You can only use both feats in a full attack, but each isn't an action unto itself (like manyshot and shot on the run used to be in 3.5).
So you take your first attack (with the -2 penalty for TWF) and get X2 or X3 str, then with the off hand attack you get x1 str. This might well be covered in the Final rules, but they're not mutually exclusive.
Switching the grip on a weapon really isn;'t that difficult. I'd allow you to do it once a round at the very least (ex: Short Haft). Heck this combo might even encourage the use of double weapons (which I haven't seen often IMX)!
--On the Chopping Vrock!
|
Quarterstaff
A quarterstaff is a double weapon. You can fight with it as if fighting with two weapons, but if you do, you incur all the normal attack penalties associated with fighting with two weapons, just as if you were using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon.
Since it says you can TW with it as if it was a one-handed weapon and a light-weapon, I do not think you can use it as a two-handed weapon while two-weapon fighting.
|
|
Since it says you can TW with it as if it was a one-handed weapon and a light-weapon, I do not think you can use it as a two-handed weapon while two-weapon fighting.Quarterstaff
A quarterstaff is a double weapon. You can fight with it as if fighting with two weapons, but if you do, you incur all the normal attack penalties associated with fighting with two weapons, just as if you were using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon.
And why is this incompatible with 2H fighting? As long as you take the -2 penalty on the first iterative attack what's the problem?
--Tick-Vrock you don't stop!
|
|
Since it says you can TW with it as if it was a one-handed weapon and a light-weapon, I do not think you can use it as a two-handed weapon while two-weapon fighting.Quarterstaff
A quarterstaff is a double weapon. You can fight with it as if fighting with two weapons, but if you do, you incur all the normal attack penalties associated with fighting with two weapons, just as if you were using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon.
And why is this incompatible with 2H fighting? As long as you take the -2 penalty on the first iterative attack what's the problem?
--Tick-Vrock you don't stop!
You can fight with it as if fighting with two weapons just as if you were using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon.
By no means am I a rules lawyer, but that would be enough for me.
Since it says you can TW with it as if it was a one-handed weapon and a light-weapon, I do not think you can use it as a two-handed weapon while two-weapon fighting.Quarterstaff
A quarterstaff is a double weapon. You can fight with it as if fighting with two weapons, but if you do, you incur all the normal attack penalties associated with fighting with two weapons, just as if you were using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon.
And why is this incompatible with 2H fighting? As long as you take the -2 penalty on the first iterative attack what's the problem?
--Tick-Vrock you don't stop!
In a 6-second long round, the rules do not allow for a 'grip change' in-between (it would need a feat which currently -AFAIK- doesn't exist for that, and a feat which allows such a quick change would need a swift action I would add). If you wield the quarterstaff two-handed for the first attack, you have to stick with it two-handed for the rest of the round; if you wield the quarterstaff as two weapons, the same is true.
Let's put it in another way: would you allow a character wielding a Longsword two-handed to make his first attack two-handed, then use Quick Draw to draw a Shortsword and continue with a two-weapon combo ?
Or wield a Longsword and a Shortsword, make the first attacks with both of them, and then drop the Shortsword and make a final attack with the Longsword two-handed? Because these examples are the same as a 'grip change' with a double weapon.
The rules have made no such examples since the creation of 3.0 edition, so it's easy to understand that it's not possible by rules (again, we are speaking of 6-second long rounds, where you can make up to 7 attacks with incredible precision and damage - in a 1-minute long round, sure, it would be even understandable).
Just my 2c.
So you take your first attack (with the -2 penalty for TWF) and get X2 or X3 str, then with the off hand attack you get x1 str. This might well be covered in the Final rules, but they're not mutually exclusive.
Then why would anyone ever use it as suggested in the rules (i.e. as a 1-handed and an off-hand weapon)? That's strictly worse than what you're suggesting (use it as a 2-handed and an off-hand weapon).
|
|
In a 6-second long round, the rules do not allow for a 'grip change' in-between (it would need a feat which currently -AFAIK- doesn't exist for that, and a feat which allows such a quick change would need a swift action I would add). If you wield the quarterstaff two-handed for the first attack, you have to stick with it two-handed for the rest of the round; if you wield the quarterstaff as two weapons, the same is true.
Let's put it in another way: would you allow a character wielding a Longsword two-handed to make his first attack two-handed, then use Quick Draw to draw a Shortsword and continue with a two-weapon combo ?
Or wield a Longsword and a Shortsword, make the first attacks with both of them, and then drop the Shortsword and make a final attack with the Longsword two-handed? Because these examples are the same as a 'grip change' with a double weapon.
The rules have made no such examples since the creation of 3.0 edition, so it's easy to understand that it's not possible by rules (again, we are speaking of 6-second long rounds, where you can make up to 7 attacks with incredible precision and damage - in a 1-minute long round, sure, it would be even understandable).Just my 2c.
I would absolutely allow your first example because the character has Quick Draw. Remember you still have to apply the -2 attack penalty to every attack. The 2nd example is no different. You have to take the penalty to every attack and it's a free action to drop the short sword (and you could lose that)! Bringing your hand to grip a non-reach weapon would take as little time as it would to drop a weapon and far less than it would be to actually make an attack with the off hand weapon.
--Vrocknrolla!
|
|
Then why would anyone ever use it as suggested in the rules (i.e. as a 1-handed and an off-hand weapon)? That's strictly worse than what you're suggesting (use it as a 2-handed and an off-hand weapon).
So you take your first attack (with the -2 penalty for TWF) and get X2 or X3 str, then with the off hand attack you get x1 str. This might well be covered in the Final rules, but they're not mutually exclusive.
If you're a 6th level fighter and you have 2 iterative attacks and you have both Backswing, TWF, and Double Slice you take you highest attack as a 2H attack, then sp[read your hands out using the lowest as your primary TWF and then your off hand TWF with you full Str bonus.
If you don't have those feats you'd have to use it as normal.
--Vrock Lobster
Hogarth's question was this:
"Then why would anyone ever use it as suggested in the rules (i.e. as a 1-handed and an off-hand weapon)? That's strictly worse than what you're suggesting (use it as a 2-handed and an off-hand weapon)."
He is trying to say rules were not intended for TWF to be used that way.
If they were people would have been doing it a long time ago, even before Pathfinder was created.
The same way they had to make a feat(weapon swap) to allow you to use your primary weapon in you offhand, they would have to make a feat to allow you to change your grip.
Personally, I rule it as you can change grip between rounds, but within a round, it's just too hectic to manage.Having fought with a bo-staff, I can assure you that rapid grip-changes are common.
If we are going to apply real life weapon abilities to D&D we might have to change a few changes. I am by no means a weapons expert, but I have seen a few martial artist on various boards, and checked out a few of them, and a lot of things don't add up. The bucker for example is not strapped around the wrist the way it is supposed to be in D&D.
Not directed at Rez:
I am sure nobody tried to pull this in the 3.5, and most of us are experienced players, so what makes anyone think this is legal now? If we are just discussing possibilities(meaning this discussion is just mental gymnastics), and I am misreading things then I retract my statements.
Contributor
|
To be fair, part of why noone tried this in 3.5 was that the Backswing feat did not exist. That simple 2x damage vs. 1.5 on the first attack of a round is asking for people to look at options like this. When the options were one attack for 1d6+3 vs. 2 attacks at -2 for 1d6+2/1d6+1, most people opted for the latter.
I don't think this is supposed to work, but if someone really has all those feats, plus the attack bonus to bother with this, and is using a quarterstaff (or used a feat for an exotic double eweapon), then they probably deserve this tiny benefit. I mean really, is the extra strength modifier of damage going to break your game?
So yeah, all attacks at -2, only the first one gets the 2x damage (and then only if you forgo the offhand), and any iteritave attacks need improved two weapon fighting or better anyways.
|
|
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'.
Then why would anyone ever use it as suggested in the rules (i.e. as a 1-handed and an off-hand weapon)? That's strictly worse than what you're suggesting (use it as a 2-handed and an off-hand weapon).
Mook fighting. Having played a fair few characters who used the Two-Bladed Sword having the option to switch from Boss killing (THF) to Mook clearing (TWF) on a round by round bases is quite helpful.
First, the rules do not explicitly deny a grip-change, thus they potentially allow one.
That kind of statement trips every Munchkin alarm bell in my GM brain. I say show me a rule that explicitly says, or even intimates, that you can. Allowing a rules interpretation based on the lack of a negative rarely works. For the sake of argument, assume that Climb didn't say you "need both hands free to climb, but you may cling
to a wall with one hand while you cast a spell or take some other action that requires only one hand." Would the absence of that statement allow for hands-free climbing?Lets KISS this and use the TWF Ranger, who only needs strength. Every Ranger who used a double weapon should have, by your ruling, been making Two-Weapon attacks at 1.5/.5, not 1/.5 back in 3.5.
Better then Longsword - Short sword, What about a Greatsword and a Spiked Gauntlet? Do you allow a character to TWF, take their first strike with the Greatsword and then their off-hand with the Spiked Gauntlet? Again assume TWF ranger.
This might be oil on the fire but an option that has ben brought up in 3.5 was to use a Two-Handed Weapon and Armor Spikes as Main and Off-Hand weapon for a THF/TWF full attack.
You get the THF bonuses of +str 1.5 on the main and +.5 on the Off-Hand with the TWF penalties (-2 with the TWF feat). If someone got the whole range of TWF and THF feats I don't see why he couldn't benefit from them, even with Double Slice with a quarter-staff (a cool but not super powerfull weapon) or a double weapon (needing a feat or racial trait).
EDIT: Ninja'd
Then why would anyone ever use it as suggested in the rules (i.e. as a 1-handed and an off-hand weapon)? That's strictly worse than what you're suggesting (use it as a 2-handed and an off-hand weapon).Mook fighting. Having played a fair few characters who used the Two-Bladed Sword having the option to switch from Boss killing (THF) to Mook clearing (TWF) on a round by round bases is quite helpful.
No, I understand why you would use it as a normal two-handed weapon. But I don't get why you would use it as one-handed + off-hand when you could use it as two-handed + off-hand when doing TWF. (I don't think you can.)
@Slime, If you were thinking you were ninja'd by what I said regarding a Great Sword and a Spiked Gauntlet, you weren't. Armor Spikes are a very different weapon from a Spiked Gauntlet, as Armor Spikes are one of the few weapons that don't require a hand to wield them. While that is not explicitly (trying not fall on my own sword here) stated in the rules it is back by FAQ.
@ hogarth, I don't think you can either with regards to double weapons, there's no support for that interpretation while there is at least some intimation that you can't.
|
|
Since a Bo or Quarterstaff is not meant to be used ONLY or primarily as a one-handed weapon, to try and shoehorn extra advantages beyond what a character expertly using it as it is normally meant to be used just sounds wrong!
I too use a Bo in r/l. While I am no "master", I can tell you that there is no way you can have 2 in your hands constantly and get anywhere near the effectiveness of using it with both hands available for it (potentially).
There will be too many missed strike-types and actions using two. As a matter of fact, I would argue that using two in this manner (except in a PENALIZED way) that the character will be LESS effective overall.
Go and try it yourself and see what I mean.
Also, a Bo is usually 5 to 6 feet long and is commonly more slender in diameter than what is commonly called a "quarterstaff".
I know this is a game, but unless up is down , then I would rule this as a penalty, not allowing added bonuses, like "Quick Draw" and such on top of it.
This is opening the doorway for a GM's nightmare, IMHO
|
Contributor
|
No, I understand why you would use it as a normal two-handed weapon. But I don't get why you would use it as one-handed + off-hand when you could use it as two-handed + off-hand when doing TWF. (I don't think you can.)Then why would anyone ever use it as suggested in the rules (i.e. as a 1-handed and an off-hand weapon)? That's strictly worse than what you're suggesting (use it as a 2-handed and an off-hand weapon).Mook fighting. Having played a fair few characters who used the Two-Bladed Sword having the option to switch from Boss killing (THF) to Mook clearing (TWF) on a round by round bases is quite helpful.
I think you're missing something here. The attack routine described goes:
1 attack (at a -2) at full attack bonus, adding 2x strength. No off-hand attack. (Backswing)
2 attacks (each at a -2) at BAB-5 (iterative attacks), each adding x1 strength. (Dual strike).
The question is whether you can switch from "two-handed grip" to "two-weapon grip" between attack 1 and attack 2. At no point is anyone swinging for two-handed and off-hand attacks at the same time.
Again, considering this requires Backswing, Dual Strike, Two Weapon Fighting, Improved Two weapon Fighting, Overhand Chop and using a double weapon, I personally don't see a problem.
I think you're missing something here. The attack routine described goes:
1 attack (at a -2) at full attack bonus, adding 2x strength. No off-hand attack. (Backswing)
2 attacks (each at a -2) at BAB-5 (iterative attacks), each adding x1 strength. (Dual strike).
But that's just plain making up new rules (not that there's anything wrong with that). Two-weapon fighting goes:
Main hand: normal sequence of iterative attacks plus main hand penalty
Off hand: one extra attack plus off-hand penalty
Now maybe there's nothing wrong with what you just described, but it's not two-weapon fighting. I hereby name it "two-weapon Vrocking" in honour of its inventor. :-)
|
In a 6-second long round, the rules do not allow for a 'grip change' in-between
They don't disallow it either...
QUOTE="The Wraith"]
Let's put it in another way: would you allow a character wielding a Longsword two-handed to make his first attack two-handed, then use Quick Draw to draw a Shortsword and continue with a two-weapon combo ?
Or wield a Longsword and a Shortsword, make the first attacks with both of them, and then drop the Shortsword and make a final attack with the Longsword two-handed? Because these examples are the same as a 'grip change' with a double weapon.
Now that you mention, sure I would. Quick Draw allows you to draw a weapon as a Free Action, using a negligible amount of time. Dropping a weapon is also a Free Action. Sounds like creative thinking to me.
The rules have made no such examples since the creation of 3.0 edition, so it's easy to understand that it's not possible by rules (again, we are speaking of 6-second long rounds, where you can make up to 7 attacks with incredible precision and damage - in a 1-minute long round, sure, it would be even understandable).
If the only thing we can do are what examples have been presented in the rules then the d20 ruleset is a VERY poor ruleset and is incapable of dealing with 99% of an average game session. In a fight, 6 seconds is an eternity. A real fight between TRAINED fighters will see MANY skillful and powerful blows exchanged during 6 seconds. When I studied Muy Thai we were told that if we had not won the fight in 10 seconds, we had lost it.
|
|
Since a Bo or Quarterstaff is not meant to be used ONLY or primarily as a one-handed weapon, to try and shoehorn extra advantages beyond what a character expertly using it as it is normally meant to be used just sounds wrong!
I too use a Bo in r/l. While I am no "master", I can tell you that there is no way you can have 2 in your hands constantly and get anywhere near the effectiveness of using it with both hands available for it (potentially).
There will be too many missed strike-types and actions using two. As a matter of fact, I would argue that using two in this manner (except in a PENALIZED way) that the character will be LESS effective overall.
Go and try it yourself and see what I mean.
Also, a Bo is usually 5 to 6 feet long and is commonly more slender in diameter than what is commonly called a "quarterstaff".
I know this is a game, but unless up is down , then I would rule this as a penalty, not allowing added bonuses, like "Quick Draw" and such on top of it.
This is opening the doorway for a GM's nightmare, IMHO
I don't THINK anyone is saying to use 2 bo staffs at all. But rather you use the two ENDS of the bo staff.
See, I don't think it is a nightmare for a GM at all. The game is not about GM vs Players, but about the GM & Players telling a good, fun story. The GM's job is not to "outfight and out do" the Players, but to provide good challenges and stories for the Players.
|
|
I don't THINK anyone is saying to use 2 bo staffs at all. But rather you use the two ENDS of the bo staff.
See, I don't think it is a nightmare for a GM at all. The game is not about GM vs Players, but about the GM & Players telling a good, fun story. The GM's job is not to "outfight and out do" the Players, but to provide good challenges and stories for the Players.
Ahhh yes, my fault, I stand corrected. Thanks for the clarification. I think I was very tired when I read the first post.
I do agree that it isn't GM vs Player.
Really this is just a case of staff specialization and not 2-handed fighting. That I could live with fine :)
|
|
I don't THINK anyone is saying to use 2 bo staffs at all. But rather you use the two ENDS of the bo staff.
See, I don't think it is a nightmare for a GM at all. The game is not about GM vs Players, but about the GM & Players telling a good, fun story. The GM's job is not to "outfight and out do" the Players, but to provide good challenges and stories for the Players.
Ahhh yes, my fault, I stand corrected. Thanks for the clarification. I think I was very tired when I read the first post.
I do agree that it isn't GM vs Player.
Really this is just a case of staff specialization and not 2-handed fighting. That I could live with fine :)
Well, it could be a case of under staffing vs over staffing as well :)
lol
lol I crack myself up lol
|
|
I don't THINK anyone is saying to use 2 bo staffs at all. But rather you use the two ENDS of the bo staff.
See, I don't think it is a nightmare for a GM at all. The game is not about GM vs Players, but about the GM & Players telling a good, fun story. The GM's job is not to "outfight and out do" the Players, but to provide good challenges and stories for the Players.
Ahhh yes, my fault, I stand corrected. Thanks for the clarification. I think I was very tired when I read the first post.
I do agree that it isn't GM vs Player.
Really this is just a case of staff specialization and not 2-handed fighting. That I could live with fine :)
Well, it could be a case of under staffing vs over staffing as well :)
lol
lol I crack myself up lol
hah!
Time to put up a Help Wanted sign at the local tavern:Help Wanted
Must be proficient in use of quarterstaff and Excel
Inquire within.
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'.
This is the best answer I can think of. (I was personally looking for rules on Double Weapons when I posted above, but I found only the specific mentions on each weapons, so I didn't post them)
Another thing it will become a nightmare if you allow for 'grip change' in the middle of the round (not only with two-weapon fighting): Sword'n Board with a buckler.
If you allow for 'grip change', then you would have to allow a character to mix Two-Handed attacks (with -1 penalty, due to the Buckler) and One-handed attacks in the same round. I can already see the cheese: 'Wait, I make my first 2 swings Two-handed and then the last one I change the grip, so that when it's the monster's turn I can benefit from my +8 Shield bonus from +5 Buckler, Shield Focus and Greater Shield Focus '...
it's easy to understand that it's not possible by rules (again, we are speaking of 6-second long rounds, where you can make up to 7 attacks with incredible precision and damageThe way I read this, you're contradicting yourself. 6-seconds is easily enough time to change grips and make numerous attacks in different fashions.
FWIW,
Rez
Sorry if I was not clear, I had to write '...where you can already make up to 7 attacks...'.
What I meant was, it's already hard to believe that a high-level character can make up to 7 (8 if we count Haste) precise blows into a 6-second round and being able to choose which targets get each of those attacks:'Ok, I stand between a naked, frothing Barbarian and a full-clad armored Knight; I take a 5-foot step so I am not flanked anymore, then I make my first roll at full BaB against the Knight... miss ? heck, I make the first roll with the Off-hand weapon then... hit? good, then I make my second roll with the main hand against the Knight again... hit? ok, I make the second roll with the off-hand against the Barbarian then - you know, the damage is so low with my +1 Shortsword...'
and this is already allowed by the rules; allowing for mixing grips in-between those iterative attacks breaks suspension of belief.
Please remember that potentially each of these attacks can fell a foe, they are not simple bruises or hits to open the guard like in real life, unless you are implying that all human beings in real life have 50+ hit points and a 1d6+7 hit from a quarterstaff is only bruising them...
In the end, if you want to allow your characters to 'grip change' in the middle of the round, you are welcome to try. However, be warned that these problems will start to slow your fighting round to a crawl, mess with in-round calculations of the 'hit and damage' rolls, and open the door to abuse from players (why not taking all your 'main hand' rolls Two-handed and then change the grip and take all your off-hand rolls ? And why giving the -2 penalty to the Two-handed rolls? After all, the rules don't specifically say that you have to make Main/OffHand/Main/OffHand/Main when you fight with two weapons... so a player could ask to take Main/Main/Main/OffHand/OffHand... and the same player could say 'Wait, I have a -2 to my OFF-HAND attacks because it's only then that I'm fighting with two-weapons... for my first three attacks I went with only a single weapon... hey, you don't give me penalty in the current round for actions I will take in the next one, so why giving me penalties for an action I've not already taken?')
So, as you can see, it's up to you. But since in 9 years of 3.x this has neven happened and was never allowed, it has to have a meaning - believe me, you didn't have the need of feats like Overhand Chop for a player asking this kind of abuse in 3.x... the mere presence of Power Attack was enough (it was basically useless with off-hand weapons, and a must-have with Two-handed weapons); as such, such a combo (if it was possible) would have been mentioned already.
Just my 2c.
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 don't really think that is any proof that you can't switch 2h and 2w fighting in the same round. Just that if you choose to use it 2h for that attack you only use 1 end of the weapon. doesn't say you can't change you mind and use it as 2w fighing for you next attack.
|
|
[
Lets KISS this and use the TWF Ranger, who only needs strength. Every Ranger who used a double weapon should have, by your ruling, been making Two-Weapon attacks at 1.5/.5, not 1/.5 back in 3.5.
I'm catching up on the thread but to give more context, The idea was to make a Thief Catcher concept (TWF Ranger) that used strength as his main stat (taking advantage that we wont need the dex to get most of the TWF feats). I like the idea of him looking underwhelming by wielding a "simple weapon" like a the quarterstaff but getting a lot of versatility from it.
Was looking at a number of feats like Overhand Chop that a normal strength PC would grab and how these would interact with TWF.
What I'm finding interesting is how many people previously gave TWF double Weapons:
A) Primary: dam +1 1/2 STR
Secondary: dam +1/2 STR
vs
B) Primary: dam +1 STR
Secondary: dam +1/2 STR
I think if you use A) then it would be consistent to allow the use of Backswing otherwise not.
I'm wondering if similar issues will arise with the revised Vital Strike line, but I haven't seen the text.
Final Rules Spoiler ...
It sounds like the Overhand Chop feat line didn't make the final cut.
|
|
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'.
This is the best answer I can think of. (I was personally looking for rules on Double Weapons when I posted above, but I found only the specific mentions on each weapons, so I didn't post them)
Another thing it will become a nightmare if you allow for 'grip change' in the middle of the round (not only with two-weapon fighting): Sword'n Board with a buckler.
If you allow for 'grip change', then you would have to allow a character to mix Two-Handed attacks (with -1 penalty, due to the Buckler) and One-handed attacks in the same round. I can already see the cheese: 'Wait, I make my first 2 swings Two-handed and then the last one I change the grip, so that when it's the monster's turn I can benefit from my +8 Shield bonus from +5 Buckler, Shield Focus and Greater Shield Focus '...
...it's easy to understand that it's not possible by rules (again, we are speaking of 6-second long rounds, where you can make up to 7 attacks with incredible precision and damageThe
6 seconds in real life combat is a REALLY long time. 2-4 blows can easily be delivered in 1 second. And unlike a game that simulates the combat, allowing more than 6 seconds for non-skilled players to make decisions, an actual combatant does little analysis, allowing instinct and muscle memory and intuition guide the fight. There is some active thought yes, but training guides most of the combat. That is why you train to begin with.
Now as to the rules... the two rules don't actually imply anything of what-so-ever about grip change. They say for double weapons used as TWG you use the two ends like two weapons, and for Two handed fighting you use one end. Neither one says nor implies anything about how the style is used in multiple attacks.
Now, while no rule or example expressly demonstrates such changes, the concept is pretty easy to accept. Assume I have 5 attacks (one off-hand attack)
1st attack I Trip
2nd attack I Disarm
3rd attack I Sunder
4th attack I Power Attack
5th attack I Grapple
In your games do you not allow use of maneuvers and attacks in the same round? Because it is pretty clear you can. Just don't forget your modifiers.
So what is the difference between the above, and this
1st attack I Two Handed attack with Staff
2nd attack I attack with one end of the staff
3rd attack I attack with the other end of the staff
4th attack I Two Handed attack with Staff
5th attack I Two Handed attack with Staff
In fact when you consider all you change is your grip, it is easier to accept the bottom scenario than the top one.
Ultimately it is an individual GM call. But I can't see any justification to not allow it other than "I don't want to."
To me, anything that makes combat more dynamic, more interesting than the normal "I stand there and swing at him" is a good thing. The usual D&D fight of standing in one place and exchanging blows is boring and makes for boring stories.
|
|
BTW my very first instinct on this topic was they don't combine. But the more I thought about the more I realized there is nothing at all that says they can't. Just I had never thought to do it before.
The only key to remember is that any multipliers and penalties need to be accounted for the entire round.
Oh and as for implying that perhaps sometimes those modifiers do not apply the entire round, check full attack. You can take your first attack, and THEN decide if you want to continue with a full attack or not. It implies you can make that first attack and then decide your following attacks. Since that first attack has already been resolved you cannot go back and apply modifiers retroactively.
But again it IMPLIES that, so not sure that would over rule an explicitly stated rule about modifiers.
I would have no problem ruling it that way.
(Two Weapon Fighting section)
The off-hand end of a Double Weapon ISN'T a light weapon, it only uses the same 2WF attack penalties.
(STR Damage Bonus section)
(Gnome Hooked Hammer)
Notice, if you are using both ends you MUST be "wielding it two-handed". Unless specifically instructed, I'd rather not invent a Schrodinger's Cat scenario of "Wielding 2 Handed AND NOT Wielding 2 Handed"
This is my take on it:
Nowhere are "2 Handed" / "2WF" presented as necessarily exclusive modes.
Double Weapons are NOT considered 1H weapon+Light weapons held in each hand IN GENERAL, they just use the same ATTACK PENALTIES for 2WF. If you are "wielding" (holding) a (Double) weapon in 2 hands, then you increase the damage bonus appropriately.
"Switching grips" and the like is completey un-necessary.
2 Weapon Fighting with a Double Weapon should yield: 150% STR damage main-hand and 75% STR damage off-hand.
Given that outside of Quarterstaves, all Double Weapons are Exotic Weapons, this doesn't seem at all over-powering. Without this, I don't see much reason to use Double Weapons (at the cost of a Feat - ON TOP OF the normal Feat Tax for 2WF, none of which scale at all for Standard Attacks.)
Nothing personal, Wraith, but from reading your posts about what is "plausible" to you for a Fighter to do, but it sounds like you have very limited real-world experience with this subject matter. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think your probable youth and lack of experience are limiting your perspective. Sorry if I have misjudged you, but that is what I infer from reading your posts.
Well, thank you for the 'probable youth' (I'm not so young anymore...), but regarding lack of combat experience, you're absolutely right.
Actually, the phrase is "suspension of disbelief".
allowing for mixing grips in-between those iterative attacks breaks suspension of belief.
Oops, sorry, I made a long rant and writing in a hurry I made this error.
Well, it's obvious we have different ideas on this matter. Anyway, I still think it's a dangerous road to allow for this kind of interpretation in the rules. However, if you are ready to take this risk, and you and your players are enjoying your game, you are welcome to allow this.
Now, while no rule or example expressly demonstrates such changes, the concept is pretty easy to accept. Assume I have 5 attacks (one off-hand attack)
1st attack I Trip
2nd attack I Disarm
3rd attack I Sunder
4th attack I Power Attack
5th attack I GrappleIn your games do you not allow use of maneuvers and attacks in the same round? Because it is pretty clear you can. Just don't forget your modifiers.
Well, most of the things you are mentioning are already allowed by the rules - CMB fighting already states that some maneuvers can be made in place of regular attacks, so by RAW they can be made
(but, in your example above, you cannot make '5th attack -> 1 Grapple' - Grapple has become a standard actionBonus Bestiary, page 2:
"Combat maneuvers include bull rush, disarm, grapple, overrun, sunder, and trip. While disarm, sunder, and trip can be used as part of an attack action (replacing an attack), bull rush, grapple, and overrun are made as part of a move action or, in the case of grapple, as a separate standard action."
and I strongly suspect that all penalties from Power Attack and Two-Weapon Fighting still apply to all combat maneuvers)
However, nowhere in the rules is mentioned the possibility to change style of combat in the middle of the round, like (as I posted above) changing grip for a Longsword and Buckler wielder in order to mix Two-handed attacks and Sword'n Board attacks (believe me, some players I play with would have already tried if it was possible !...) - of course, you can change grip in different rounds, and in fact clever Buckler fighters usually do it every time they need more power or more defense.
Just my 2c, and peace to all.
However, nowhere in the rules is mentioned the possibility to change style of combat in the middle of the round, like (as I posted above) changing grip for a Longsword and Buckler wielder in order to mix Two-handed attacks and Sword'n Board attacks (believe me, some players I play with would have already tried if it was possible !...) - of course, you can change grip in different rounds, and in fact clever Buckler fighters usually do it every time they need more power or more defense.
It seems to me that would be ruled that if you "switch your grip" once for a 2h attack with your longsword you would have to loose your buckler to AC for the whole round no matter if you "switch your grip" back or not. Easy fix. In the end I hardly thing it would be overpowered to use a stave or any doubleweapon the way posted above.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, most of the things you are mentioning are already allowed by the rules - CMB fighting already states that some maneuvers can be made in place of regular attacks, so by RAW they can be made
(but, in your example above, you cannot make '5th attack -> 1 Grapple' - Grapple has become a standard actionDOH!!!! yep you're right! lol but you get the idea lol
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. Now take it a step further. An elf in Pathfinder can spend centuries making magic items (no xp cost), selling 2/3 of them, making more items with the profits, etc. until he has 1,000,000,000 gp worth of items and is invincible. The rules allow it, by a wide margin and no creativity required! So now that I've thought of it, all elven casters with crafting feats in all games have infinite gear, okay?
Or not. Some things can be lawyered in, but are just plain cheese. The case in point is one of them, IMHO.