This question came up during a recent 3.5 game, and since you guys are, well THE guys when it comes to anything 3.5 compatible, maybe you could help us out.
The Situation:
I am a whirling frenzy barbarian using an orc double-axe. I'm raging, so I gain an extra attack for the round. My first attack is made as a double weapon, which nets me 2 attacks with less damage (based from my strength mod). I want to switch my grip before my second attack, thus attacking with a two-handed weapon and gaining the extra strength bonus to my attack. The DM said I couldn't switch grips because I was in the middle of a full-round action, although switching grips is a free action (I think, need the clarification).
Any thoughts?
What I allow in this situation (not raw from what I know) is:
1. You may switch grips during an attack but you must declare you will be doing so at the start of the full attack.
2. All penalties are cumulative on all attacks regardless of order of attack. two weapons to two handed or two handed to two weapons it doesn't matter (the two handed is considered your primary attack for purposes of what penalties it takes).
3. You must still have all the two weapon fighting feats for the attack you want to take the two weapon attacks on (example: if you only have two weapon fighting your two weapon fighting attacks must be the first attacks you make. If you have two weapon fighing and improved two weapon fighting then you could two hand attack followed by two weapon fighting -- but all penalties apply to all attacks still!).
Once you take on the TWF penalty and gain the extra attack you can't wield the weapon 2-handed to gain the extra damage. Your DM is correct.
Could I get the relevant page number and book where you're getting this information? I couldn't find it anywhere.
Once you take on the TWF penalty and gain the extra attack you can't wield the weapon 2-handed to gain the extra damage. Your DM is correct.Could I get the relevant page number and book where you're getting this information? I couldn't find it anywhere.
Because you are attacking with a primary hand and off-hand attack when TWF. Using the double axe as a two-handed weapon means you get the number of attacks that any two-handed weapon would give you which is based on your BAB.
Double Weapons
You can use a double weapon to make an extra attack with the off-hand end of the weapon as if you were fighting with two weapons. The penalties apply as if the off-hand end of the weapon were a light weapon.
Once you take on the TWF penalty and gain the extra attack you can't wield the weapon 2-handed to gain the extra damage. Your DM is correct.Could I get the relevant page number and book where you're getting this information? I couldn't find it anywhere.Because you are attacking with a primary hand and off-hand attack when TWF. Using the double axe as a two-handed weapon means you get the number of attacks that any two-handed weapon would give you which is based on your BAB.
Double Weapons
You can use a double weapon to make an extra attack with the off-hand end of the weapon as if you were fighting with two weapons. The penalties apply as if the off-hand end of the weapon were a light weapon.
Additionally:
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.
This is an excerpt of the Pathfinder rulebook describing double weapons, but as far as I recall the same wording is actually used in the 3.5 PHB.
Basically you make your choice at the start of each round and are stuck with that choice until your next round. Remember: free actions can be used only within reason and are subject to DM discretion.
Once you take on the TWF penalty and gain the extra attack you can't wield the weapon 2-handed to gain the extra damage. Your DM is correct.Double Weapons
You can use a double weapon to make an extra attack with the off-hand end of the weapon as if you were fighting with two weapons. The penalties apply as if the off-hand end of the weapon were a light weapon.Additionally:
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.This is an excerpt of the Pathfinder rulebook describing double weapons, but as far as I recall the same wording is actually used in the 3.5 PHB.
Basically you make your choice at the start of each round and are stuck with that choice until your next round. Remember: free actions can be used only within reason and are subject to DM discretion.
Looking at the 3.5 PHB, first on page 115, under the description of the Orc Double Axe: "An orc double axe 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 (see Two-Weapon Fighting, page 160).
Then continuing on to page 160 to refresh myself with the Two-Weapon Fighting rules: "Double Weapons: You can use a double weapon to make an extra attack with the off-hand end of the weapon as if you were fighting with two weapons. The penalties apply as if the off-hand end of the weapon were a light weapon."
So far, everything is on the money with what has been said regarding 3.5 rules. The Pathfinder rules are unfortunately irrelevant (although SO much clearer) in this situation, as we haven't upgraded to Pathfinder rules in that particular campaign.
Now, here's another question regarding this, as I still see nothing concrete in the 3.5 rules stating that I CAN'T do it (nowhere does it have the wording of the Pathfinder book, unless there was a third revision of 3.5 I'm unaware of). I agree that the DM can limit the amount of free actions one could use during the round, but since this is my ONLY free action, it still seems suspect. Let's say that he won't allow that free action to take place (which obviously happened), but would allow me to pull a potion from a masterwork potion belt mid-swing during the round. How does this make more sense than simply sliding one hand or the other from one position on the handle to another? I could see limiting a player to one switch per round, and them starting with the last grip they used in the next round (so going from a double attack to a two-handed attack one round, then going from a two-handed attack to a double attack the second round, and so on). I'm not trying to get a fourth attack or anything, I'm simply trying to picture what a 'whirling frenzy' barbarian would look like, bashing two faces in with either end of his axe, then 'whirling' around to take down another fresh enemy.
I do see what everyone is saying, however it's really not clear in the 3.5 PHB. They didn't really take into account multiple attacks with a weapon that CAN be wielded either as a two-handed weapon OR as two weapons. Rather, they didn't specifically handle the grip change rules from round to round.
Regardless, this character unfortunately died during the next session (our 3 2nd-level characters faced down an EL7 encounter since the DM wasn't 100% sure about what we could or couldn't handle). I guess the main issue I had was him telling me that I could do this, then spending my feats to get the Exotic Weapon Proficiency and Two-Weapon Fighting just to tell me during my first round of full attacks that I couldn't. GAAAAAAH!
Anywho, thanks very much for clarifying everything regarding the Pathfinder stuff. I can't wait to convert the rest of the group over!
Now, here's another question regarding this, as I still see nothing concrete in the 3.5 rules stating that I CAN'T do it (nowhere does it have the wording of the Pathfinder book, unless there was a third revision of 3.5 I'm unaware of). I agree that the DM can limit the amount of free actions one could use during the round, but since this is my ONLY free action, it still seems suspect.
You're right -- there's no rule covering switching grips (other than you "choose" to do so), so I'm not sure why you think it's a free action. My interpretation is that you "choose" once per full attack or single attack (as the case may be) and that it's not an action at all.
I agree it's ambiguous, but I'd like to avoid strange cases where a character starts attacking two-handed with a longsword, and then takes his right hand off the grip and makes an off-hand attack with the same longsword. Not because it's overpowered, but because that just seems weird to me. :-)
If you want to switch grips round to round, that is allowed. That is the whole point behind double weapons. Run up to the bad guy I only get a standard action, guess I’ll power attack 2 handed bad guy survives and two buddies move in guess I’ll take 3 attacks this round.
Round to round is no problem, but once you commit to brandishing the weapon a certain way, that is how you wield it for those 6 seconds.
Considering 3e -> PF combat is pretty flexible between attacks - you can decide to attack a different target, use a combat maneuver, load up ammunition for a bow, and so on - I'd be fairly lenient about switching grip on a suitable weapon.
That said, I would apply any penalties for choices you've previously taken to the subsequent attacks. You've invoked the two-weapon fighting penalties for taking that extra attack, you'll have to live with them even if you switch grips to use the weapon two-handed style until your next turn comes up.
As far as I've seen it sounds like RAW you pick on grip and attack with that in a given round. (But can change grips as a free action when you aren't attacking)
However personally I think double weapons are pretty weak for being exotics. I would probably let one of my players slide on so long as he took the TWF penalty for the whole round.
My first attack is made as a double weapon ... [and] I want to switch my grip before my second attack, thus attacking with a two-handed weaponDear God !!! Not This Again
This situation was just vehemently debated HERE !!!!
Please read the old thread before rehashing this.
Ouch ... the painful flashbacks ...
R.
Thank you for your link. I wasn't aware that this had been discussed in such great detail. However, feel free to ignore any further posts in this thread if you find it painful to read this discussion. Thank you.
Dear God !!! Not This AgainHa! My thoughts exactly.
See above.
Considering 3e -> PF combat is pretty flexible between attacks - you can decide to attack a different target, use a combat maneuver, load up ammunition for a bow, and so on - I'd be fairly lenient about switching grip on a suitable weapon.
That said, I would apply any penalties for choices you've previously taken to the subsequent attacks. You've invoked the two-weapon fighting penalties for taking that extra attack, you'll have to live with them even if you switch grips to use the weapon two-handed style until your next turn comes up.
Yeah I was accruing the penalties for fighting with two weapons and the inherent penalty from the whirling frenzy rage feature, so it wasn't like I was stacking a ton of bonuses. Actually it made me quite bland as far as combat went. It was more for style.
As far as I've seen it sounds like RAW you pick on grip and attack with that in a given round. (But can change grips as a free action when you aren't attacking)
However personally I think double weapons are pretty weak for being exotics. I would probably let one of my players slide on so long as he took the TWF penalty for the whole round.
As far as I've seen it sounds like RAW you pick on grip and attack with that in a given round. (But can change grips as a free action when you aren't attacking)
However personally I think double weapons are pretty weak for being exotics. I would probably let one of my players slide on so long as he took the TWF penalty for the whole round.
I agree that the double weapons aren't there for the most efficient weapon options. I was going more for style points, I guess. The metagaming players were wondering why I didn't go with the falchion for the greater crit threat range or the greataxe for damage. It simply wasn't what I pictured my character using. I can't remember where someone got the free action to switch grips ruling, but it was tossed around the table but two other players and the DM, whom I believe have a greater knowledge than I do in this respect.
Page 113 Players Handbook (3.5) under the description of Double 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 (such as a human wielding a Small two-bladed sword) can’t use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.
Since you were not using the weapon in one hand to begin with, there shouldn't be any problem with 'switching your grip'-but the GM has the final say in his or her game. Personally, I would allow it, since the penalty for two-weapon fighting would still be in effect until the end of your action.
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.This is an excerpt of the Pathfinder rulebook describing double weapons, but as far as I recall the same wording is actually used in the 3.5 PHB.
Basically you make your choice at the start of each round and are stuck with that choice until your next round. Remember: free actions can be used only within reason and are subject to DM discretion.
That only says "a creature wielding a double weapon in one hand". The OP clearly isn't. That said, I probably wouldn't allow it. My reasoning is thus:
Take a quarterstaff for example. It is usually used for thrusting attacks, granting it (at least irl rather than raw) an advantage over a sword due to its increased length. If one starts by trying to swing with both ends, it is considerably harder switch one's grip so as to use it effectively as a two handed weapon. I'd rule that most if not all double weapons are the same in that regard.
But that's not what's happening here. The base two-weapon fighting feat grants it's extra attack on the first 'set' in a full attack action, so it would go like this.
Fighter is holding quarterstaff (or double-axe or what-have you) at half-staff.
Fighter swings left half towards the target's face
Fighter swings right half towards the target's ribs
Fighter begins another swing, but rather than make another simple swing of a single side, he sweeps the weapon up over his head, firmly gripping it at 'quarter-staff' 1 hand 1/4 of the way up the weapon, the other hand in the middle, and delivers a powerful two-handed diagonal downward swing targetting his foe's neck and shoulder.
Make more sense now?
Your imagery here is exactly what I'm talking about. Now to find that pesky rule regarding switching grips as a free action. Great posts on this topic everyone!
|
In a related vein...
(my apologies in advance for the slight thread jack)
What are people's thoughts on mixing a spiked gauntlet with a reach weapon, say a glaive for example.
Do you threaten ALL squares within 10' of you (assuming medium sized creature with normal reach)?
Therefore can you make AoO with either weapon depending on the opportunity that presents itself?
What if you have Combat Reflexes? Can you make one AoO with the gauntlet and then another with the glaive? Against the same opponent as part of his move? Against different opponents who both trigger AoO on their turns respectively?
It would seem to me the answer according to the RAW is yes to all the above.
Now, can you use two-weapon fighting to mix (multi) attacks on a full attack? Some with the glaive and some with the gauntlet?
Again, I would think the answer is yes according to RAW. At the very least there isn't anything in the RAW that I can find that specifically prohibits this.
There aren't any rules regarding switching grips. I would think that these would be free actions. (ie. glaive + glaive + free action remove one hand from glaive + gauntlet)
Keep in mind that you do not have to declare a full attack. You can make a single attack and then decide if you want to continue with your additional attacks or take another action (move or equivalent). Reference pg 187. If you are allowed to see the result of your first attack and then make a decision based on the results, I would find it hard not to allow players to "switch grips" in mid full attack.
Cheers
PS Now add in Stand Still, Lunge, Step Up, Mobility and Spring Attack. Good lord!
This question came up during a recent 3.5 game, and since you guys are, well THE guys when it comes to anything 3.5 compatible, maybe you could help us out.
The Situation:
I am a whirling frenzy barbarian using an orc double-axe. I'm raging, so I gain an extra attack for the round. My first attack is made as a double weapon, which nets me 2 attacks with less damage (based from my strength mod). I want to switch my grip before my second attack, thus attacking with a two-handed weapon and gaining the extra strength bonus to my attack. The DM said I couldn't switch grips because I was in the middle of a full-round action, although switching grips is a free action (I think, need the clarification).Any thoughts?
This is clearly an attempt to circumvent the rules for two weapon combat damage and benefit from the 1½ str modifier bonus from two handed weapons.
The spirit of the rules is clear enough. I think your DM is spot on on his ruling.
This question came up during a recent 3.5 game, and since you guys are, well THE guys when it comes to anything 3.5 compatible, maybe you could help us out.
The Situation:
I am a whirling frenzy barbarian using an orc double-axe. I'm raging, so I gain an extra attack for the round. My first attack is made as a double weapon, which nets me 2 attacks with less damage (based from my strength mod). I want to switch my grip before my second attack, thus attacking with a two-handed weapon and gaining the extra strength bonus to my attack. The DM said I couldn't switch grips because I was in the middle of a full-round action, although switching grips is a free action (I think, need the clarification).Any thoughts?
This is clearly an attempt to circumvent the rules for two weapon combat damage and benefit from the 1½ str modifier bonus from two handed weapons.
The spirit of the rules is clear enough. I think your DM is spot on on his ruling.
I disagree. The way you're wording it says something like 'this is clearly an attempt to cheat,' which is far from the truth. Saying that I'm 'effectively' two-weapon fighting (thus eliminating any chance for a two-handed attack) is the exact same argument of when a stirge attacks, he is 'effectively' grappling, meaning you cannot cast spells or make attacks against it since you are now 'grappling.' It's not a circumvention, it is merely a legitimate gripe with something that isn't clearly labeled. Please enlighten me on your interpretation of the spirit of the rule.
This question came up during a recent 3.5 game, and since you guys are, well THE guys when it comes to anything 3.5 compatible, maybe you could help us out.
The Situation:
I am a whirling frenzy barbarian using an orc double-axe. I'm raging, so I gain an extra attack for the round. My first attack is made as a double weapon, which nets me 2 attacks with less damage (based from my strength mod). I want to switch my grip before my second attack, thus attacking with a two-handed weapon and gaining the extra strength bonus to my attack. The DM said I couldn't switch grips because I was in the middle of a full-round action, although switching grips is a free action (I think, need the clarification).Any thoughts?
This is clearly an attempt to circumvent the rules for two weapon combat damage and benefit from the 1½ str modifier bonus from two handed weapons.
The spirit of the rules is clear enough. I think your DM is spot on on his ruling.
WUPS! Thanks for quoting him in your response Grandfather, I'd misread what he'd said.
As for RAW I'm not completely certain but I know I'd rule against it.
In my game, you can take the first pair of attacks (the two-weapon fighting attacks) and then your remaining iteratives could be two-handed swings, but if your two-weapon fighting then your two-weapon fighting, in that 'attack action' to steal a phrase from my homebrew (the meaning is in that iterative based attack opportunity) you chose to swing it twice, once with each end, so you get to swing it once with each end, at the normal two weapon fighting rules.
Maybe I didn't clarify this sentence enough, since either I'm really bad at figuring out what some people are saying or some people are assuming that I'm trying to attack with the second head of my double weapon at 1.5 Str bonus. I make my first double attack, then I make a second attack as a two-hander. I hope this makes sense. I am NOT wielding 2 weapons, I am 'effectively' wielding 2 weapons, as is covered by the double weapon rules.
|
As I see it. All attacks take a -2 penalty to hit.
Main attack at 1x dmg/ Off-hand attack at .5x dmg (Possibly argueable as 1x dmg)
Second att at 1.5x dmg.
If the character had Imp TWF, then he would have to choose between this set up, or his second set mirroring the first set. And so on for all four sets (if he has Perfect TWF).
As far as I've seen it sounds like RAW you pick on grip and attack with that in a given round. (But can change grips as a free action when you aren't attacking)
Thats my interpretation of the rule as well.
The way you interpret it there is no reason to say primary attack damage with double weapons is at x1 Str. mod and secondary ones at x½ str. mod.
One could just chose to two-hand the primary attacks for x1½ Str. mod. and then follow up with the secondaries.
That is not right!
Either you are fighting two-handed or you are fighting two-weapon style. There probably is a sage advice on it or a vague explanation of it if you really, look for it.
The spirit of the rule however is clear to me and I do not need to have it further explained. The x1/x½ rule would just be nonsense if you could just chose to two-hand in the midle of a fullround action.
The real advantage of double weapons is that they allow you to fight with the equivalent of two onehanded weapons without the corresponding TWF penalty. That is an effective +2 to attack rolls - i.e. a VERY good feat. I do not think exotic weapons are weak and I do not think it is necesary to shoehorn two-hander rules on double weapons to make them effective.
As I see it. All attacks take a -2 penalty to hit.
Main attack at 1x dmg/ Off-hand attack at .5x dmg (Possibly argueable as 1x dmg)
Second att at 1.5x dmg.If the character had Imp TWF, then he would have to choose between this set up, or his second set mirroring the first set. And so on for all four sets (if he has Perfect TWF).
I hope you are aware that that is a house-rule.
Well duh. We've been discussing the outcome of a DM ruling. Therefore the entire discussion has been house rulings.
Did you miss the 'As I see it' at the start?
Since seeing implies a degree of objectivity... well yes, I thought you where still discussing the actual rules.
What part of the actual rules contradicts my view?
You are completely disregarding the descriptions of double weapons and of two weapon fighting.
|
|
Actually, I'm not. I'm looking at them through the lens of this discussion. It has pointed out a few items I didn't notice. The main point that there is no rule against combining a set of TWF and a set of THF.
The only thing that would contradict me is the order of iterative attacks. But the text does not state how off-hand attacks intersperse with main hand attacks. Attacks are made from highest to lowest attack bonus, and you may choose to start with either weapon.
So it would work with the off-hand leading first, then the main, and then the main iterative. Beyond that is not covered by the rules and would be a DM ruling.
As far as I've seen it sounds like RAW you pick on grip and attack with that in a given round. (But can change grips as a free action when you aren't attacking)
Thats my interpretation of the rule as well.
The way you interpret it there is no reason to say primary attack damage with double weapons is at x1 Str. mod and secondary ones at x½ str. mod.
One could just chose to two-hand the primary attacks for x1½ Str. mod. and then follow up with the secondaries.
That is not right!
Either you are fighting two-handed or you are fighting two-weapon style. There probably is a sage advice on it or a vague explanation of it if you really, look for it.
The spirit of the rule however is clear to me and I do not need to have it further explained. The x1/x½ rule would just be nonsense if you could just chose to two-hand in the midle of a fullround action.The real advantage of double weapons is that they allow you to fight with the equivalent of two onehanded weapons without the corresponding TWF penalty. That is an effective +2 to attack rolls - i.e. a VERY good feat. I do not think exotic weapons are weak and I do not think it is necesary to shoehorn two-hander rules on double weapons to make them effective.
I think you're entirely missing what I'm trying to do. If I'm reading what you're saying correctly, you think I want to toss in the larger attack directly in the middle of my full round attack. No, I don't. I wish to take a penalty on all my attacks, in accordance with the TWF rules and feat. This means I'm already taking a -2 on both my first two attacks as a double weapon, AND an additional -2 on my larger attack at the end of the full attack action. Since I am granted an extra attack every round I rage, I would have 3 attacks per round. It seems like you're still thinking I can only get 2 attacks per round regardless of this bonus due to the whirling frenzy rage variant while using a double weapon, which is an error on your part.
I think you're entirely missing what I'm trying to do. If I'm reading what you're saying correctly, you think I want to toss in the larger attack directly in the middle of my full round attack. No, I don't. I wish to take a penalty on all my attacks, in accordance with the TWF rules and feat. This means I'm already taking a -2 on both my first two attacks as a double weapon, AND an additional -2 on my larger attack at the end of the full attack action. Since I am granted an extra attack every round I rage, I would have 3 attacks per round. It seems like you're still thinking I can only get 2 attacks per round regardless of this bonus due to the whirling frenzy rage variant while using a double weapon, which is an error on your...
Not quite.
I was not at all talking about the extra attack at this point.Only about the TWF rule. You have made a good argument for your cause, but I am still not convinced on which interpretation is the "most correct"
My parting point (for the 3rd attack), is derived from the general rules governing extra attacks granted by special and magical abilities. They are not set in stone but are refered to under the Haste spell and the Speed special weapon ability.
Speed: When making a full-attack action, the wielder of a
speed weapon may make one extra attack with it. The attack
uses the wielder’s full base attack bonus, plus any modifiers
appropriate to the situation. (This benefit is not cumulative
with similar effects, such as a haste spell.)
From this one can argue about what is meant by ...any modifiers
appropriate to the situation...I am tempted to allow two handed wielding on the bonus attack (only), but if you allow this there is no logic in imposing the -2 to hit from TWF on that attack. For the regular attacks I maintain that the -2 to hit and x1/x½ str. mod. still apply no matter what.
I think you're entirely missing what I'm trying to do. If I'm reading what you're saying correctly, you think I want to toss in the larger attack directly in the middle of my full round attack. No, I don't. I wish to take a penalty on all my attacks, in accordance with the TWF rules and feat. This means I'm already taking a -2 on both my first two attacks as a double weapon, AND an additional -2 on my larger attack at the end of the full attack action. Since I am granted an extra attack every round I rage, I would have 3 attacks per round. It seems like you're still thinking I can only get 2 attacks per round regardless of this bonus due to the whirling frenzy rage variant while using a double weapon, which is an error on your...Not quite.
I was not at all talking about the extra attack at this point.Only about the TWF rule. You have made a good argument for your cause, but I am still not convinced on which interpretation is the "most correct"
My parting point (for the 3rd attack), is derived from the general rules governing extra attacks granted by special and magical abilities. They are not set in stone but are refered to under the Haste spell and the Speed special weapon ability.
Speed: When making a full-attack action, the wielder of a
speed weapon may make one extra attack with it. The attack
uses the wielder’s full base attack bonus, plus any modifiers
appropriate to the situation. (This benefit is not cumulative
with similar effects, such as a haste spell.)From this one can argue about what is meant by ...any modifiers
appropriate to the situation...I am tempted to allow two handed wielding on the bonus attack (only), but if you allow this there is no logic in imposing the -2 to hit from TWF on that attack. For the regular attacks I maintain that the -2 to hit and x1/x½ str. mod. still apply no matter what.
There is SOME logic regarding giving the extra attack the -2 penalty, as I will quote the Whirling Frenzy entry from page 66 of Unearthed Arcana: While in a whirling frenzy, the barbarian may make one extra attack in a round at his highest base attack bonus, BUT this attack takes a -2 penalty, as does EACH OTHER attack made that round. Now that the TWF feat gives me a reduction in my penalty, I'll still take an additional -2 for the double weapon attacks, meaning my first attack (the double) would be at -4/-4 (with x1 and x1/2 str mods), and then as I whirl around to finish the adversary off, I'm at a -2 with a x1 1/2 str mod. Basically, I'm netting 3 damage based off my Strength, with only a slightly higher chance of actually connecting with it. Then, I'd argue, the following round, my first attack would be two-handed, suffering a -2 penatly, and my second attack would be made as a double weapon, but suffering a -4 penalty. This switches from round to round, but I'm not gaining anything from round to round as far as a bonus compared to any other round. It just switches the order of my attack options.
Now throwing in haste, that's basically just the spell version of whirling frenzy. Toss that on top, and I still only switch one time per round, sometimes getting an extra big attack, sometimes getting an extra small attack. That's when things start to get confusing, I'd imagine. Not that everything isn't confusing as it is, lol.
There is SOME logic regarding giving the extra...
I had forgotten about the Frenzys own -2. I was only refering to the TWF -2.
Regardless, this does not appear to have much to do with PF.
The Whirling Frenzy really does not mix well with the new Barbarian rage and I would discourage any GM from allowing it.
Also bear in mind that all extra attacks no matter the source do not stack any more, so you could not benefit (in PF) from hasting while using a Whirling Frenzy.
My oppinion at least is that you should be very carefull before mixing old 3.5 bagage into PF. I think the Whirling Frenzy option was a very powerful option and a mistake to begin with.
There is SOME logic regarding giving the extra...I had forgotten about the Frenzys own -2. I was only refering to the TWF -2.
Regardless, this does not appear to have much to do with PF.
The Whirling Frenzy really does not mix well with the new Barbarian rage and I would discourage any GM from allowing it.
Also bear in mind that all extra attacks no matter the source do not stack any more, so you could not benefit (in PF) from hasting while using a Whirling Frenzy.
My oppinion at least is that you should be very carefull before mixing old 3.5 bagage into PF. I think the Whirling Frenzy option was a very powerful option and a mistake to begin with.
We're not converted over to Pathfinder yet. Well I am, but in the campaign I'm playing in where this came up, we're still solely in 3.5. I just had no other idea where to go for any insights regarding this in-game issue. I do agree that the whirling frenzy rage option is pretty scary. I do love the new barbarian rage powers in PF though, even more than WF.