Two Weapon Fighting


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 89 of 89 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Brodiggan Gale wrote:


Why exactly? My point was to compare the two fighting in a reasonable realistic manner, i.e., as if they were characters that would actually be played, facing even level opponents. Leaving "dead levels" in the two weapon fighter just because the two handed fighter doesn't have as valuable of a feat to take at that point is just the sort of theorycrafting I was trying to avoid.

...

Because as you admitted there are options out there for a 2handed fighter, but it is challenging to make a descent analysis with the sheer volume of such abilities. If they truly do balance out as you say in the additional books, then each fighter would be able to take something to promote their combat style at each feat. As you have it, there are quite a few more feats that you take for your two weapon fighter that increase the damage output in your statistics then the 2handed fighter. If one included the splat books they would have the same number of useful feats in that regard. There would be something to put instead of vital strike, cleave, great cleave, that could potentially increase the 2handers damage output for a full attack, where as the 2weapon fighter would have to replace something already contributing to damage if they were to use splat book feats.

As for my original post I admit it was incorrect, and was based mostly on anecdotal evidence from 3.5 games. One thing I am happy about is how close your numbers are. With a spread of a few damage points per round would suggest a rather solid balancing job by paizo in PFRPG.


grasshopper_ea wrote:
Lyingbastard wrote:


Two weapon fighting takes specific training to be effective, and is less effective in the sort of fight when it's many against many, so it often wasn't historically used by soldiers. By a well-trained individual, it can be quite effective.

Actually if you read the book of five rings, when he is talking about his own style (two swords), he says it is the best style against many. You can fend them off with slashes to keep them away from you, but if you need to use both hands for power you can just drop one sword. It's harder to get a second one out when you need it than to drop one when you don't. And when it comes to sword fighting Musashi is definately a reliable source.

My favorite technique from that book is called "stab the face"

I was talking mass against mass, like on a battlefield. When it's one against many, two weapons is probably the best because you can fend them off to both sides instead of leaving one side or the other vulnerable. That's what Musashi's technique was for.

When you're in a crush melee of line vs line, TWF is impractical because you're more likely to injure one of your comrades; when it's just you against many, you don't have to worry about that and in fact are well served to attack in all directions.


Brodiggan Gale wrote:

And the Archer.. just for comparison.

...

+2 Plate Mail (4k)
Ring of Protection +1 (2k)
Amulet of Natural Armor +1 (2k)
Cloak of Resistance +2 (4k)
Belt of Physical Might +2 (10k)
Bracers of Archery (5k)
+3 Composite Longbow (18k)

For a total of 45k in wealth.

1 Weapon Focus
F Deadly Aim
F Point Blank Shot
3 Rapid Shot
F Weapon Specialization
5 Mobility
F Manyshot
7 Shot on the Run
F G. Weapon Focus
9 Improved Critical

Bonuses to hit: +9 BAB, +6 Dex, +2 WF/GWF, +2 Weapon Training, +3 Enhancement, +1 Bracers of Archery

Comp. Longbow (+3), +21(x2)/+21/+16 for 1d8+17 (+4 Str, +6 Deadly Aim, +2 Weapon Spec., +2 Weapon Training, +3 Enhancement) Avg. Damage: 89.6575 (including crits)

That's a massive 40-50% damage boost over either of the other types. Even moreso when you consider that every single time either of the melee fighters would be using a single attack + move, the archer would likely simply be continuing to pump arrows into people with a full attack.
...

Brodiggan, first off I appreciate all the work you're putting into this. Thanks a lot. Question on the archer: What about ammunition limits? Assuming adequate healing, (bigggg assumption I know) the melee guys go all day, but the archer with a standard quiver packs it up after three rounds.


therealthom wrote:
Brodiggan, first off I appreciate all the work you're putting into this. Thanks a lot. Question on the archer: What about ammunition limits? Assuming adequate healing, (bigggg assumption I know) the melee guys go all day, but the archer with a standard quiver packs it up after three rounds.

Heh, five rounds, actually. Honestly, I haven't ever seen it present a real problem. Unless you're using magical ammunition arrows are fairly cheap (5 copper pieces per shot) and there's nothing that prevents you from buying quite a few of them. Buy an Efficient Quiver as soon as you have a spare 1,800 gp and you won't even have to worry about switching out quivers between fights.

Assuming an average fight lasts about 3 rounds (not unreasonable) and you're using the medium XP progression, you'll go through around 60 rounds of combat per level. That's roughly 240 arrows during level 9, assuming the archer gets a full attack each round of combat (also not unreasonable), which will cost them a grand total of 12gp.


Lyingbastard wrote:


I was talking mass against mass, like on a battlefield. When it's one against many, two weapons is probably the best because you can fend them off to both sides instead of leaving one side or the other vulnerable. That's what Musashi's technique was for.

When you're in a crush melee of line vs line, TWF is impractical because you're more likely to injure one of your comrades; when it's just you against many, you don't have to worry about that and in fact are well served to attack in all directions.

Just a quick note Lyingbastard , the Romans would use two weapon fighting in the "crush" so to speak on occasion. When they did the method of use would be to ram their shields onto the enemies polearms there by rendering them useless (stuck in the shield and unable to pull them out easily without backing off) then send a soldier up between shields with two swords to cut poles, people and anything else not Roman before the shield wall advanced around him again (truthfully there would be several soldiers in the rush however it would still be at least 2 shields for every one two weapon person).

It wasn't a regular tactic per se, but it would be used when facing other formation fighting spear wielding soldiers.


Maybe we SHOULD consider 3.5 material. I know it's probably not possible to consider all feats but there are some really worth mentioning- Two weapon pounce- allows an attack with both weapons held at the end of a charge..There are some great others. Improved Buckler Defence lets you use a buckler even when TWF.....

I have struggled to find many DAMAGE dealing feats but there are great TW style feats in CW -mostly battle control orientated.
A few like slashing flurry and lighting mace add even more attacks but also require a particular weapon set.


Came up with a build including 3.5 feats- Mostly from CW and PHBII.
All my chars have 2 flaws (house rule)
Feats are in order selected. Char is Human

STR 14 (16)
DEX 17 (20)
CON 14
INT 13
WIS 13
CHA 8

TWF, Wpn Fcs:Longsword, Wpn Fcs: Handaxe, Combat Exp, Improved Trip,
High Sword Low Axe, Bravery
Dodge, Armor Training
Wpn Spl: Longsword
Mobility Weapon Training
Two weapon pounce
ITWF, Armor Training
Elusive Target,
Gtr Trip, Weapon Training
Combat Reflexes
Double Slice, Armor Training
Rolibar's Gambit
Two Weapon Rend, Weapon Training
Gtr Two Weapon Fighting
Power Attack, Armor Training
Melee Weapon Mastery
Leap Attack, Weapon Training
Combat Fcs
Combat stability, Armor Mastery
Combat vigor, Weapon Mastery

I'm not the best optimiser in the world, but this is pretty good Here's Why- (Note- All stats mentioned are class ability, feat only numbers. Not Magic Items or Str bonus taken into account. Mostly because you don't always have ideal gear and they can vary bonuses too much)

Combat- After just 2 levels he can improved trip as a Free action if both attacks hit. Up until level 6 your best option is full attack. At level 6 you learn two weaon pounce allowing you to make two attacks at the end of a charge (consequently getting to trip if you hit. Dodge and Mobility now offer extra movt. Protection, so now a move (specifically a charge) is nearly as good as a full attack. Your are a Battle controller.

Level 7-12 You can now move at full speed in heavy armour (wear adamantine fullplate if you can get it- DR3/-) At these levels your defence gets a big improvement and damage increases. At 8 the Eusive target tactical feat denies one enemy power attack bonus damage against you but still imposes the penalty. This is very powerful as power attack is common among high str monsters (and enemy fighters/paladins). If you are flanked it also redirects the first attack from a foe you designate to attack the other flanking foe (who is flat footed against that attack). Finally if you provoke an AOO by moving out of a threatend square and it misses you get a free trip attempt. At 9 your weapon training bonus negates the TWF penalty with the primary hand and makes it -1 with the offhand. Wpn training stacks with greater trip so your free trips will succeed alot. Doubleslice adds offhand damage. Combat reflexes and Rolibars Gambit now allows heaps of AOO.

13-17 Here is where your damage gets to serious levels- Two weapon rend is great, Gtr Two weapon grants yet another attack. Power attack (-5) adds +10 to the primary hand and +5 to the off hand. Typically Power attack and TWF at level 17 (BAB) would impose a -7 to your attack bonus, but weapon training reduces this to just -3 on the primary and -4 on the off hand, Melee weapon mastery adds +2 to both hands so not including enhancements you would make your full attack at +16/+11/+6/+1 primary and +15/+10/+5. Still a great BAB. Your charges are now doing heaps more as well- two attacks at +16/+15 (factoring in power attack) for +10/+5 bonus damage- leap attack doubles this to +20/+10 (+2 For wpn mastery, +4primary,+3 secondary for weapon training)You'll need 10 ranks in Acrobatics to garauntee your jump. Add rend to any attack that hits twice.

18-20 Tactically the build has peaked. Combat fcs bumps your will save and sets up the next levels. Combat stability adds +4 to your CMD. Combat Vigor gives you Fast Healing 4 and having a third combat form bumps Combat Stability to +8. You obviously gain weapon and armour mastery (Taking you to DR 8/-) and confirming crits with the longsword.
Taking weapon Training and full power attack into account Final Full attack (not including Str or enhancements) is
+19/+18/+14/+13/+9/+8/+4 with +10 damage on primary hand and +5 on secondary. Charges net a +19/+18 with double damage.

Feats that didn't make it
Improved Buckler defence- Great feat but lacked room. A must for any TWF PC- except dex fighters in Adamantine Fullplate.
Wpn Spl: Handaxe- replicated by Melee Weapon Mastery
Gtr Weapon Focus: L.Sword, Handaxe- replicated by Melee Weapon Mastery
Spring Attack- only allows 1 attack and Elusive target means you want to give them an attack leaving the square.

Why weren't the powerful combat form feats taken earlier?
While beneficial they would have delayed higher priority feats and the CMD of a high str, high dex fighter is good anyway. Whatsmore- weapon training vs heavy blades and axes applies vs sunder and disarm. Overrun can be avoided and tripfeats apply their bonus to CMD as well. The healing is nice but that's what potions/clerics/DR are for. Will save is the only bonus really missed.

This basically demonstrates how versatile TWF Can be- especially if your a fighter- Weapon Training basically erases Power Attacks- negative and Gtr weapon focus or Melee weapon mastery can erase the TWF penalty. No other class can approach this.

Cheers.


Pathfinder PF Special Edition Subscriber
KaeYoss wrote:
meatrace wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:

So it was never done. Neither was slinging about magical fire and lightning and using dragons, so I'm not losing any sleep over it.

Mauril wrote:


I agree with the fact that in medieval Europe (the default style of the game)

Nope. The default style of the game is fairy tales. Grim fairy tales inspired by various European folklore maybe, but not real stuff, anyway.

So if one guy is allowed to do crazy stuff that was never done in real life, like using magic or being a dwarf, why begrudge the other guy his unreal stuff when he wants to use weapons in both hands? The hypocrisy! :P

You're right. DOWN WITH MAGIC!
Majik is impressive. But now MINSC LEADS! SWORDS FOR EVERYONE!!!

"Squeeky wheel getsa kick!"

"Go for the eyes Boo, go for the eyes!"


Pathfinder PF Special Edition Subscriber
Dennis da Ogre wrote:


Yeah, this is sort of a death knell for the large multiplier weapons. I think they were less popular to begin with but when you add in that they are far less useful in combination with the crit feats they are going to be less and less common.

It depends on the style of game you are playing. If you are using the Gamemastery Crit Deck in your game... there is still a very real advantage to using a large multiplier weapon.

The more cards you draw the more chance you have of doing something REALLY nasty.


DM_Blake wrote:

Actually, I take a different world-view on TWF.

Historically speaking, it was never done. Well, almost never. Not in the sense of someone using two weapons that were both meant to be offensive weapons of the sort meant for killing an opponent.

Sure, some styles used a small defensive weapon in the off-hand. A parrying dagger or main gauche. But even that was only effective against certain weapons - nobody would dream of parrying a broadsword or a claymore or an axe with a main gauche, for example.

The advantage of parrying daggers is that they're much faster than shields and shields block a large area of your visibility, and if you're facing a fencer using fancy footwork and a very light fast weapon, that opponent will likely be able to lunge around your slow shield and/or take advantage of your limited visibility.

So when such weapons became popular, shields became unpopular, leaving the common fighting style to be a rapier in your main hand, and your other hand stick behind your back or behind your head - someplace safe where you wont have fingers chopped off by accident.

But a few guys got the notion that if they held a dagger in their off-hand, preferably one that protected their fingers, they might be able to parry a few of their opponent's attacks, and if they ended up crossing swords, that dagger might come in handy. The idea caught on, somewhat, but still was not widely used.

And as for spiked shields, those were almost never used either, other than an occasional, very short (a couple inches at most) center spike.

Sure, combatants would, when opportunity permitted, bang each other around with their shields, usually in an effort to batter aside the other guy's shield to create an opening to hit him with a weapon, or to get him off balance (which creates an opening to hit him with a weapon).

Nobody was really spiking shields for the intent of injuring their foes with the spikes. Spikes on shields would be a liability as your opponents would use those spikes against you, using their...

Actually, historically some samurai were known to wield a katana in each hand, (two one handed weapons) and the katana is of course part of the weapon set of Katana, Wakizashi, Tanto.

Shields can be used very aggressively depending on the situation and fighting styles.

Trident/Net is two weapon fighting.

Two daggers isn't uncommon in knife fighting. Sure against just about anyone else you don't want to resort to knives, but it's a viable option.

I'm not sure if you have any experience with classical fencing, but one of the off hand daggers greatest strengths is it's versatility when in-fighting (when you use your agility and main hand weapon to bind the opponents blade long enough to force under there gaurd).

Unarmed strikes (technically an off hand weapon) were also very common in real world melee fighting, as was pommeling (using the handle of the sword to punch).

Dual-Wielding, while not applicable in the ways it's portrayed in books/television, definately had a role in battle. I'd say a heavier role in duelling then in battlefield application, but still it had it's place.


Mauril wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:

Actually, I take a different world-view on TWF.

Historically speaking, it was never done. Well, almost never. Not in the sense of someone using two weapons that were both meant to be offensive weapons of the sort meant for killing an opponent.

I know for a fact that several southeast Asian armies did. Thai warriors were trained to fight with what would amount to two scimitars, on horseback no less. Sword and shield was also popular, but dual scimitars was common, even from horseback.

I agree with the fact that in medieval Europe (the default style of the game) it was almost unheard of until rapier/main gauche was used, but in the rule book it is presented as an option and I'm of the mind that options for a specific type should be roughly equal. If my melee character can choose from TWF, THF and SnB, he should have reasons mechanically to choose any of them, rather than needing character reasons for choosing the obviously inferior options.

I was just making sure that there wasn't something in PF core that I was missing that brought TWF up closer to THF.

Sword and Board TWF is an option I don't think any of the fighter-y types considered.

I'm not familiar with the Thai horsemen bit... but curved melee weapons in general are superior from horseback because of their cutting power and lower likelihood to get stuck into the target. Same reason the Cavalry Saber evolved.


Lokie wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:
meatrace wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:

So it was never done. Neither was slinging about magical fire and lightning and using dragons, so I'm not losing any sleep over it.

Mauril wrote:


I agree with the fact that in medieval Europe (the default style of the game)

Nope. The default style of the game is fairy tales. Grim fairy tales inspired by various European folklore maybe, but not real stuff, anyway.

So if one guy is allowed to do crazy stuff that was never done in real life, like using magic or being a dwarf, why begrudge the other guy his unreal stuff when he wants to use weapons in both hands? The hypocrisy! :P

You're right. DOWN WITH MAGIC!
Majik is impressive. But now MINSC LEADS! SWORDS FOR EVERYONE!!!

"Squeeky wheel getsa kick!"

"Go for the eyes Boo, go for the eyes!"

"Swords, not words !!!"

"The bigger they are, the harder I hit!"

Sorry but I could not resist...


The Wraith wrote:
Lokie wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:
meatrace wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:

So it was never done. Neither was slinging about magical fire and lightning and using dragons, so I'm not losing any sleep over it.

Mauril wrote:


I agree with the fact that in medieval Europe (the default style of the game)

Nope. The default style of the game is fairy tales. Grim fairy tales inspired by various European folklore maybe, but not real stuff, anyway.

So if one guy is allowed to do crazy stuff that was never done in real life, like using magic or being a dwarf, why begrudge the other guy his unreal stuff when he wants to use weapons in both hands? The hypocrisy! :P

You're right. DOWN WITH MAGIC!
Majik is impressive. But now MINSC LEADS! SWORDS FOR EVERYONE!!!

"Squeeky wheel getsa kick!"

"Go for the eyes Boo, go for the eyes!"

"Swords, not words !!!"

"The bigger they are, the harder I hit!"

Sorry but I could not resist...

We all just want a miniature giant space hamster of our own...


Pathfinder PF Special Edition Subscriber

*MEEP!* "Boo scurries away and Minsc's icy stare stops any other attempt to grab the hamster."

I cannot resist either... Minsc is just so fun to quote.


DM_Blake wrote:

Actually, I take a different world-view on TWF.

Historically speaking, it was never done. Well, almost never. Not in the sense of someone using two weapons that were both meant to be offensive weapons of the sort meant for killing an opponent.

I think dual-wielding should be just as viable an option as any other. Disregarding all else, dual-wielding is COOL. Or at least cool to some. If a player feels awesome while wielding two daggers, and balance can be maintained, then why make it more difficult for him technically? Nerfing him til he's at a disadvantage, and therefore not as cool, makes no sense. Nor does trying to over-complicate things to discourage players from playing a way that suits their aesthetic tastes. Ideally, my players would be on even ground, while feeling as bad-A as possible. Isn't that the point of the game, after all?


I personally think it can be good as a crit build, but less effective than 2hander after 10th due to the amount to DR encountered... For example if a monster has DR-10whatever, which is common after 10th than all the sudden your shortsword hitting for an average of 23 damage is now only 13 damage, where your power attacking average of 33 is still a decent 23 damage hit... Even if u have more attacks its still less damage. Lets say hasted the 2 hand guy hits 3 times for 69 ave dam(no crits) and the 2 hand guy attacks 5 times.. even if he hits all 5(which is unlikly) its still only 65 average(no crits).. Only way i see it playable if u wanna compete is togo the crit chain route..


Wow. Thread Necro.

Check out my two TWF Handbooks in the Advice section. One for fighters, One for rangers.

As it stands TWF is awesome but needs to be optimised to beat 2 handed. My guides explain how.

I would prefer in next addition they roll the TWF, TWD feats together (since in RL duel weapons meant more defence)

Eg TWF- get an offhand attack and a +1shield bonus
ITWF- get a second offhand attack and shield bonus increases by +1
GTWF- get a 3rd offhand attack, shield bonus increases to +3 and get a cumulative bonus to damage for every consecutive hit (hammer the gap)

Doubleslice- you add your full str bonus to offhand attacks instead of 1/2 and when you power attack you get x2 damage to both attacks, so if you Power Attack for -3 to hit, primary and offhand attacks get +6 to damage.

Liberty's Edge

I was doing a bit of research on TWF and this is what I came up with using 3 different builds: Fighter, Fighter/Ranger, Fighter/Rogue; with the Fighter using the Two-Weapon Fighter archetype as a base to work from wielding 2 scimitars.

Fighter:
Scimitar (+22/+17/+12/+7, 1d6+6 damage, crit 18-20/×3)
Scimitar (+22/+17/+12, 1d6+6 damage, crit 18-20/×3)

Fighter/Ranger
Scimitar (+20/+15/+10/+5, 1d6+4 damage, crit 18-20/×2)
Scimitar (+20/+15/+10, 1d6+4 damage, crit 18-20/×2)

Fighter/Rogue
Scimitar (+17/+12/+7/+2, 1d6+4 damage, crit 18-20/×2)
Scimitar (+17/+12/+7, 1d6+4 damage, crit 18-20/×2)
plus 5d6 sneak attack damage on each

As you can see the single class Fighter is the way to go for this option. The Fighter/Ranger isn't far behind. Where the F/R shines is against their favoured enemy gaining:

Fighter/Ranger vs Favoured Enemy
Scimitar (+26/+21/+16/+10, 1d6+4+6 damage, crit 18-20/×2)
Scimitar (+26/+21/+16, 1d6+4+6 damage, crit 18-20/×2)

The Fighter/Rogue shines with the amount of damage they can apply on a sneak attack.

Here is the complete listing of stats for your perusal: Two-Weapon Fighting Comparison


You're talking about a level 20 Fighter doing 1d6+6 damage on a hit? I'm not convinced it's even possible to make a character that bad.

Liberty's Edge

Chess Pwn: And yet you read it and commented.

Matthew Downie: It's not a character write-up. It's a comparison on the Fighting Style not the application of Damage as I wanted to see the differences the selected classes bring to the table. Buy I guess you missed that.

Updated to include the single class Ranger with Str/Dex swapped out.


Shadavar wrote:

Chess Pwn: And yet you read it and commented.

Matthew Downie: It's not a character write-up. It's a comparison on the Fighting Style not the application of Damage as I wanted to see the differences the selected classes bring to the table. Buy I guess you missed that.

Updated to include the single class Ranger with Str/Dex swapped out.

read what? The date of the post before the last one? Yeah. What he said? no, not really.


Classes don’t exist in a vacuum. The bonuses from magic items and feats will make the real world numbers much different.

It gets really bad when you have to start assuming a haste effect.


Mauril wrote:
Is there something I am missing, or is Two Weapon Fighting still annoyingly weak?

Two-weapon fighting is the highest DPR fighting style in the game.

How you build will depend on class but, by stacking static bonuses on both weapons, you can deal substantially more damage than a two-handed fighter by mid-level.

For most classes, you will want the kukri as your preferred weapon.

Fighter: Weapon Finesse, Trained Grace, Focus Weapon

Paladin: Smite works with both weapons while TWFing

Ranger: Instant Enemy applies your highest favored enemy bonus to your current opponent

Shadavar wrote:


Fighter:
Scimitar (+22/+17/+12/+7, 1d6+6 damage, crit 18-20/×3)
Scimitar (+22/+17/+12, 1d6+6 damage, crit 18-20/×3)

Fighter at 15 in the game I currently run.

+4 Kukri +27/+22/+17 (2d6+35/15-20/x2)
+4 Kukri +27/+22/+17 (2d6+29/15-20/x2)


I played an avenger vigilante who did TWF with dual-balanced spiked gauntlets and hand's autonomy to reduce TWF penalties to 0, then used shield gauntlet style, lethal grace, fist of the avenger, take 'em alive, and mad rush to have a really scary nonlethal pounce.

Of the things I mentioned in the above paragraph, literally the only thing that existed back in 2009 (or 2012) was "Spiked Gauntlets".


PossibleCabbage wrote:
I played an avenger vigilante who did TWF with dual-balanced spiked gauntlets and hand's autonomy to reduce TWF penalties to 0

You can't use hands autonomy to lower the penalties below 0. I guess you could consider the bonus from possessed hand to be reducing the penalties for one of the weapons, but that's not technically correct either.


The GM figured that Hand's Autonomy reduced it from -2 to -1, and then Dual-Balanced (which does not have a "minimum" clause) reduced it from -1 to 0. I figured this was "ask your GM" territory, so I did.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
The GM figured that Hand's Autonomy reduced it from -2 to -1, and then Dual-Balanced (which does not have a "minimum" clause) reduced it from -1 to 0. I figured this was "ask your GM" territory, so I did.

I am 99% sure that's not the intended interpretation, and while that's a reasonable house rule for any table, I wouldn't expect for it to work in general.


Melkiador wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
The GM figured that Hand's Autonomy reduced it from -2 to -1, and then Dual-Balanced (which does not have a "minimum" clause) reduced it from -1 to 0. I figured this was "ask your GM" territory, so I did.
I am 99% sure that's not the intended interpretation, and while that's a reasonable house rule for any table, I wouldn't expect for it to work in general.

I don't understand how that wouldn't work. Only Hand's Autonomy has a minimum penalty, and Dual-Balanced doesn't. They're independent effects from completely different sources, so they should stack. Hand's Autonomy does not set a hard limit, it is simply the limit that feat can reduce the penalty and pertains to that feat only.


Quote:
You reduce the penalties for fighting with two weapons (including fighting with double weapons or when throwing weapons from each hand) by 2, to a minimum penalty of –1.

So, the feat can never be used to reduce the penalty lower than -1.


Garbage-Tier Waifu wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
The GM figured that Hand's Autonomy reduced it from -2 to -1, and then Dual-Balanced (which does not have a "minimum" clause) reduced it from -1 to 0. I figured this was "ask your GM" territory, so I did.
I am 99% sure that's not the intended interpretation, and while that's a reasonable house rule for any table, I wouldn't expect for it to work in general.
I don't understand how that wouldn't work. Only Hand's Autonomy has a minimum penalty, and Dual-Balanced doesn't. They're independent effects from completely different sources, so they should stack. Hand's Autonomy does not set a hard limit, it is simply the limit that feat can reduce the penalty and pertains to that feat only.

Plus (and this was part of the logic) they apply in a clearly defined order. You wake up in the morning in your jammies and your hand is possessed, and able to do things for itself, so if you were to TWF with your fists Hand's Autonomy would function. But if you later pick up a couple of daggers, or put on some gloves, or whatever that happen to be balanced for two-weapon fighting, that effect occurs later. Put down the dual-balanced things and your penalty goes back to the minimum for Hand's Autonomy.


Exactly its order of operations.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The limiter on hands autonomy doesn’t stop functioning just because something new reduces the penalties. The limiter is always. There is no such order of operations as you suggest in the rules. Rather all ongoing effects need to satisfy each other when adding them together.


But Hand's Autonomy's limiter is only on what Hand's Autonomy does, not what things other than Hand's Autonomy can do. So it's more than reasonable to interpret that the modifier granted by a thing you cannot turn off to apply before the modifier granted by the item you have to pick up or put on.

If it's Hand's Autonomy and another passive effect from a feat, those would not stack, but if it's Hand's Autonomy and an item, I believe they should.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

But Hand's Autonomy's limiter is only on what Hand's Autonomy does, not what things other than Hand's Autonomy can do. So it's more than reasonable to interpret that the modifier granted by a thing you cannot turn off to apply before the modifier granted by the item you have to pick up or put on.

If it's Hand's Autonomy and another passive effect from a feat, those would not stack, but if it's Hand's Autonomy and an item, I believe they should.

I believe Melkiador is correct because both Dual-Balanced (DB) and Hand's Autonomy (HA) reduce penalties for Two-Weapon Fighting (TWF). HA will always reduce penalties by 2 to a minimum penalty of -1. If other feats or mods specifically reduce penalties for TWF as well, then HA will adjust to maintain that -1 minimum. In other words, with DB, TWF becomes -1 with light weapons and thus HA cannot reduce penalties any further. Even if you started with no weapons then added weapons, HA must maintain it's minimum -1 penalty, and as such it would adjust accordingly providing no benefit.

That being said, HA and DB would stack perfectly with one-handed weapons, which usually applying a -4 penalty that could be reduced to -1. It would certainly pair nicely with Weapon Focus as they target different aspects: penalty reduction vs increase to attack rolls.


spalding wrote:

Not to mention several different cultures developed Spear and Sword styles, in addition to the standard sword and board (in which the shield is often used offensively just as extensively as the sword is).

The Irish had such a style, as did the Romans... though it was much less common in Rome, generally only used by gladiators.

WTF are you talking about? To the best of my knowledge, Irish Kerns and Roman soldiers used javelins before switching to close, hand to hand, fighting, not at the same time... The Roman fighting style was based on the scutum, or the smaller parma for cavalry and light troops... that took up one arm, the other used either a spear or a blade.

I'm not so sure about the Irish, but I never heard of one hand spears being used along with a blade in HTH. Got any sources?


Mauril wrote:

Is there something I am missing, or is Two Weapon Fighting still annoyingly weak?

I am playing in a group with five melee characters and only one has decided to go with TWF, and he's a rogue. I know Sneak Attack makes TWF worth it, but is there a way for our ranger (who can get TWF for free) want to take it over his greatsword and bow (with associated free archery feats)? How about the fighter? Or a paladin?

I understand that a big sword should probably out damage two smaller ones, but why should a melee character (who isn't a rogue) bother with it?

While it doesnt really answer the question im taking levels in knifemaster the rogue archetype and duelwielding enchanted daggers so i have only a neg 2 amd neg 4 to atk (and dmg i believe) so my sneak attack and my bonuses from other places will out-wiegh the penalties of course that doesnt solve the problem of a ranger taking two weapon fighting. So id say no rogue is really the only class that should honestly be bothering with it. You could multiclass rogue and something else as im doing but thats still rogue classing so final answer no.

Lantern Lodge Customer Service & Community Manager

I'm going to leave this open since there's been several posts of ongoing discussion, but if you come across an older thread, its better to start a new discussion and link to the older thread if needed, than to reply to a 6 year old thread.


Klorox wrote:
I'm not so sure about the Irish, but I never heard of one hand spears being used along with a blade in HTH. Got any sources?

I remember being told it as one of the fighting styles from the Battle of the Ford. I was told it as seven days of fighting, a fighting style a day, and that one being the decider because sword+spear has poor defence and will therefore give a decisive outcome. But then I went to look it up and I can't find the a matching account.

*shrugs*

51 to 89 of 89 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Two Weapon Fighting All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion