|
Yes, but the feat makes no such requirement.
Therefore it can be reasonably inferred that "rend" is just colour.
What is happening is that the weapons are combining to do additional damage.Thus been tripped while netted means that you can't control the fall and land badly, potentially very badly, with 1d10 + Str x 1.5.
Your not doing "additional" damage since your main attacks didn't deal any damage to start with. You'd be dealing damage for the first time.
Also, why would they take your strength modifier in damage just because they fell over hard?
By the rules this seems on the level, but it'd be a very hard sell.
If the weapons aren't normally capable of doing damage (like Nets), I wouldn't count them as weapons for purposes of this Feat. Probably most DM's would require you to actually DO damage with each weapon, but I think being *capable* of doing normal damage is a basic minimum.
|
2 Weapon rend says if you hit with both primary and off-hand weapons you do 1d10 +1.5 Str.
So if I hit an apponent with a Net from 1 hand, and do a Ranged Trip with a Bolas with the otherhand, I do 1d10 +1.5 Str bonus in damage.
Yes?Stephen E
I wouldn't allow it because they ( net and bolas ) are both ranged weapons and not melee weapons.
|
|
The important questions IMHO are
1) Is it within the rules.
2) Is this outrageously powerful.As far as I can see this passes both tests.
Stephen E
3) Does it break suspension of disbelief?
It fails on that one I think, and I wouldn't allow it at my table. Ask your DM.
That line always gets me.
We have Dragons, Wizards, strange races of all and sundy, undead of every sort, and people use "it breaks suspension of disbelief" as an argument for things they don't like.
One of the few things that does break my suspension of disbeleif in DnD is people claiming such arguments are serious. :-)
Stephen E
:) Fair point.
I have a consistent mental picture of how the world works that I share with my players. I try not to introduce anything that doesn't fit with that picture. I can see your point about tangling someone up and causing them to fall badly so that they snap their neck. It just stretches things a little to far for me.
2 Weapon rend says if you hit with both primary and off-hand weapons you do 1d10 +1.5 Str.
So if I hit an apponent with a Net from 1 hand, and do a Ranged Trip with a Bolas with the otherhand, I do 1d10 +1.5 Str bonus in damage.
Yes?Stephen E
I would not allow it. The description of the feat reads:
Striking with both of your weapons simultaneously, you
can use them to deliver devastating wounds.
Striking implies that this attacks is done as part of a melee full-attack action.
Ranged weapons are therefore not suited for the Two-weapon Rend feat.
The implications of what you suggest are that rending could be done with dual nets, dual tanglefoot bags, dual thunderstones, dual alchemists fire, and probably worse things too.
I'd absolutely allow it. 2w rend doesn't specify the damage type... In the net case, I could argue that I'm pushing my target against an obstacle with the net. In the case of the pistol, I could shot another bullet... Think creative. :)
|
|
To me two weapon rend fall under the two weapon fighting style selection of feats. While it doesn't specify melee or ranged weapons ,to me that is why you have the point blank shot feat and all the other feats that fall under it. One set of feats for two weapon melee attacks and the other for ranged. If you look at where the feat Rend came form ( the monster manual ) and was available to creatures with claw attacks, it seems that TWR with ranged weapons goes against flavor of the rules. At least that's how I would rule on it.
Lets ignore the general fluff, which is afterall only general fluff, and read the actual rule.
Is that because it is convenient to your argument?
To me the descriptions are just an as essential bit of the rules as the benefits section.The descriptions are there for a reason. They are not only fluff but are meant to make the feats easier to understand.
Going by the concept of RAW the descriptions are Written in the Core Rules and thus RAW.
If you're saying that you'd house rule against it because you prefer the benefits paragraf over the RAW I have no problem, so long as you are admitting it's a house rule.
(... a sword that cuts both ways...)
|
|
If you look at Rend in the Bestiary pg 303 you will see it has to be a natural attack. If you look at natural attacks pg 301 you will see that none of them are ranged. You could be throwing anything a dagger your sword it doesn't matter it still a ranged attack and goes against my rules interpretation. Stephen E, I could swear your sitting to my left every Saturday LOL. Please don't take offense i like my gaming group and mean no disrespect.
|
If we're going to ignore fluff then I would still not allow this in my game.
PFRPG pg. 201
Trip
You can attempt to trip your opponent in place of a melee
attack.
So if tripping replaces an attack, and Two Weapon Rend requires you to attack with both weapons, you don't get Two Weapon Rend when you use a weapon to trip, ranged or otherwise.
|
I ignore fluff and apply actual rules because that's how rules work. Nothing to do with whether it favours my argument or not.
If the rule was so badly written that I couldn't make out what was said I look at the fluff for some indicative of how to interpret the rule into a workable form. But that's not the case here.Don't tell me you're going to be silly enough to claim everything in the book is RAW, even the fluff.
For example do you take the fluff at the begining of the Ranger section as "Rules" and insist all players play Rangers as per the fluff description. Yeah, right.
So please lets cut the sillyness about fluff been RAW.
A rulebook has rules. That doesn't mean everythging in a rulebook IS rules.Stephen E
Actually, I don't think you could do that; Double Slice, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Two-Weapon Defense and Two-Weapon Fighting (prerequisites for the feat) are pretty clear that they relate to STR and melee attacks. Or would you argue that Double Slice, for example, allows you to add your STR bonus to hand-crossbow damage rolls if you wield it in your off-hand?
So.. what you're saying is if a wizard hits you with two rays in one round, he can deal 1d10 - 2 damage from his 7 STR if he takes two-weapon rend as a feat? I guess I'm ok with that.
So.. what you're saying is if a wizard hits you with two rays in one round, he can deal 1d10 - 2 damage from his 7 STR if he takes two-weapon rend as a feat? I guess I'm ok with that.I'd have no problems with that power wise, but it would require a house rule to be legal.
I'd like to see the Wizard who's either a 10th level Ranger, or who has BAB 11+ and taken the 3 prereq feats to get the feat.
Stephen E
possibly an arcane archer.. a really poorly built arcane archer :)
|
|
If we're going to ignore fluff then I would still not allow this in my game.
PFRPG pg. 201
Trip
You can attempt to trip your opponent in place of a melee
attack.So if tripping replaces an attack, and Two Weapon Rend requires you to attack with both weapons, you don't get Two Weapon Rend when you use a weapon to trip, ranged or otherwise.
Now this is a better argument. And one I thought of as well.
But, if you read the feat it doesn't require you make an attack with both weapons. It requires you hit with both weapons. It should also be noted that a Trip involves an attack roll, therefore is an attack. It replaces a Melee attack is not the same as saying it isn't an attack.
So the argument fails on several levels.
Stephen E
It actually only fails on one level. Since a trip does require an attack roll using CMB against CMD I was wrong on that count. Having read the feat again as you suggested, I would still not allow it. The feat allows you to do additional damage. Since a trip does no damage, and the net does no damage, I wouldn't allow "additional" damage.
I realize that by RAW and definition of the word additional this means a base damage of 0 is valid, but I feel that RAI rules this usage out, so we're just going to have to disagree on this point.
I wouldn't allow the wizard with two rays to do this either, even if you could convince me that the second ray is cast "off-handed". However, if your hypothetical fighter wants to rush in and use his net/bola combo from 10 feet away...well that would be funny no matter how it panned out.
If you're going to be this semantic about RAW, then you've got a problem with the word 'additional' to my mind.
Additional is a word with a definition. It means 'added to' something. In this case, additional damage is added to your original damage. Since your original damage is null (not even 0), you're out of luck: you don't get to deal 'additional' damage unless you have done damage to add to.
That's entirely with the RAW without getting into the clear intention of the feat to apply to melee attacks rather than, say, ranged combat maneuver checks.
I realize that by RAW and definition of the word additional this means a base damage of 0 is valid
Ah, ninjad.
But in this case the weapons aren't dealing damage, which is equal to 0 (as would, for example, a weapon which doesn't overcome DR). They aren't dealing damage at all.
I ignore fluff and apply actual rules because that's how rules work. Nothing to do with whether it favours my argument or not.
If the rule was so badly written that I couldn't make out what was said I look at the fluff for some indicative of how to interpret the rule into a workable form. But that's not the case here.
I find that contradictive.
You yourself asked for clarification on this so it cannot have been that crystal clear to you.If you had looked to the description as you claim you do when in doubt you would have seen the feat is used by stricking, which implies a melee attack.
Don't tell me you're going to be silly enough to claim everything in the book is RAW, even the fluff.
I am happy that you can see the silliness in this thread.
Two-weapon rend is just that; rending:• To tear violently
• To separate into parts with force or sudden violence
How you can picture this happening by someone throwing a net and a bolas at a target is beyond me. I would like to have that explained - really!
The rules are intended to be tempered by common sense. If you are only going to look at disjoined bits of the book to make the rules fit your general purpose that is fine too, but I do not understand why you asked for our input. IMO you have to read them with sense and within context.
So.. what you're saying is if a wizard hits you with two rays in one round, he can deal 1d10 - 2 damage from his 7 STR if he takes two-weapon rend as a feat? I guess I'm ok with that.
Even if that is a Str 24 ogre sorcerer?
|
|
Actually, I don't think you could do that; Double Slice, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Two-Weapon Defense and Two-Weapon Fighting (prerequisites for the feat) are pretty clear that they relate to STR and melee attacks. Or would you argue that Double Slice, for example, allows you to add your STR bonus to hand-crossbow damage rolls if you wield it in your off-hand?I ignore fluff and apply actual rules because that's how rules work. Nothing to do with whether it favours my argument or not.
If the rule was so badly written that I couldn't make out what was said I look at the fluff for some indicative of how to interpret the rule into a workable form. But that's not the case here.Don't tell me you're going to be silly enough to claim everything in the book is RAW, even the fluff.
For example do you take the fluff at the begining of the Ranger section as "Rules" and insist all players play Rangers as per the fluff description. Yeah, right.
So please lets cut the sillyness about fluff been RAW.
A rulebook has rules. That doesn't mean everythging in a rulebook IS rules.Stephen E
Crossbows don't apply your str bonus to the damage you do. The feat Double slice specifically has listed undr "normal" that you add 1/2 your str bonus.
Thrown weapons do indeed use half your strength bonus for the purpose of doing damage. :-)All the other feats you mention don't talk about strength, thrown weapons do talk about str, and two weapon fighting specifically says the rules apply to Thrown weapons (pg 202).
Stephen E
Yes, you can use TWF with thrown weapons; I worded that sentence poorly, as my intention was to imply that Double Slice and Two-Weapon Rend both -- in my opinion -- clearly refer to STR and melee weapons. That is my interpretation of RAI.
As for the crossbow, that's correct; however, if we take this further and ignore RAI completely a player could claim that Double Rend does not actually exclude missile weapons in its description, and dual-wielding two crossbows (or hand crossbows) would allow you to add your STR bonus to crossbow damage. The same actually applies to Two-Weapon Rend. And yet, I doubt GMs in general would allow that (I wouldn't).
However, since this thread deals with using a bolas and a net, here's what RAW says about them and two-weapon fighting:
[/i]treat a bolas, javelin, net, or sling as a one-handed weapon.[/i]
So that would incur the normal penalties (minus the benefits from the feats), since neither of them are light weapons, right? I don't see that as an effective tactic.
However, since this thread deals with using a bolas and a net, here's what RAW says about them and two-weapon fighting:
treat a bolas, javelin, net, or sling as a one-handed weapon.So that would incur the normal penalties (minus the benefits from the feats), since neither of them are light weapons, right? I don't see that as an effective tactic.
As long as the attacks are touch attacks the penalty is actually a minor inconvenience for an 11th level fighter.
Even if that is a Str 24 ogre sorcerer?
So.. what you're saying is if a wizard hits you with two rays in one round, he can deal 1d10 - 2 damage from his 7 STR if he takes two-weapon rend as a feat? I guess I'm ok with that.
so.. you're going to have an ogre sorcerer with 24 STR and 17 dex, and ELEVEN BAB with double slice, two weapon fighting, improved two weapon fighting, and two weapon rend. How's your CHA stat on that build? I'm seriously thinking DM's have little to worry about with this character, even if they are allowing ogres in their games.