If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in two ways. First, if your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light. Second, the Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6.
Let me make sure I am reading this right.
As from what I can remember everyone I know has always ran Two-weapon fighting that you off hand weapon extra attack occurs at the end of a full-attack action.
But from what I am getting at in bold there and the fact that I have looked over and over and can't find it saying that anywhere it requires the full-attack action. I am led to believe that the way that I and everyone I know has been running this wrong.
This sounds to me that even if my level 10 Human Ranger with two-weapon fighting moved up 30ft he gets one attack with his primary hand but not is other granted BAB attacks. But in addition to this he gets his off hand attack as it says he gets one extra attack per round while wielding an second weapon. That's what it sounds like to me.
So please let me know your thoughts and if you can find some ruling to prove that its only at the end of a full-attack action.
Thank you.
Multiple Attacks: A character who can make more than one attack per round must use the full-attack action (see Full-Round Actions) in order to get more than one attack.
Does that answer your question?
Awesome, I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't running this wrong my whole D&D 3.0/3.5/pathfinder career.
I must have skipped over the multiple attack section on pg. 184.
Thank you.
Yeah ... I've not been a fan of this since 3.0 came out as it SCREWS the melee-types so, SO badly.
Interestingly, I've been pondering just allowing the off hand attack to 2-wpn types even on "standard" actions just because it gets closer to the 2e version of multiple attacks and I much preferred the way those ran as a whole.
I mean, cripes, 2-wpn guys get feat-taxed enough and stat req'd on top of that ... it's not like they are NOT investing heavily in their style. It just seems a fair boost to me.
:shrugs:
|
I made a change to TWF in my game to allow a single extra attack with the off hand weapon as a standard action. Any iterative attacks from the other feats in the TWF tree require a full-round action to use just like any iterative attack. You can already make extra attacks with Cleave and Great Cleave if you hit so there is no real reason not to allow it.
SM
I made a change to TWF in my game to allow a single extra attack with the off hand weapon as a standard action. Any iterative attacks from the other feats in the TWF tree require a full-round action to use just like any iterative attack. You can already make extra attacks with Cleave and Great Cleave if you hit so there is no real reason not to allow it. SM
I agree with this assessment. It's the way I always thought this should be handled.
Of course, in Pathfinder Society (the bulk of my gaming time) this can't happen, but it is a good house rule.
There is a 3.5 feat that allows an off-hand attack on a standard action, in one of the Completes. It applies a -4 to hit on both attacks, I think.
|
|
There is a 3.5 feat that allows an off-hand attack on a standard action, in one of the Completes. It applies a -4 to hit on both attacks, I think.
Yea, but I don't like using feats to fix something like this. I'm trying to keep the feat bloat to a minimum. Even with the boost in feats that you get with Pathfinder you still only have so many and they should be useful. I haven't seen any brokenness come from throwing TWF a bone. With Cleave you can make two attacks with a standard attack and with Great Cleave you can make as many as 8 if you're surrounded and you keep hitting. Even a Cleaving two-weapon fighter isn't overpowered.
I agree that this doesn't do anything for Pathfinder Society play but if enough people question it then maybe we can see a change. They did fix Cleave and its big sister after all.
SM
I can appreciate that, but the way the game is structured, a feat makes for a great fix without re-writing the game.
Another possibility is to allow multiple attacks on a standard action on a -10 rather than a -5 increment for one weapon, and -5 increments for each attack for TWF.
For example, if you have BAB +11, you could:
Attack with a single weapon in a standard action at +11 and again at +1.
Attack with TWF and two weapons in a standard action at +11 (primary weapon), +6 (off-hand weapon), +1 (primary weapon).
All attacks are made with the appropriate penalties and bonuses. Full attacking is still better, but a standard action attack is no longer so bad.
I can appreciate that, but the way the game is structured, a feat makes for a great fix without re-writing the game.
Nah ... screw that. My game (when I GM), my re-writes and the RAW be damned, man.
I'm "old school" like that ... (raised on 2e where house rules were actively encouraged by the RAW every other page, man!!).
:-D
I can appreciate that, but the way the game is structured, a feat makes for a great fix without re-writing the game.Nah ... screw that. My game (when I GM), my re-writes and the RAW be damned, man.
I'm "old school" like that ... (raised on 2e where house rules were actively encouraged by the RAW every other page, man!!).
2nd ed? The youth of today, I ask you! I was raised on basic D&D and AD&D was new-fangled to us! We used to have to game in a hole in the road covered by 'tarpaulin, and for dice we picked numbers on bits of paper out of a hat ...
....and for dice we picked numbers on bits of paper out of a hat.....
That is dedication. I feel spoiled now. I won't play without a life sized Optimus Prime to roll the dice for me.
....and for dice we picked numbers on bits of paper out of a hat.....That is dedication. I feel spoiled now. I won't play without a life sized Optimus Prime to roll the dice for me.
... and it's only the bit about the hole in the road I was making up! We couldn't get proper dice for ages ...
... and it's only the bit about the hole in the road I was making up! We couldn't get proper dice for ages .......and for dice we picked numbers on bits of paper out of a hat.....That is dedication. I feel spoiled now. I won't play without a life sized Optimus Prime to roll the dice for me.
That is awesome.
We used to have to game in a hole in the road covered by 'tarpaulin, and for dice we picked numbers on bits of paper out of a hat ...You were lucky to have a hat! We used to have to make up the numbers ourselves, *and* we'd be beaten if the DM thought we were cheating!
If you are using 3.0 & 3.5 books then there are feats that grant you the ability to use your off-hand attack more often(Two-Weapon Pounce, Dual Strike, Two-Weapon Attack of Opportunity and some others i forgot). That helps a lot a TWF character because to lose your off-hand attack is like a two-handed weapon fighter does 3/5 of his dmg with his greatsword.
If you are using 3.0 & 3.5 books then there are feats that grant you the ability to use your off-hand attack more often(Two-Weapon Pounce, Dual Strike, Two-Weapon Attack of Opportunity and some others i forgot). That helps a lot a TWF character because to lose your off-hand attack is like a two-handed weapon fighter does 3/5 of his dmg with his greatsword.
They are. The only time you worry is the sneak attack damage a rogue can then dish with one attack ...
... and it's only the bit about the hole in the road I was making up! We couldn't get proper dice for ages .......and for dice we picked numbers on bits of paper out of a hat.....That is dedication. I feel spoiled now. I won't play without a life sized Optimus Prime to roll the dice for me.
I recall making paper die patterns to cut out and tape together so that I had *something* to roll for the various die-sizes.
You got me on basic (I had AD&D but preferred 2e to it for whatever reason, though), but I've done the walking to school both ways ... in the snow thing myself (that's literal, too, btw!)!
... and it's only the bit about the hole in the road I was making up! We couldn't get proper dice for ages .......and for dice we picked numbers on bits of paper out of a hat.....That is dedication. I feel spoiled now. I won't play without a life sized Optimus Prime to roll the dice for me.I recall making paper die patterns to cut out and tape together so that I had *something* to roll for the various die-sizes.
You got me on basic (I had AD&D but preferred 2e to it for whatever reason, though), but I've done the walking to school both ways ... in the snow thing myself (that's literal, too, btw!)!
Well a friend of mine got the basic set, I confess, but we played, and when AD&D came out I got my player's handbook - the old softback ones (in fact, I found it the other day, hole-punched in a ring-binder as the cover had fallen apart).
When I went to university I played for a while, but quit when I found other games with better mechanics. Years later I tried 2e for a while, and while it was an improvement, there were still better games to play. It was 3.x that really brought me back into the fold.
|
2nd ed? The youth of today, I ask you! I was raised on basic D&D and AD&D was new-fangled to us! We used to have to game in a hole in the road covered by 'tarpaulin, and for dice we picked numbers on bits of paper out of a hat ...I can appreciate that, but the way the game is structured, a feat makes for a great fix without re-writing the game.Nah ... screw that. My game (when I GM), my re-writes and the RAW be damned, man.
I'm "old school" like that ... (raised on 2e where house rules were actively encouraged by the RAW every other page, man!!).
And even with all that, the worst things about gaming in those days was the initiative system of 1e AD&D - hell even Gygax didn't understand it and he wrote it!
Ah, such sweet pain.
|
|
And even with all that, the worst things about gaming in those days was the initiative system of 1e AD&D - hell even Gygax didn't understand it and he wrote it!Ah, such sweet pain.
Most people house ruled it to what 2ed picked up.. a d10 base adding in weapon speed factor (or segment casting time) subtracting dex mod.
-James
We weren't most then. The endless hours of debate over the exact meaning of this sentence, that paragraph. Those were the days!
Memories...
I had the original dice that came with the Red Box edition until a few years ago. They were so worn they weren't really dice anymore. We placed them in a small Crown Royal bag and sacrificed them to the gods in a great pyre.
SM
I still have my original dice from 1979. They look more like chipped marbles but I can't bare to let them go. They have been with me all over the country. They were with me in the Army. They are such a part of my gaming history I just can't get rid of them. That and I collect dice so they aren't going anywhere.
Awesome, I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't running this wrong my whole D&D 3.0/3.5/pathfinder career.
I must have skipped over the multiple attack section on pg. 184.
There is a way around it. Take the Dual Strike feat from Complete Adventurer. Allows two attacks with one standard action, with a -4 to attack (-10 if the off-hand weapon isn't a light weapon).
I've done the walking to school both ways ... in the snow thing myself (that's literal, too, btw!)!
That was back when we HAD winters, not with this global warming thing they have now! When I was 15 we had to slog three miles through drifts over our heads to get to school ... and no, I'm not joking!
I made a change to TWF in my game to allow a single extra attack with the off hand weapon as a standard action. Any iterative attacks from the other feats in the TWF tree require a full-round action to use just like any iterative attack. You can already make extra attacks with Cleave and Great Cleave if you hit so there is no real reason not to allow it. SMI agree with this assessment. It's the way I always thought this should be handled.
Of course, in Pathfinder Society (the bulk of my gaming time) this can't happen, but it is a good house rule.
What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. This means that any monster with more than one natural attack should be allowed an attack from each extra arm as a standard action by the same logic.
This can get pretty ugly with a Marilith.
Or a dragon! That's a bite, two claws, two wings and a tail! Blender time!
I don't think Marilith or Dragons use the TWF feat tree.
I remember the time when using miniatures and maps were optional, and yes, there were arguments over weapon speeds and casting times and segments and bringing out the throwing daggers to hit the magic-users. Did it have the hyphen?
And we all laughed as we waited until the end of the round so the Great-sword wielder could have his attack. Or the rest of his attacks.
And I remember even back then we were wondering why a magic-user couldn't cast more than one spell when there was space in the initiative order to do so...
3 editions later and it's all about-face!
I don't think Marilith or Dragons use the TWF feat tree.
They still have multiple attacks though, so why shouldn't they get them if the weapon-in-each-hand human fighter does?
|
|
The ruling that you can't even get 1 attack with your OH during anything less than a full-round action is dumb, IMO.
You have a weapon in each hand, you had to move to get to your opponent, and you don't have time to go all out...you're telling me it makes any type of sense to only use the weapon in your main hand for one atttack, when you could just as easily simultaneously attack with both? Just plain dumb.
If I have a TWFer in my games, they get one each on a standard action. This also lets them make up a little of the difference between TWFers and archers, IMO.
The ruling that you can't even get 1 attack with your OH during anything less than a full-round action is dumb, IMO.
You have a weapon in each hand, you had to move to get to your opponent, and you don't have time to go all out...you're telling me it makes any type of sense to only use the weapon in your main hand for one atttack, when you could just as easily simultaneously attack with both? Just plain dumb.
Ever actually tried to hit somebody with two weapons for real? It's not as easy as it sounds when they are actively trying not to be hit and hitting back. What you actually end up doing is placing two consecutive strikes, not place both at the same time.
If I have a TWFer in my games, they get one each on a standard action. This also lets them make up a little of the difference between TWFers and archers, IMO.
And lets rogues with TWF own everything. This is one good reason not to do it. However with pounce-equivalents in the APG, the point is kind of academic.
|
Is this not what the feat Two-Weapon Rend is for?
As it states:
Two-Weapon Rend (Combat)
Striking with both of your weapons simultaneously, you can use them to deliver devastating wounds.
Prerequisites: Dex 17, Double Slice, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +11.
Benefit: If you hit an opponent with both your primary hand and your off-hand weapon, you deal an additional 1d10 points of damage plus 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier. You can only deal this additional damage once each round.
Other than that, you would need a full round attack to make use out of the extra attack.
Is this not what the feat Two-Weapon Rend is for?
As it states:
Other than that, you would need a full round attack to make use out of the extra attack.Two-Weapon Rend (Combat)
Striking with both of your weapons simultaneously, you can use them to deliver devastating wounds.
Prerequisites: Dex 17, Double Slice, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +11.
Benefit: If you hit an opponent with both your primary hand and your off-hand weapon, you deal an additional 1d10 points of damage plus 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier. You can only deal this additional damage once each round.
I always read that as a feature of an attack and not a specific attack, you have to make the attacks first, and if they hit you get to invoke the Rend damage on top of that otherwise inflicted.
The real question is if you have two magic weapons (say frost and flaming) and do a two-weapon rend, does the target take damage from both weapons special abilities?
Why wouldn't they? The Rend applies its extra damage after all the other effects of the weapons are handled, right?
So you'd do:
Attack 1 - normal damage (including special properties and bonuses)
Attack 2 - normal damage (as above)
- Activates Rend
Rend Damage
So you'd do your weapons damage as normal, then Rend.