Well if you run it your way then you should always make them take the two weapon penalties since they could still make an unarmed attack.
Your players are right according to the rules. However you are the GM.
I wouldn't penalize a PC with a weapon in each hand attacking with only one of the weapons. A PC with Power Attack gets to choose whether or not to use the feat; likewise, a PC with TWF should get to choose whether to use the feat or not, and if the case comes up in which the feat is not available for use (such as your example of having only a standard action to make an attack), then the PC should not have to suffer the penalties of the feat.
You only take the penalties if you attack with two weapons that round. He should not take the penalties for a standard action attack after a move.
I'd also add that if a TWF character makes two attacks in around, then gets the opportunity to make an AoO, he or she does so at full BAB, not BAB minus 2.
|
I'd say that when a TWFer first attacks in a round, he has to decide whether he wants to have the opportunity to gain his extra attack or not.
He attacks, and decides whether he wants to take the penalty. If he does, he can choose to take the extra attack or not after the first.
If he doesn't take the penalties, he gives up the option of using the extra attack later.
I'd also add that if a TWF character makes two attacks in around, then gets the opportunity to make an AoO, he or she does so at full BAB, not BAB minus 2.
I thought that when you used TWF, the penalties applied to all attacks you make that round?
|
I'd say that when a TWFer first attacks in a round, he has to decide whether he wants to have the opportunity to gain his extra attack or not.
He attacks, and decides whether he wants to take the penalty. If he does, he can choose to take the extra attack or not after the first.
If he doesn't take the penalties, he gives up the option of using the extra attack later.I'd also add that if a TWF character makes two attacks in around, then gets the opportunity to make an AoO, he or she does so at full BAB, not BAB minus 2.I thought that when you used TWF, the penalties applied to all attacks you make that round?
thats what The designers chimed in and have said too, if you don't take the -2 on your first attack, you give up the option for the second
|
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.
It depends on how you read that last phrase. 'when you fight this way'
Do you consider the character to be fighting that way the entire round? Then he takes a -X to all attacks, including AoOs.
Do you consider the character to be fighting that way only during his full attack? Then he only takes the penalty during his full attack action.
If you consider holding a second weapon to be 'fighting that way' then even when he only makes one attack he takes the -2. But that means you must make sword and shield fighters suffer the -6 penalty to their sword attacks. Otherwise you're not being consistent.
I'd also add that if a TWF character makes two attacks in around, then gets the opportunity to make an AoO, he or she does so at full BAB, not BAB minus 2.if they fought with one weapon no penalty, but with 2 they take the -2 since it lasts untill the start of the next round
You make your
attack of opportunity at your normal attack bonus, even if
you’ve already attacked in the round(p180).
And
All these attacks
are at your full normal attack bonus(p180).
I'm inclined to say that Mynameisjake has it right in that you do not suffer the penalties to hit for two weapon fighting on an AoO since there is no compensation for the penalty.
Other feats that specifically state that their effects last until the PC's next turn, such as Power Attack and Lunge, provide their benefit even on attacks of opportunity. The Two Weapon Fighting Feats do not.
You make your
attack of opportunity at your normal attack bonus, even if
you’ve already attacked in the round(p180).
And
All these attacks
are at your full normal attack bonus(p180).
Note that AoOs are made at your full normal attack bonus, but all relevant bonuses and penalties still apply to your attack. So if you use Power Attack and are later granted an AoO in the same round, you would gain the benefit of the feat (since it lasts until your next turn) and it is made at your full attack bonus, but you still suffer the penalty to hit (since you are still using Power Attack on your AoO).
|
|
Again, if you are going to count someone holding a second weapon as taking the penalty all round, you must do the same to someone holding a shield to be consistent. A shield is also a weapon and so falls under the TWF rules. Since most people don't think to take Two Weapon Fighting when playing a sword and shield character, that means that all main hand attacks would be at -6 while he is holding the shield. Does this still sound fair?
Also, take a look at the Two-Weapon Defense feat. It states "When wielding a double weapon or two weapons (not including natural weapons or unarmed strikes), you gain a +1 shield bonus to your AC."
Seems to me that you get the +1 bonus to AC whether you make one attack in a round or multiple attacks. Why? Because you are actively employing, or wielding, the TWF style during the battle.
I've also wondered whether the intent of TWD feat was for the character to actually have to attack with the off-hand weapon in order to get the shield bonus. It doesn't appear to be so, however.
|
|
As far as the shield goes, I would say that a shield is a piece of armor. You CAN use it as a weapon, but you get the CHOICE to use it as a weapon. My arguement is that you don't get a choice with the TWF feat - you are wielding an offhand weapon.
So because a weapon is shaped differently you have to take a penalty to your attack roll, but don't for a shield (which is larger and less wieldy)?
You get the choice of attacking with one weapon instead of one weapon and one shield, but you don't get the choice of attacking with one weapon instead of two weapons?
Yes but the character does not have to use the weapon in the off-hand. In true historical fencing (fighting, not the sport with foils) the off-hand weapon is more often than not used defensively (to simply set aside the opponents blade or close a line), until distance is closed. So its pretty easy for me to understand that they can choose to use the weapon offesively (TWF), use it defensively (TWD), or simply hold the weapon.
Otherwise you would also have to say that if they are holding a potion (or any other object) in one hand, they get a penalty to attack. In my opionion what they are holding weapon or otherwise makes no difference, so long as they are choosing not to use it.
The TWF feat does not mean the character does not know how to fight with only one weapon. They can certainly still choose to not fight with the other weapon they are holding, as it say "You CAN fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands." not you MUST fight with.
I would think that TWF only applies when you are weilding two weapons. Ie. if utilizing a sword in the left hand as a weapon and a sword in the right hand as a weapon in order to threaten or attack an opponent. As opposed to holding a sword in the left hand that will not be used to threaten or attack and having a sword in the right hand that will be used to do so.
The principle is that you need to be utilizing both weapons as part of your fighting style in order for it to be TWF.
TWF only applies if you are actually wielding the object as a weapon and not simply holding it in your hand. I would think any bonuses you could derive from TWF would also only apply when you are wielding the weapons as opposed to simply holding them.
|
Holding two objects is not the same as employing two objects offensively.
If two objects are being held, but only one is being used to attack, then the character is not choosing to use two-weapon-fighting.
If two objects are being held, but both are being used to attack, then the character is using two-weapon-fighting.
The important note here isn't about whether or not the weapons are being held. The important note is whether or not the weapons are both being used to attack with.
Since making a standard action attack makes it impossible to make more than one attack, it subsequently makes it impossible to be two-weapon-fighting for that attack.
Holding two objects is not the same as employing two objects offensively.
If two objects are being held, but only one is being used to attack, then the character is not choosing to use two-weapon-fighting.
If two objects are being held, but both are being used to attack, then the character is using two-weapon-fighting.
The important note here isn't about whether or not the weapons are being held. The important note is whether or not the weapons are both being used to attack with.
Since making a standard action attack makes it impossible to make more than one attack, it subsequently makes it impossible to be two-weapon-fighting for that attack.
Even if you make the one attack it could be assumed that you are using a two-weapon fighting stance and thus benefitting from some passive feats.
As far as the shield goes, I would say that a shield is a piece of armor. You CAN use it as a weapon, but you get the CHOICE to use it as a weapon. My arguement is that you don't get a choice with the TWF feat - you are wielding an offhand weapon.Ok how about this example.
Im playing a Fighter that fights Sword and shield (I do not have TWF feat. My paladin companion, who is 40 feet away, has his sword sundered and destroyed. The cleric of the party is next to me tending to a severly wounded ally. The cleric hands me his mace so that I can take it to the now unarmed paladin fending off attacks with just his shield. I drop my shield to take the mace in my off hand and begin to move toward my paladin comrade. I have to fight my way there using my Long sword and holding the mace in my off hand. Im not trained in two weapon fighting so not even going to attempt to try that. Do I take a -6 to penalty to my attacks (no two weapon fighting and a non light weapon in my off hand)? Im only holding the mace in my off hand. For all intents and purposes it could be a 10 pound bag of dead gerbils. I would assume you would not make me use the penalty in this case?
That being the case why would someone specifically trained to fight with a weapon in each hand take the penalty for simply holding a weapon in their off hand if someone untrained in TWF doesnt have to?
Does mear possession of the TWF feat prevent you from EVER using a different fighting style?
As long as you aren't attacking with the mace then you don't take the penalty. Possession =/= wielding.
|
|
As long as you aren't attacking with the mace then you don't take the penalty. Possession =/= wielding.As far as the shield goes, I would say that a shield is a piece of armor. You CAN use it as a weapon, but you get the CHOICE to use it as a weapon. My arguement is that you don't get a choice with the TWF feat - you are wielding an offhand weapon.Ok how about this example.
Im playing a Fighter that fights Sword and shield (I do not have TWF feat. My paladin companion, who is 40 feet away, has his sword sundered and destroyed. The cleric of the party is next to me tending to a severly wounded ally. The cleric hands me his mace so that I can take it to the now unarmed paladin fending off attacks with just his shield. I drop my shield to take the mace in my off hand and begin to move toward my paladin comrade. I have to fight my way there using my Long sword and holding the mace in my off hand. Im not trained in two weapon fighting so not even going to attempt to try that. Do I take a -6 to penalty to my attacks (no two weapon fighting and a non light weapon in my off hand)? Im only holding the mace in my off hand. For all intents and purposes it could be a 10 pound bag of dead gerbils. I would assume you would not make me use the penalty in this case?
That being the case why would someone specifically trained to fight with a weapon in each hand take the penalty for simply holding a weapon in their off hand if someone untrained in TWF doesnt have to?
Does mear possession of the TWF feat prevent you from EVER using a different fighting style?
+1 posession=/=weilding.
I think of it this way. If you Power Attack you get a benefit and a penalty.
Benefit: +damage to all attacks that round.
Penalty: -to hit to all attacks that round.
Two Weapon Fighting give you a benefit and a penalty as well.
Benefit: 1 extra attack that round.
Penalty: -to hit to all attacks that round.
So if you get the extra attack, you take the penalty, no matter when in that round it is. This includes AoOs. If you do not take the extra attack, even if you are wielding two weapons, you do not get the penalty.
Then look at Two Weapon Defense.
Benefit: +AC when wielding two-weapons.
Penalty: None
So if you are "wielding" two weapons, you get the +AC. Whether you actually use your Two Weapon Fighting feat to get the extra attack or not does not matter for this feat.
Maybe my assumption is wrong, but I envision all those movie sword fights you see. Following my assumption, the TWF character is using that other weapon to block, parry, etc. during his six seconds. He is actively employing two weapons to fight his opponent.Dictionary.com defines wield as:
"to use (a weapon, instrument, etc.) effectively; handle or employ actively."
To me, the key word in that definition is actively. It is part of the fighting style. It is not an optional on/off toggle, like say Power Attack.
The TWF feat states "You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands."
Also, take a look at the Two-Weapon Defense feat. It states "When wielding a double weapon or two weapons (not including natural weapons or unarmed strikes), you gain a +1 shield bonus to your AC."
Seems to me that you get the +1 bonus to AC whether you make one attack in a round or multiple attacks. Why? Because you are actively employing, or wielding, the TWF style during the battle.
Now, if this was a home game, I would just make a ruling and be done with it. However, we are playing Pathfinder Society and I want to play by the "official" rules. It would be great to get an official ruling. Thanks...
Wielding doesn't necessarily equate to attacking. The best example I can think of to illustrate this is using a one-handed weapon and a shield. You actively wield the shield, yet there is no penalty on attack rolls when attacking as long as you attack only with the one-handed weapon. Likewise, that is also the case with Two-Weapon Defense, with the additional benefit that if you do decide to attack with both weapons, you still get the shield bonus to AC (sword & board also has a feat allowing you to claim AC bonus while TWF: Improved Shield Bash).
I'm still not sold on imposing the TWF penalty on an AoO as I don't see any advantage to compensate for the penalty. Specifically, you get an advantage on your turn when you make a full attack, but there is no advantage granted by the TWF feat when making the AoO.
As far as the shield goes, I would say that a shield is a piece of armor. You CAN use it as a weapon, but you get the CHOICE to use it as a weapon. My arguement is that you don't get a choice with the TWF feat - you are wielding an offhand weapon.
If you want to gimp an already questionable fighting style even more than the rules say they are, that is your provocative you are running the game. However I would have to agree with everyone else, JUST because you are holding the weapon doesn't mean you always take the minus. You have to use both weapons to take the minus.
What about if someone uses two shields in combat?
I think of it this way. If you Power Attack you get a benefit and a penalty.
Benefit: +damage to all attacks that round.
Penalty: -to hit to all attacks that round.Two Weapon Fighting give you a benefit and a penalty as well.
Benefit: 1 extra attack that round.
Penalty: -to hit to all attacks that round.So if you get the extra attack, you take the penalty, no matter when in that round it is. This includes AoOs. If you do not take the extra attack, even if you are wielding two weapons, you do not get the penalty.
Then look at Two Weapon Defense.
Benefit: +AC when wielding two-weapons.
Penalty: NoneSo if you are "wielding" two weapons, you get the +AC. Whether you actually use your Two Weapon Fighting feat to get the extra attack or not does not matter for this feat.
Two weapon fighting gives you the benefit when you fight with both weapons. So if you are whirling a long sword and a short sword around at the same time as a part of your combat (even if you don't attack with the offhand you are still actively weilding and threatening with both weapons) then you have the standard twf penalties. You would also reap the benefits from two weapon defense if you had the feat. It's a benefit from fighting with two weapons.
If it's the same scenario but you don't actively wield the second weapon (shortsword) then you shouldn't receive the two weapon defense shield bonus since you are effectively fighting with one weapon.
***note that when you do total defense this increases to +2 and you don't get any attacks in a total defense action. I think this shows that wielding does not equate to attacking either.
Two Weapon Fighting give you a benefit and a penalty as well.
Benefit: 1 extra attack that round.
Penalty: -to hit to all attacks that round.So if you get the extra attack, you take the penalty, no matter when in that round it is. This includes AoOs. If you do not take the extra attack, even if you are wielding two weapons, you do not get the penalty.
TWF already has a penalty built into the attacks you make your turn. Neither the rules, nor anything else, support extending that penalty to AoOs.
The best example is Power Attack. You get a benefit and a penalty to your attacks during your turn, and a benefit and penalty to attacks made as part of an AoO.
TWF, on the other hand, grants a benefit to attacks made during turn and a penalty to those same attack. It does not, however, grant any benefit to attacks made as part of an AoO, and therefore no penalty should apply either.
|
|
Actually, page 202 of the core rule book. Two-weapon fighting.
"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."
There are a couple important word choices here. "You can" implies that you choose whether or not you choose to activate twf. If you choose to, you get one extra attack, and the penalties.
If you choose not to, you don't get the extra attack or the penalties.
If you can't choose to, i.e. you only have a standard action, then you can't get the attack and thus can't get the penalties.
Furthermore, if you try to assume that a character who can make an attack with an offhand weapon must take the penalties for two weapon fighting, then every creature in the bestiary, and every player character MUST take these penalties. Since most creatures in the bestiary are assumed to be using natural weapons instead of twf for multiple attacks, it would significantly reduce the number of attacks they can make, as well as reducing their damage and chance to hit. Since this obviously isn't the intent of the bestiary to override pretty much every table, then you cannot assume that someone attacking with twf must take the penalties because they have the option of using twf.
The penalties only apply when the bonuses apply. Or, in other words, two-weapon-fighting is a choice, like making a combat maneuver, fighting while mounted, feinting, tripping, and all the other stuff covered under the special attacks section. Just because you can do it, doesn't mean you have to do it. Just like a character with a whip can make a trip attack, but he doesn't have to.
Additionally, on game balance, a character who specializes in two weapon fighting puts in a lot more resources feat-wise to get there. The only time he becomes superior in dpr is during long, stand-in-one-place fights. Generally speaking the two-hander fighter will get more overall damage since he'll be doing a lot more damage every time the characters have to move up to a foe. Attempting to read additional penalties into the build will either force your player to switch to 2-handers just to stay competitive, or force him into shield territory and the wonderful shield master feat.
On the subject of attacks of opportunity:
Power attack specifies that the penalties last until the beginning of your next turn.
The entry for two-weapon fighting does not specify that the penalties last until the beginning of your next turn. The implication here is that no penalties are applied after the attacks are made.
Then stop arguing with your group, admit you were mistaken, and play on. :)
Any insight would be helpful - I'm tired of having this argument every week :-(
+5
+5
Then stop arguing with your group, admit you were mistaken, and play on. :)
Any insight would be helpful - I'm tired of having this argument every week :-(
+6