|
| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Basic question related to current vs. 3.5 rules: How does iterative attacks with multiple weapons work?
Excerpt of my own comment on another thread with my opinion on the issue:
It's a legacy feature of the 3.X system that iterative attacks can be made with any weapon you have on hand (or could have on hand as a free action) as long as you take the iterative penalties.
So a guy wielding two longswords that has a BAB of 6 could make an attack with his right hand at +6 BAB and another at +1 BAB with his left hand, or both with his right, or both with his left, but needs two-weapon fighting (and the penalties associated) to do more attacks than that.
A guy with a longsword could do one attack with it at +6 BAB, drop it, quickdraw another weapon, then attack with that at +1 BAB if they really wanted to.
I don't believe this is stated in the PRD directly, but barring any official clarification to the contrary this is how I'm running it and how most will run it (since one often defaults to 3.5 rules when things are unclear).
Does anyone have any rules (or clarifications thereof) that explicitly forbid or allow any of the above?
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
A guy with a longsword could do one attack with it at +6 BAB, drop it, quickdraw another weapon, then attack with that at +1 BAB if they really wanted to.
I believe you are correct about this part.
It's a legacy feature of the 3.X system that iterative attacks can be made with any weapon you have on hand (or could have on hand as a free action) as long as you take the iterative penalties.
I am not sure what you mean by legacy feature. Regardless, I don’t believe you are correct in your interpretation of Two Weapon Fighting and the penalties associated.
So a guy wielding two longswords that has a BAB of 6 could make an attack with his right hand at +6 BAB and another at +1 BAB with his left hand, or both with his right, or both with his left, but needs two-weapon fighting (and the penalties associated) to do more attacks than that.
To my knowledge iterative attacks are for you Primary Hand. You can choose to use a weapon in your off-hand without the TWF feat but the penalties will be far higher. The TWF chain of feats allows you to make attacks with your off hand.
Your Iterative attacks are not “free actions.” No matter how high your BAB is or how many Iterative attacks you have, you still only get ONE attack per Standard Action. You are only able to make your following Iterative attacks IF you are using the Full Attack Action.
The penalty for fighting with weapons in both hands has nothing to do with how many attacks you make. It has to do with attacking using weapons in both hands. If you attack with your primary hand only you use your normal Iterative BAB. If you attack with two weapons (one in each hand) you will always suffer the penalties regardless of your BAB or how many Iterative attacks you get.
I disagree with shadowlord. The way the OP interpreted it is how I've always ran it with one caveat:
The off-hand weapon will deal 1/2 STR mod damage instead of full.
|
Imagine twf as getting two different attack strings. Tie one string around one hand, and the other string around the other. One is your primary hand, one is your offhand.
When attacking with iterative attacks, and not twf, a character can make his attacks with whatever weapons he can get to hand. He gets no extra attacks and takes no special penalties from this. His attention isn't as divided as it otherwise would be.
When attacking with iterative attacks and twf, the attack chains are separated between hands in order to apply the strength bonus appropriately. If the character can switch the weapons held by a particular hand, he can make attacks with many different weapons. However, he gains only the benefits and the penalties of twf - having 7 attacks and switching weapons for each attack provides no additional direct benefit.
Basically, the big thing to track is the number of attacks and their penalties if any. As long as these remain equal to the number of attacks/penalties you should have with either mode, it doesn't matter too much if you stick with the same weapon or two, or use a different weapon for each attack *such as a throwing build might use*.
|
|
@Shadowlord: It was an implied assumption that I was referring ONLY to full-round attack actions. Also, the penalties for TWFing have EVERYTHING to do with how many attacks you make as you explicitly do not take the penalties if you do not make extra attacks (say you attack with your main hand as a standard action then AoO someone with your offhand, neither take penalties for TWFing nor do they require the feat).
@KnightOfStyx: Yeah, I probably would do that with str as well unless the character had some other ability that counters that for normal TWFing. Maybe they play an ambidextrous character/race?
@MagicDealer: I had thought of thrown-weapon characters but forgot when I originally posted. It brings up a good point that thrown builds *cannot* work without this interpretation of being able to attack with any available weapon. (Cloud's Omnislash from Advent Children could be another implementation of this ;) ).
So unless something else comes up I'll probably use the "TWFer that does standard attacks" and "thrown weapons in their entirety" examples to support my initial opinion.
@Shadowlord: It was an implied assumption that I was referring ONLY to full-round attack actions. Also, the penalties for TWFing have EVERYTHING to do with how many attacks you make as you explicitly do not take the penalties if you do not make extra attacks (say you attack with your main hand as a standard action then AoO someone with your offhand, neither take penalties for TWFing nor do they require the feat).
These are the rules regarding BAB/Iterative attacks and TWF. I can show you how I am getting my interpretation. I don’t see how you are getting yours.
Full Attack
If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.
The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step. You may take the step before, after, or between your attacks.
If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first.
Ok, so the italicized portions refer back to the bolded portion. The italicized are three separate conditions that allow for extra attacks and are referring back to the bolded statement that you receive multiple attacks. High enough BAB and wielding a second weapon are two different things. Having a high BAB doesn’t mean you are can use either hand to make the attacks it means you get extra attacks with your primary hand.
If you then choose to pick up a weapon in your off hand you get one additional attack with that weapon above what your BAB allows. However all of your attacks are at rather large penalties. The ways to mitigate those penalties are with the TWF feat and using a light off handed weapon. There is nothing in these sections that imply you may split your normal Primary Hand attack progression between two hands/weapons and not receive the penalties for TWF.
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. 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.
Table: Two-weapon Fighting Penalties summarizes the interaction of all these factors.
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 was a light weapon.
Thrown Weapons: The same rules apply when you throw a weapon from each hand. Treat a dart or shuriken as a light weapon when used in this manner, and treat a bolas, javelin, net, or sling as a one-handed weapon.Table: Two-Weapon Fighting Penalties
Circumstances Primary Hand / Off Hand
Normal penalties –6 –10
Off-hand weapon is light –4 –8
Two-Weapon Fighting feat –4 –4
Light off-hand weapon and Two-Weapon Fighting feat –2 –2
Again the italicized portion refers back to the bolded section. You can get ONE extra attack per round with an off handed weapon IF you wield a second weapon in your off hand. Then it goes on to describe the penalties and the way to mitigate them. The only way you ever go beyond ONE attack with your off handed weapon is if you go further in the TWF chain of feats.
Nowhere in any of these sections does it say you can split your primary iterative attacks between two hands/weapons without penalties. If you attack with both weapons you get the penalties, and you only get one extra attack with your off hand unless you get ITWF and GTWF.
I don’t understand how you are coming to your conclusions. Please site rules or FAQ answers or something to support it.
Also:
I've always ran it with one caveat:
The off-hand weapon will deal 1/2 STR mod damage instead of full.
Yeah, I probably would do that with str as well unless the character had some other ability that counters that for normal TWFing. Maybe they play an ambidextrous character/race?
This is not a caveat or a house rule; this is how it is actually supposed to be by RAW. Your secondary weapon only receives half your STR bonus to damage. There is a feat in PF (Double Slice) that mitigates that and allows for full STR damage to the off handed attacks as well.
Strength (Str)
Strength measures muscle and physical power. This ability is important for those who engage in hand-to-hand (or “melee”) combat, such as fighters, monks, paladins, and some rangers. Strength also sets the maximum amount of weight your character can carry. A character with a Strength score of 0 is too weak to move in any way and is unconscious. Some creatures do not possess a Strength score and have no modifier at all to Strength-based skills or checks.
You apply your character's Strength modifier to:
• Melee attack rolls.
• Damage rolls when using a melee weapon or a thrown weapon, including a sling. (Exceptions: Off-hand attacks receive only half the character's Strength bonus, while two-handed attacks receive 1–1/2 times the Strength bonus. A Strength penalty, but not a bonus, applies to attacks made with a bow that is not a composite bow.)
• Climb and Swim checks.
• Strength checks (for breaking down doors and the like).
I would apply only 1/2 strength bonus to an attack with the off-hand, though I'd not give TWF penalties unless extra attacks are made.
The monk description somewhat seems to support this rule :
"Unarmed Strike: At 1st level, a monk gains Improved
Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk’s attacks may be
with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk
may make unarmed strikes with his hands full. There is
no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking
unarmed. A monk may thus apply his full Strength bonus
on damage rolls for all his unarmed strikes."
|
|
lots of stuff
Refer back to the section on TWFing you quoted. It also says (in the very next sentence) that you take those penalties when you fight this way. "this" is referring back to the previous sentence on gaining an extra attack when dual-wielding. Since it has been established that you can ignored your off-hand weapon and attack only with your main hand to avoid TWFing penalties, it is likely referring to the "gain an extra attack" portion. This link then infers that you would not take the penalties if you did not gain an extra attack.
A lot of inference? Sure, I'll give ya that.The idea of "attacking with off-hand" is separate from the idea of "attacking with two weapons" as can be seen in threads talking about characters dual-wielding a two-handed weapon and either unarmed strike or armor spikes (EDIT: Or in the unarmed strike class feature posted above). This doesn't let you gain more attacks than other TWFing forms, but it does give you options. Especially with a monk using a quarterstaff that can flurry, hitting you with either side A, side B OR his unarmed strike.
Maybe I'm just being stubborn, but the rules in this area are not terribly clear and it seems (to me) to be an overly zealous application of said rules to say that a character could not slowly and deliberately alternate between two weapons when they have sufficiently high BAB.
Though just to be clear: Do you agree that using one hand a character could attack, drop, quick-draw, then attack again? Or throw, quick-draw, throw? (Something required to make thrown weapon characters with more than two attacks in a round).
So a guy wielding two longswords that has a BAB of 6 could make an attack with his right hand at +6 BAB and another at +1 BAB with his left hand, or both with his right, or both with his left, but needs two-weapon fighting (and the penalties associated) to do more attacks than that.
This is the correct interpretation. You only receive a penalty for TWF when you are using TWF to gain an additional attack. There is also no "handidness" in PF. You do not have to pick whether you are right or left handed. You, again, only receive a penalty to your strength damage when you are using TWF to gain an additional attack. All iterative attacks receive your full str dam bonus, whether you use the same hand or not.
With a high BAB you gain additional attacks. There is nothing in the rules that limits these attacks to the same weapon, and there is absolutely nothing at all that limits these attacks to weapons wielded in the same hand. The limitations and penalties associated with TWF apply only to using two weapons to gain additional attacks.
|
|
Well, to be specific, lets review iterative attacks.
Page 11 CRB "When a creature's base attack bonus reaches +6, +11, or +16, he receives an additional attack in combat when he takes a full-attack action:
pg 187 CRB Full Attack:
"If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first."
Additionally, there isn't anything I can find that states you can't switch between weapons.
The section you reference with twf is just that. It's about gaining an extra attack, with penalties. If you're not using the second weapon to gain an extra attack, then you're not wielding two weapons as per pathfinder definition. You're holding two weapons, but only wielding one at a time.
Again, nowhere does it say you can't split your attacks between available weapons. :p
A lot of inference? Sure, I'll give ya that.
This is really all I was getting at. I understand your point of view, and I see the gray area/loop-hole you are getting it from. But I don't agree and I think it is taking a lot of inference.
However, as you have stated it isn't something I can definitively prove via RAW because of the specific language used. That coupled with the fact that mechanically I really don't think it makes a difference either way, leads me to simply agree to disagree with you and leave it at that.
Though just to be clear: Do you agree that using one hand a character could attack, drop, quick-draw, then attack again? Or throw, quick-draw, throw? (Something required to make thrown weapon characters with more than two attacks in a round).
Yes, I agree with you here and this point CAN be definitively proven in the wording of the Quickdraw feat itself.
Maybe I'm just being stubborn, but the rules in this area are not terribly clear and it seems (to me) to be an overly zealous application of said rules to say that a character could not slowly and deliberately alternate between two weapons when they have sufficiently high BAB.
My answer to this statement as well as others in the thread who said, “There is nothing in the rules that say you can’t,” is: There is also nothing in the rules that says you can. Additionally, why would the feat chain be called Two Weapon Fighting if the only thing it does is add an additional attack (with the associated penalties) to something you could already do? Why can't the TWF chain be used to gain additional attacks (at the same penalty) using only one weapon in your primary hand? Why not describe Two Weapon Fighting exactly the way you have described it and change the name of the TWF chain of feats to Flurry Attack or something, where it simply represents an additional attack, whether with one or two weapons?
But that isn't the way it is described. It is described in such a way that BAB gives you increasing iterative attacks with your primary weapon. You have the option of using a secondary weapon in your off-hand to gain an additional attack, at large penalties. You take the TWF feat to mitigate those penalties. You take the rest of the chain to gain increasing iterative attacks with your off-hand.
|
|
My answer to this statement as well as others in the thread who said, “There is nothing in the rules that say you can’t,” is: There is also nothing in the rules that says you can. Additionally, why would the feat chain be called Two Weapon Fighting if the only thing it does is add an additional attack (with the associated penalties) to something you could already do? Why can't the TWF chain be used to gain additional attacks (at the same penalty) using only one weapon in your primary hand? Why not describe Two Weapon Fighting exactly the way you have described it and change the name of the TWF chain of feats to Flurry Attack or something, where it simply represents an additional attack, whether with one or two weapons?
But that isn't the way it is described. It is described in such a way that BAB gives you increasing iterative attacks with your primary weapon. You have the option of using a secondary weapon in your off-hand to gain an additional attack, at large penalties. You take the TWF feat to mitigate those penalties. You take the rest of the chain to gain increasing iterative attacks with your off-hand.
The system is a combination of white- and black- listing, making both "nothing says you can't" and "nothing says you can" valid things to bring up.
For the second point, TWF's benefits ARE those extra attacks, but at the cost of needing to use a second limb and/or weapon for them. Basically, it's a feat that has a secondary cost for use because what it grants is so powerful. The most you see for single-weapons is one extra, and it ends there (though rapid shot is a good example of an extra attack that doesn't require a second weapon, but can stack with it in the case of thrown). Also, you can already do TWFing with extra attacks without the feat, it just has major penalties. Unless those weapons happen to be natural weapons, of course, but that's an entirely different matter.
As for the last point, I rebut with the following: Show me where it says iterative attacks must be made with the same weapon or hand. I see no such thing in the definition for base attack bonus (as follows). No such reference in full-round attacks. The section on two-weapon fighting limits its own scope to extra attacks.
Base Attack Bonus (BAB): Each creature has a base attack bonus and it represents its skill in combat. As a character gains levels or Hit Dice, his base attack bonus improves. When a creature's base attack bonus reaches +6, +11, or +16, he receives an additional attack in combat when he takes a full-attack action (which is one type of full-round action—see Combat).
I briefly scanned the thread, but did not see this mentioned.
I'm pretty sure the only class that can freely split offhand and mainland attacks is the monk. It's one of the benefits because they get treated as twf and attacking with their mainland which doing flurry of blows.
Ther were some articles on the wotc site a few years ago on the twf issue. But I think it did more harm than good. Think it was a rules of the game article. But they also had monks using twf and imp tef feats while flurrying which you cannot do in pathfinder
The one thing I would question though in this is:
Damage rolls: when using a melee weapon or a thrown weapon, including a sling. (Exceptions: Off-hand attacks receive only half the character’s Strength bonus, while two-handed attacks receive 1–1/2 times the Strength bonus. A Strength penalty, but not a bonus, applies to attacks made with a bow that is not a composite bow.)
This alone seems to indicate there is a "handedness" factor to melee combat... Which is primary and which is secondary, thus can attacks without TWF be interchanged without using the extra attack granted (and subsequent penalties). The rule, damage-wise, does address this.
EDIT: As such, I'd say that there would likewise be a penalty for attaking with your "off-hand" provided you don't attempt the extra attack while Two Weapon Fighting: -4 (-2 if light)and -2 (-0 if light) if you have the TWF feat.
For the second point, TWF's benefits ARE those extra attacks, but at the cost of needing to use a second limb and/or weapon for them. Basically, it's a feat that has a secondary cost for use because what it grants is so powerful. The most you see for single-weapons is one extra, and it ends there (though rapid shot is a good example of an extra attack that doesn't require a second weapon, but can stack with it in the case of thrown). Also, you can already do TWFing with extra attacks without the feat, it just has major penalties. Unless those weapons happen to be natural weapons, of course, but that's an entirely different matter.
I can understand how you are getting this. I still am going to have to agree to disagree with you, but I understand where you are coming from. Ultimately I don't think it makes much mechanical difference.
As for the last point, I rebut with the following: Show me where it says iterative attacks must be made with the same weapon or hand. I see no such thing in the definition for base attack bonus (as follows). No such reference in full-round attacks. The section on two-weapon fighting limits its own scope to extra attacks.
Again this goes back to the circular argument. Show me where it says you can.
I'm pretty sure the only class that can freely split offhand and mainland attacks is the monk. It's one of the benefits because they get treated as twf and attacking with their mainland which doing flurry of blows.
That was my impression as well.
This alone seems to indicate there is a "handedness" factor to melee combat... Which is primary and which is secondary, thus can attacks without TWF be interchanged without using the extra attack granted (and subsequent penalties). The rule, damage-wise, does address this.
I agree. People don't have to declare their primary hand, and the Ambidexterity feat went away but that doesn't mean you don't have a primary and secondary hand. The STR and TWF rules clearly talk about "off-handed" attacks.
|
|
The one thing I would question though in this is:
Damage rolls: when using a melee weapon or a thrown weapon, including a sling. (Exceptions: Off-hand attacks receive only half the character’s Strength bonus, while two-handed attacks receive 1–1/2 times the Strength bonus. A Strength penalty, but not a bonus, applies to attacks made with a bow that is not a composite bow.)This alone seems to indicate there is a "handedness" factor to melee combat... Which is primary and which is secondary, thus can attacks without TWF be interchanged without using the extra attack granted (and subsequent penalties). The rule, damage-wise, does address this.
EDIT: As such, I'd say that there would likewise be a penalty for attaking with your "off-hand" provided you don't attempt the extra attack while Two Weapon Fighting: -4 (-2 if light)and -2 (-0 if light) if you have the TWF feat.
The "handedness" only appears in relation to TWF. It relates to the 2nd attack you get when using this special attack.
There is absolutely nothing in the rules that explicitely states that "normal" iterative attacks (ie, not TWF) have to use a specific hand.
And this is quite logical, since the concept of "primary hand" only appears in relation to TWF.
I propose the following definition of primary hand and off hand :
Your primary hand is the hand with which you make an attack which is not granted by TWF
Your off-hand is the hand with which you make an extra attack granted by TWF
Note that which of you hand is primary can change with each attack. Same with the off-hand ;-)
|
|
Again this goes back to the circular argument. Show me where it says you can.
Show me where it says you can sneak-attack with a dagger. Oh, right, it doesn't, it just doesn't say you can't. It implies you can by not getting more specific than "attack." This sounds awfully familiar...
Less snarky version: "Show me where it says you can." only applies if there isn't a rule that implies you can (preferably strongly). If there is, then it turns into "show me where it says you can't." In our case the iterative attack rules imply you can as they don't bother getting more specific than "you get X number of attacks at Y bonus", and nothing says you can't.You may run it differently in your games, but I'm not trying to get house-rules here, I'm trying to get solid-rules grounds for this kind of thing.
|
|
The problem is that, due to the setup of the rules, it is neither implied that you can or can not switch back and forth.
The iterative attack rule doesn't create an implication one way or the other because it doesn't go into more detail. For example, an equally valid argument can be made both ways that, because it isn't covered, it should be allowed/disallowed.
You might remember an old issue involving dying. That is, nowhere did it say that dying prevented you from losing your actions, or being unable to function, so on and so forth. While real life implied that death meant the end of that characters career *excepting rezzes*, the game mechanics were vague due to the expectations of the designer that the ramifications didn't need to be spelled out.
Here, again, the ramifications weren't spelled out. However, real life gives us examples of both interpretations running correctly. Which means that both viewpoints have merit as interpretations, and barring a dev comment or additional input that was overlooked in the book, we won't get a clearer answer than that.
There's the solid-rules grounds for ya :/
Again this goes back to the circular argument. Show me where it says you can.Show me where it says you can sneak-attack with a dagger. Oh, right, it doesn't, it just doesn't say you can't. It implies you can by not getting more specific than "attack." This sounds awfully familiar...
Less snarky version: "Show me where it says you can." only applies if there isn't a rule that implies you can (preferably strongly). If there is, then it turns into "show me where it says you can't." In our case the iterative attack rules imply you can as they don't bother getting more specific than "you get X number of attacks at Y bonus", and nothing says you can't.You may run it differently in your games, but I'm not trying to get house-rules here, I'm trying to get solid-rules grounds for this kind of thing.
By your own admission you are taking a lot of inference to come to your conclusion so I wouldn't call the way I have interpreted it a house-rule. I have been to a lot of open games as well as games out of homes, and run my own games and I have never had a DM or a player mention this interpretation of iterative attacks. Truthfully I have never heard anyone talk about this interpretation before this thread. If there is 3.5 FAQ that deals with this and supports what you are saying I would be interested in reading it.
The problem is that, due to the setup of the rules, it is neither implied that you can or can not switch back and forth.
The iterative attack rule doesn't create an implication one way or the other because it doesn't go into more detail. For example, an equally valid argument can be made both ways that, because it isn't covered, it should be allowed/disallowed.
You might remember an old issue involving dying. That is, nowhere did it say that dying prevented you from losing your actions, or being unable to function, so on and so forth. While real life implied that death meant the end of that characters career *excepting rezzes*, the game mechanics were vague due to the expectations of the designer that the ramifications didn't need to be spelled out.
Here, again, the ramifications weren't spelled out. However, real life gives us examples of both interpretations running correctly. Which means that both viewpoints have merit as interpretations, and barring a dev comment or additional input that was overlooked in the book, we won't get a clearer answer than that.
There's the solid-rules grounds for ya :/
After having participated in this thread I would agree with what you are saying. This is a subject that should probably be addressed in FAQ, and if it made more of a mechanical difference, or more people were arguing about it than it very well might be.
|
|
Okay, so I swore that was a 3.5 FAQ that clarified you could make iterative attacks with any available weapon, etc, but I can't find it >.<
I guess unless anyone brings more information to the table we'll have to end the discussion with a giant shrug of the shoulders. It would be nice to get a ruling on this in case it (for whatever weird reason) comes up in a PFS game. ("Crap, I got disarmed... I shield bash them with my next attack!")
For what it's worth I hit the recommend for FAQ button. Maybe we will see it in PF FAQ.