| 10 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. |
Is it possible to take iterative attacks with different weapons? Say, a sixth level barbarian wielding a longspear is adjacent to an enemy. Could he use knockback (rage power) with a spiked gauntlet to push the target farther away and the take his second attack with the long spear? I'm looking for both opinions and actual facts.
Is it possible to take iterative attacks with different weapons? Say, a sixth level barbarian wielding a longspear is adjacent to an enemy. Could he use knockback (rage power) with a spiked gauntlet to push the target farther away and the take his second attack with the long spear? I'm looking for both opinions and actual facts.
As far as I know, that is 100% fine. You can even use quick-draw to attack with different weapons, if for some odd reason you really wanted to.
Is it possible to take iterative attacks with different weapons? Say, a sixth level barbarian wielding a longspear is adjacent to an enemy. Could he use knockback (rage power) with a spiked gauntlet to push the target farther away and the take his second attack with the long spear? I'm looking for both opinions and actual facts.
It would normally fall under TWF, and I dont think the devs thought about using two weapons without the extra attacks so there really is no rule for it. I would allow it though based on Ashiel's post above. I am not going to make you take quickdraw to use two weapons that are already out especially since I don't see the benefit of using two weapons in such a manner. In any event unless the combo proved too much for paying too little, which your example isn't, so I don't see an issue.
|
Is it possible to take iterative attacks with different weapons? Say, a sixth level barbarian wielding a longspear is adjacent to an enemy. Could he use knockback (rage power) with a spiked gauntlet to push the target farther away and the take his second attack with the long spear? I'm looking for both opinions and actual facts.
I also can't spot anything wrong with this. It's a useful way to get your opponent back into the range of your major weapon if you are unable to take a 5' step away. Or even with a 5' step to the side to then be able to manoeuvre them into a flank with the knockback and then attack.
| 8 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. |
I´m GUESSING that you can´t, at least by RAI....
Although it isn´t at all obvious from reading just the Full Attack rules themselves (which mention every other detail), Paizo FOR SOME REASON felt it necessary to spell out that the Shield Fighter Variant specifically can mix different (wielded) weapons for different iteratives, which is an indication that this isn´t intended to be normally allowed.
One one level, it seems wierd not to allow, you´re not getting any extra attacks, and what is so wrong with hacking somebody with a longsword and then kicking them? I think the main concern here is using a Reach Weapon against further foes and then attacking closer foes with normal weapons (like Armor Spikes), which undoubtedly IS a very strong ability to have... On the other hand, that´s not SUCH an over-powering ability, either.
But I don´t really know 100%, the SHield Fighter ability seems totally superfluous if it normally IS allowed, but the Full Attack Action says nothing about barring this.... Hit the FAQ button I say...
|
|
the SHield Fighter ability seems totally superfluous if it normally IS allowed, but the Full Attack Action says nothing about barring this.... Hit the FAQ button I say...
Shield Fighter (Ex): At 5th level, a shielded fighter gains a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls when making a shield bash. These bonuses increase by +1 every four levels beyond 5th. With a full attack action, a shielded fighter may alternate between using his weapon or his shield for each attack. This action does not grant additional attacks or incur penalties as two-weapon fighting does. This ability replaces weapon training 1.
So the ability still gives the +1 to attack and damage. The following text could clarify the rule in general, or (as it is worded) could be specific to Shielded Fighter.
Marked as a FAQ.
The problem is also that the rules also ´suggested´ that Shield Bashes are ´only´ off-hand attacks, which Paizo has confirmed isn´t the case (though they didn´t go into every case, but stated it could be made as an Attack Actino by itself), and THAT could have been what that wording was trying to clear up... SO we DO know that tons of rules are vague or directly misleading, and new vague/misleading passages COULD be back-door ´fixes´ to those... OR NOT! :-)
Opinion: I would say no. It steps on TWF a little.
Fact: None to back it up.
The advantage of TWF IMHO is that it gives an extra attack not that you get to use more than one weapon.
I don't see it as any differently than if I hit you with a gauntlet to knock you back, and then used the longspear that was in my hand to finish the attacks. I guess after a second look I would be ok with it.
IMHO, it's fine until you are using the same "style".
For "style" I mean two weapon fight, two handed weapon or one-handed.
In that way, you can do cool stuff: say, kill an enemy, quickdraw bolas and trip a distant one, 5 foot step, quickdraw a whip and use it against a medium range third enemy.
BUTE things are not confusing since you don't have to change bonus and penalties related to hit and damage because you switch from a two handed weapon to a one-handed.
In my games, my players do it frequently. Myself, I consider it part of playing a melee PC in a good way.
EDIT, Another thing: for what is worth, the 3.5 FAQs allowed what the OP asked.
But I don´t really know 100%, the SHield Fighter ability seems totally superfluous if it normally IS allowed, but the Full Attack Action says nothing about barring this.... Hit the FAQ button I say...
Well, I always allowed that. In fact, the shield fighter always seemed very, very, very strange to me.
IMHO should have said "your dex counts as 2 points higher for the purpose of TWF with shields (+4 at higher level)" fullstop. Meh.
|
Is it possible to take iterative attacks with different weapons? Say, a sixth level barbarian wielding a longspear is adjacent to an enemy. Could he use knockback (rage power) with a spiked gauntlet to push the target farther away and the take his second attack with the long spear? I'm looking for both opinions and actual facts.I can tell you one thing.. there are no actual examples, nor rules text from TSR/WOTC/SRD/Paizo that give an example of what you want so it's exclusively House rule territory.
The 3.5 FAQ from WotC specifically states that the different attacks of an iterative weapon attack sequence can be from different weapons. This is found on page 44 of the Final FAQ. It includes examples of using a two handed weapon and a thrown weapon in the same full round attack. It includes examples of using Quick Draw between attack actions.
For readers of the school that the 3.5 FAQ applies in cases where the rules remain the same between 3.5 and PF, this should answer the issue. Edit: note that the same FAQ calls for regripping a two handed weapon to be a move action, so it isn't a direct parallel to those who are following PF developer posts that call this a free action.
I generally take the position that if a rules resource grants the ability to do something, then you need the rulres resource to do that thing. So, I understand where folks are coming from regarding Shield Fighter. That said, I can see the text written as a reminder rather than providing an ability that otherwise doesn't exist, and that the granted ability for shield fighter is just the +1 attack and +1 damage. I also think that it's possible that the writer of Shield Fighter was aware of the controversy and was making sure that it was clear, or that the writer came down on the other side of the question.
I don't see any raw that says he can't. If the raw doesn't say you can't, and rl doesn't say you can't, i don't see any reason not to allow it.
|
Opinion: I would say no. It steps on TWF a little.
Fact: None to back it up.
The advantage of TWF IMHO is that it gives an extra attack not that you get to use more than one weapon.
I don't see it as any differently than if I hit you with a gauntlet to knock you back, and then used the longspear that was in my hand to finish the attacks. I guess after a second look I would be ok with it.
Being why I said "a little"...The main advantage is that TWF give an extra attack with a different weapon. Allowing this lets you still use a different weapon, take one less attack, all at no penalty. I see too much potential abuse when adding a different weapon to the attack sequence.
In your example I feel that you have thrown your weight so fully behind your punch to drive your enemy back that recovering to replace your hand is more than a free action.
That said. Kalyth's example sounds decent enough, but I would have to rule against it because it leads to a precedent to allow those attacks with other weapons.
Is just how I see it.
If you can't attack with different weapons with your iterative attacks without take TWF penalties, than throwing weapon builds get royally shafted (well, MORE shafted), even when using Quick Draw.
Sorry, but I don't like rules that kill concepts. Those rules changes to Spring Attack and Vital Strike that made no one ever want to play a mobility build ever again were quite enough for me!
What is is with Pathfinder saying archery, THF, TWF, and S&B are the ONLY fighting styles that matter with all others being crushed/ignored?
The specific response involved grabbing and throwing small one handed missles like daggers, shuriken, and such. It's a major stretch between that and considering switching around heavy weapons like big swords and longspears. I still stand by my call that there has been no demonstration of something sufficiently close to what the OP specifically is asking about.
the thing is that grabbing and throwing a small one handed missile is a free action IF you have quickdraw. Shifting a staff from being held to being used so a wizard can cast a spell and then back again, or a cleric switching his mace to his shield hand so he can cast, is a free or non action for everyone WITHOUT feats.
A: (James Jacobs 1/1/10) Switching a held object from one hand to the other doesn't require an action, so the end result is the same whether or not you use the light shield hand to lay on hands or your weapon hand after switching your weapon to the off hand, and then back to your weapon hand. The fact that allowing you to use your light shield hand to do so without so many fiddly steps is why I'd say it's fine to let it work that way. [Source]
|
|
Being why I said "a little"...The main advantage is that TWF give an extra attack with a different weapon. Allowing this lets you still use a different weapon, take one less attack, all at no penalty. I see too much potential abuse when adding a different weapon to the attack sequence.
TWF gets you an extra attack with your off hand at the same bonus as your main hand, admittedly at less than full BAB due to the penalties.
This is at least -5 and is not an additional attack.
It's fair to suppose that someone has a most-powerful, primary weapon. If they are giving up an attack with this weapon to use a secondary weapon then it is either for flavour (which should always be encouraged) or for a clever one-two attack, like the OP's knockback and longspear.
Whatever they do, it's likely to be less effective than two attacks with their primary weapon, unless what they have come up with works around a very specific situation that they have found themselves in. In that case, reward them for their creativity.
I don't see any negative impact on the game by allowing this, so for mine, it's in.
|
|
So you get an extra attack at a penalty with a different weapon.
This is an attack you are getting anyway. It is not taken at a penalty, it is a reduced BAB. It looks very similar but is not. It is your normal BAB for an attack and gets reduced by penalties like those from TWF.
One can assume that the primary weapon is the best one. And I have even agreed that there are interesting ways to do this that I have no issue with. There are also people that only want to exploit everything. It is for this reason that I do not allow this.
In enough cases it is not creativity but munchkinism that drives people to use these tactics. Not all cases and certainly not all players...but enough.
Good for your game. You can have it. No sweat to me.
So you get an extra attack at a penalty with a different weapon.
This is an attack you are getting anyway. It is not taken at a penalty, it is a reduced BAB. It looks very similar but is not. It is your normal BAB for an attack and gets reduced by penalties like those from TWF.
One can assume that the primary weapon is the best one. And I have even agreed that there are interesting ways to do this that I have no issue with. There are also people that only want to exploit everything. It is for this reason that I do not allow this.
In enough cases it is not creativity but munchkinism that drives people to use these tactics. Not all cases and certainly not all players...but enough.
Good for your game. You can have it. No sweat to me.
The real advantage to allowing this would be when we view the situation in reverse. If you let someone sling their sword to the off hand and then throw a dagger as their next iterative attack, could they then use TWF with the sword now in their offhand? Could you then say that you can TWF with a single weapon by merely switching it back and forth as free actions? Important to note that in pathfinder Alpha there was a feat that specifically allowed this which implies that without that feat it isn't possible.
I will point out that I see no problem with the above and am pro alternate weapons for iterative attacks.
Ok here's an example.
Say someone is holding a long sword in his right hand and a torch in his left.
He has +9 BAB so he would get +9/+4 for his attacks he does not have two weapon fighting. Lets say he trips with his first attack and then swings with his long sword with his second. No problem right? He is using two different attack forms but still limited to he number of attacks based on BAB.
Now lets say he fighting an enemy who has been splashed with oil. His next attack may be to hit the target with his torch in hopes of lighting the oil and then stab the guy with his sword +9/+4
I see nothing wrong with this. Hes not really TWF hes just mixing up his attack options. TWF is fighting with two weapons with the purposed of gaining additional attacks.
And I'm gonna have to say this wouldn't be allowed as both hands are being used. While I believe you can switch your primary hand designation between turns, you can't do so between attacks, even if you were to use iterative attack bonus.
But without a trip weapon equipped aren't you considered to be doing it with your free hand? Hmm
Thank you for all of the opinions, even if there wasn't much in the way of actual rules. Let's keep hoping for an official ruling.
he real advantage to allowing this would be when we view the situation in reverse. If you let someone sling their sword to the off hand and then throw a dagger as their next iterative attack, could they then use TWF with the sword now in their offhand?
No. Because at the start of their turn, their declared action was to attack normally, NOT attack with two weapons. They cannot ignore the penalties and then change their minds after the fact.
You could in fact, hold a longsword and a shortsword in your hand and NOT use two weapon fighing at all if you didn't want the penalty.
Characters in pathfinder seem to be ambidexterous. "off" hand is only relevant if the other hand is attacking.
It is not merely a matter of people´s concern, or how they would run their own games,
but elucidating what the actual RAW/RAI is, which isn´t at all clear one way or the other.
he real advantage to allowing this would be when we view the situation in reverse. If you let someone sling their sword to the off hand and then throw a dagger as their next iterative attack, could they then use TWF with the sword now in their offhand?
No. Because at the start of their turn, their declared action was to attack normally, NOT attack with two weapons. They cannot ignore the penalties and then change their minds after the fact.
You could in fact, hold a longsword and a shortsword in your hand and NOT use two weapon fighing at all if you didn't want the penalty.
Characters in pathfinder seem to be ambidexterous. "off" hand is only relevant if the other hand is attacking.
Semantics. So could you perform that action IF you declared you would do so, and made the offhand attack before the dagger attack? Or could you switch the sword back and forth and TWF?
|
|
If I'm not mistaken, there was a 3.5 ruling (by the Sage?) that boiled down to that question. If you want, you can switch you sword back and forth between your hand to TWF with a single weapon. The deciding factor, as I remember it, was the hand that used the weapon and nothing more.
Edit: Here is a section that goes into some depth on TWF, unfortunately it's 3.5, so it's not the definitive source. It doesn't come from the article I was referencing either, so I suppose it's not really called for. I guess I just have a strong feeling that the OP would be allowed, so I'm trying to throw any and all resources at it. Maybe you'll see something I can't. I've not time to read it right now.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060829a
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060905a
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060912a
Yes, and as already mentioned, Paizo has ruled directly counter to WotC on other relevant mechanics, such as the action needed to ´switch grips´, even though there is no RAW changes. (that isn´t a mark against Paizo, beyond the issue of them printing vague rules, because many WotC Sage rulings were highly suspect or had no basis in RAW)