| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack:
After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round. If you've already taken a 5-foot step, you can't use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.
How does two weapon fighting work with this? Assume you attack with one hand first as a standard action (the attack hits, no TWF penalties) then you decide to continue with the full attack getting your offhand attack.
Do you retroactively account for penalties on the first roll? The player was not using TWF at the time of the first attack. How does that work?
A player that does not utilize the extra offhanded attack of TWF does not suffer the penalties of TWF in my understanding.
Not trying to stir up trouble, but seems like it might cause some problems.
If you do not take the penalty on your first attack, you cannot make your off-hand attacks. Which means that yes, a player can attack at a -2, then decide to move, meaning he attacked at less of a bonus than he could have.
Note: Not based off of any hard rules, just my interpretation.
^This
I'm not sure where you're getting this impression...
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.
Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack:
After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round. If you've already taken a 5-foot step, you can't use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.
Much farther down...
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.
I see nothing hard in the rules about declaring anything, but I appreciate the suggestions and the -2 seems logical. Just trying to work out mechanics..
...stuff...
It's silly to think you can avoid the -2 on the initial attack for TWF even if you choose to make 1 attack and move. Either take the penalty and retain the option make attacks with the offhand even if you don't, or make the single attack without the penalty and live with the results.
Anything else is just loophole lawyering.
edit: hm, that may sound snarky on 2nd read, but its not my intent. Just how i see it.
|
I see nothing hard in the rules about declaring anything, but I appreciate the suggestions and the -2 seems logical. Just trying to work out mechanics..
If you do not take a -2 on your attack, you are not TWF during your attack sequence. You have to be actively preparing to attack with the second weapon to be TWF, represented by the -2. If you don't prepare to use both weapons, you miss your opportunity.
I see nothing hard in the rules about declaring anything, but I appreciate the suggestions and the -2 seems logical. Just trying to work out mechanics..If you do not take a -2 on your attack, you are not TWF during your attack sequence. You have to be actively preparing to attack with the second weapon to be TWF, represented by the -2. If you don't prepare to use both weapons, you miss your opportunity.
That sums up my feelings on it better then i said. Thank you TOZ.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
The problematic way to interpret the rules is that if you don´t procede with a Full Attack, your first attack is an Attack Action.
If you take the first attack without penalty, and then decide to 2WF Full Attack,
you run into the quandary that the first attack must have been a main-hand 2WF attack that should have taken a penalty,
yet you have already made that attack without penalty and know it´s result...
Retro-actively applying the penalty is kind of a joke if you know if the penalty will matter or won´t.
If you take the first attack WITH penalty, and then decide not to Full Attack, then either you retroactively add back in the penalty amount (which obviously can be metagamed), or inexplicably have an attack subject to 2WF penalties even though you did not 2WF.
Likewise for non-2WF scenarios, you can make the roll first, see what damage you did, i.e. how you overcame DR, and thus whether using Vital Strike is a good idea or not.
...So the non-problematic way to interpret the rules is that in all cases you are using the Full Attack Action, ´declared´ as 2WF if you are going to do so, and if you decide not to proceed with attacks after the first one, that DOESN´T mean the first attack was an attack action - It was just the first attack of a FulL Attack Action (normal or 2WF declared before you started), and you are actually gaining a ´FREE´ Move Action in addition to the Full Round Action which you already took (and didn´t complete).
So yeah, the rules could be better written, more clearly pointing out that the Move Action is a ´bonus´ action and the first attack is not retro-actively defined as per it´s Action Type. The title of the sub-section is itself misleading... ¨Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack:¨. What are you deciding between? Two Actions? That runs into problems with retro-active Attack Actions, as per above. If it´s NOT an Attack ACTION, i.e. in line with my non-problematic interpreation, than you´re NOT actually deciding between a Full Attack and something else, you´re still making a Full Attack just getting an extra Move Action in place of the additional attacks. This is pretty much part and parcel of the situation that heritage 3.5 wording actually WASN´T completely consistent or coherent with it´s wording and editing re: Attack vs. Attack Action... namely how basic attack types and mechancis (melee, ranged, unarmed, crits) are placed under the ATTACK ACTION rather than under attack rolls in general - that is completely counter to the concept that attack actions are distinct from attacks.
Likewise, it isn´t clear why CMB wasn´t put as a sub-type to the generic attack roll (i.e. along with melee, ranged, unarmed, and IDEALLY touch attacks), and CMD could really be co-located with AC information. Not to mention that the Ready Standard Action mysteriously isn´t placed in the section for Standard Actions, but in a special Intiative Action section next to Delay... Much more coherent to put it in the prose section corresponding to where it´s listed in the Action Table, and have Delay listed right along with where Initiative itself is introduced, since it isn´t an action at all, special initiative or not. The whole Combat chapter is pretty badly organized all in all, some of it not knowing what belongs in Equipment and what belongs in Combat.
If you take the first attack without penalty, and then decide to 2WF Full Attack, you run into the quandary that the first attack must have been a main-hand 2WF attack
I see what you did there...
The problem I see with your non-problematic suggestion is that the rules state you can't use a standard action to start a full round action that is a full attack.
So if we use your non-problematic solution the player cannot use a move action. And if we define a 'free' move action, now we're really going to confuse players that obviously aren't all too familiar with the rules.
So far it seems some kind of declaration of intended combat style (as suggested above) is necessary to prevent this kind of confusion. Although, I think you're on the right track Quandary.
I never wrote that you use a standard to start a full-round, i wrote that you use a full-round from the get go, but that if choose to give up iterative attacks you get an ´included´ Move Action. Other effects can give free Move Actions, and other actions in CORE already include ´free´ Move Actions, namely drawing a weapon while moving if you have BAB+1.
Note I´m pretty sure that this interpretation means that if you declare 2WF, take the first attack, and then decide to take a Move Action instead of further attacks, you still count as ´2WFing´ for purposes which care about that (I think 2WF Fighter Archetype gives AC bonus for example), even if you didn´t actually take the off-hand attack (but you prepared to fight 2WF or whatever is represented by the penalty you took to the main-hand... although penalties can be reduced of course). Other effects actually care about both main and off-hand attacks hitting, and those obviously woulnd´t work in that situation... But for a dedicated 2WF, they very well may have good mechanical reasons to do this rather than take an Attack Action and Move.
(of course, there´s always something ´completely different´, but I think my non-problematic reading is the closest to RAW, even though as I say, some wording is misleading even there. but for something else, establishing action determination, or attacks that don´t have actions defining them, e.g. attack action, i think the current RAW is missing too much clarifying wording to justify those readings... /my2c of course...)
I never wrote that you use a standard to start a full-round, i wrote that you use a full-round from the get go, but that if choose to give up iterative attacks you get an ´included´ Move Action. Other effects can give free Move Actions, and other actions in CORE already include ´free´ Move Actions, namely drawing a weapon while moving if you have BAB+1.
Note I´m pretty sure that this interpretation means that if you declare 2WF, take the first attack, and then decide to take a Move Action instead of further attacks, you still count as ´2WFing´ for purposes which care about that (I think 2WF Fighter Archetype gives AC bonus for example), even if you didn´t actually take the off-hand attack (but you prepared to fight 2WF or whatever is represented by the penalty you took to the main-hand... although penalties can be reduced of course). Other effects actually care about both main and off-hand attacks hitting, and those obviously woulnd´t work in that situation... But for a dedicated 2WF, they very well may have good mechanical reasons to do this rather than take an Attack Action and Move.
(of course, there´s always something ´completely different´, but I think my non-problematic reading is the closest to RAW, even though as I say, some wording is misleading even there. but for something else, establishing action determination, or attacks that don´t have actions defining them, e.g. attack action, i think the current RAW is missing too much clarifying wording to justify those readings... /my2c of course...)
I have to admit that I find your non-problematic solution, a bit more problematic than it is.
'Taking a full attack action, but having the choice of disregarding your attacks after the first, and gaining a free move action instead', seems more confusion than 'making an attack is a standard action, spending a move action makes this a full attack action'.The only part that remains is to add a fix for two-weapon fighting stating 'You must choose to use two-weapon fighting before making any attacks in the round'.
Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack:
After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round. If you've already taken a 5-foot step, you can't use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.
The answer is here, by my reading. After your first attack, you can decide to stop attacking and take a move action instead. Note that 1) This is taken from the Full Attack entry, and 2) 'instead of making your remaining attacks' strongly indicate that this section is only talking about the full-attack action. It doesn't say that you can make a single attack, and then afterwards decide to turn it into a full-attack action. From the above section, it only works one way.
You declare your full-attack action. You decide if you want to use TWF. If you drop your opponent on the first hit (for instance), you can now decide to break your full-attack and take a move action instead of continue wailing at the air.
You make the decision to TWF before making the first attack, so the penalty should apply even if you decide not to complete the full attack action.
Seems pretty clear cut to me.
The problematic way to interpret the rules is that if you don´t procede with a Full Attack, your first attack is an Attack Action.
If you take the first attack without penalty, and then decide to 2WF Full Attack,
you run into the quandary that the first attack must have been a main-hand 2WF attack that should have taken a penalty,
yet you have already made that attack without penalty and know it´s result...
Retro-actively applying the penalty is kind of a joke if you know if the penalty will matter or won´t.
If you take the first attack WITH penalty, and then decide not to Full Attack, then either you retroactively add back in the penalty amount (which obviously can be metagamed), or inexplicably have an attack subject to 2WF penalties even though you did not 2WF.
The rule says "After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks" - if you don't start out by declaring a full attack (and taking all applicable penalties for doing so), then you can't upgrade to one later. But if you do declare it and take the penalties, you can then switch to a standard+move after one attack. This means you do, in fact "inexplicably have an attack subject to 2WF penalties even though you did not 2WF". Except it's actually explicit that you prepared to TWF, even if you didn't swing.
Edit: Ninja'd by Slaunyeh
|
I only glanced through the posts here and have to agree with the idea that you:
1. Declare your Full Attack Action;
2. Take your first attack (along with any and all appropriate penalties);
3. Decide whether to continue attacking or use your move action instead.
So you cannot avoid the penalties on 2WF. Either you had prepped yourself to fight with both weapons or you have not