In general, the rules assume you make attacks in order of highest bonus to lowest bonus. So if you're attack line is +15/+10/+5 to hit, you would work your way from left to right, rolling your attack dice with ever decreasing modifiers.
However, say you have Two-Weapon Fighting and an off-hand weapon. Now you get a 4th attack...but when does it* come into play?
Is it +15/+15*/+10/+5? Or is +15/+10/+5 & +15* technically still following the above rule of highest to lowest (only now it's "per weapon")?
I ask because I have a shield fighter who throws people about with his bull rushing shield bashes. The problem, however, is that if I am forced to follow the +15/+15*/+10/+5 routine, than my bull rushing will actually prevent me from making my last two iterative attacks. The +15/+10/+5 & +15* routine is much more advantageous since I can lay into them for all I'm worth this round AND THEN send them flying.
In general, the rules assume you make attacks in order of highest bonus to lowest bonus. So if you're attack line is +15/+10/+5 to hit, you would work your way from left to right, rolling your attack dice with ever decreasing modifiers.
However, say you have Two-Weapon Fighting and an off-hand weapon. Now you get a 4th attack...but when does it* come into play?
Is it +15/+15*/+10/+5? Or is +15/+10/+5 & +15* technically still following the above rule of highest to lowest (only now it's "per weapon")?
I ask because I have a shield fighter who throws people about with his bull rushing shield bashes. The problem, however, is that if I am forced to follow the +15/+15*/+10/+5 routine, than my bull rushing will actually prevent me from making my last two iterative attacks. The +15/+10/+5 & +15* routine is much more advantageous since I can lay into them for all I'm worth this round AND THEN send them flying.
That was just answered in the other thread by another poster. It seems pretty air tight also.
Thread link?
Thread link?
We've always done it +15/+10/+5/+15. Nobody in our groups ever questioned it or even had to ask, so I imagine the rules going to back to the 3rd Ed PHB were written so as to seem obvious to us.
I would be interested if this fabled other thread challenges that, and how air tight an argument against could possibly be.
I would bet money it agrees, and if not... then it's wrong.
We've always done it +15/+10/+5/+15. Nobody in our groups ever questioned it or even had to ask, so I imagine the rules going to back to the 3rd Ed PHB were written so as to seem obvious to us.
I would be interested if this fabled other thread challenges that, and how air tight an argument against could possibly be.
I would bet money it agrees, and if not... then it's wrong.
You can roll the dice either all primary first or you can alternate, but the primary attacks must be made with the primary weapon. RD is saying that if you can TWF with a sword and axe for example and use any weapon with the attack bonus of your choosing. I disagree.
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.
While the rules state you may start combat with either hand it doesn't get into the order of resolution of iterative attacks. But you must go in descending order.
|
From the two-weapon fighting feat:
"Normal: If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon."
Improved two-weapon fighting feat:
"Benefit: In addition to the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you get a second attack with it, albeit at a -5 penalty."
Greater two-weapon fighting feat:
"Benefit: You get a third attack with your off-hand weapon, albeit at a -1 penalty."
So you declare one weapon as main hand, one as off-hand. As per Stynkk's quote, you execute them in order of highest bonus to lowest. But you don't, for instance, get to make all of them with the same weapon or switch them around to make the two highest bonuses with your primary weapon, and the two lowest with your off-hand weapon.
So you declare one weapon as main hand, one as off-hand. As per Stynkk's quote, you execute them in order of highest bonus to lowest. But you don't, for instance, get to make all of them with the same weapon or switch them around to make the two highest bonuses with your primary weapon, and the two lowest with your off-hand weapon.
To note you don't have to declare really... with an iterative attack +6/+1 Fighter with a Sword and Shield you can attack with a sword and an unarmed strike (headbutt) and then use TWF to attack with the third weapon (shield).
Not that I don't agree with your point, but you really don't have to designate only two weapons.
Hmm.... how about something along the lines of not interchanging weapons between primary and off-hand?
Though the way the twf feats are worded kind of implies that the off-hand attacks are all made with the same weapon.
To clarify this we could say you must use a weapon/limb not used in the "primary" attack series. I do agree it gets really fuzzy... then you have flurry of blows... arg.
You can roll the dice either all primary first or you can alternate, but the primary attacks must be made with the primary weapon. RD is saying that if you can TWF with a sword and axe for example and use any weapon with the attack bonus of your choosing. I disagree.We've always done it +15/+10/+5/+15. Nobody in our groups ever questioned it or even had to ask, so I imagine the rules going to back to the 3rd Ed PHB were written so as to seem obvious to us.
I would be interested if this fabled other thread challenges that, and how air tight an argument against could possibly be.
I would bet money it agrees, and if not... then it's wrong.
Actually, I am only interested in the order the attacks are made in. For the purposes of THIS thread, assume that I am NOT trying to alternate weapon attacks like you describe.
Don't confuse the two threads. They ARE different topics.
By RAW attacks must be taken from highest to lowest. As such you would switch between main hand and off hand attacks since the off hand attacks are at a higher bonus than the iterative main attacks.
Since it's:
Main hand / Main hand -5/ main hand -10/ main hand -15
off hand / off hand -5/ off hand -10/ off hand -15
off hand is higher than main hand -5 and so would be used before main hand -5.
Since you can lead with either hand it doesn't matter which one is your 'main hand' as long as both have the same bonus (which could be a problem for character's using two different weapon types, or those that have a single heirloom weapon).
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.
By RAW attacks must be taken from highest to lowest. As such you would switch between main hand and off hand attacks since the off hand attacks are at a higher bonus than the iterative main attacks.
Since it's:
Main hand / Main hand -5/ main hand -10/ main hand -15
off hand / off hand -5/ off hand -10/ off hand -15
off hand is higher than main hand -5 and so would be used before main hand -5.
Since you can lead with either hand it doesn't matter which one is your 'main hand' as long as both have the same bonus (which could be a problem for character's using two different weapon types, or those that have a single heirloom weapon).
Hmm... I'm still not convinced. It says "you can strike with either weapon first." That to me says that the...
Main / Main -5 / Main -10 / Main -15 & Off / Off -5 / Off -10
...or...
Off / Off -5 / Off -10 & Main / Main -5 / Main -10 / Main -15
...is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the rule.
EDIT: I'm not saying that you are wrong or that I am right, we don't know the answer to that. I am merely saying that both are reasonable interpretations of RAW.
Nope it says you get to attack with either weapon first -- but not that you get to ignore bonus order which is highest to lowest.
So with the specific except of the first attack all other attacks must be in order from highest bonus to lowest bonus.
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.
Nope it says you get to attack with either weapon first -- but not that you get to ignore bonus order which is highest to lowest.
So with the specific except of the first attack all other attacks must be in order from highest bonus to lowest bonus.
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.
Then how come every Pathfinder stat block I've ever seen always list the attack lines as follows:
Melee magic weapon one +15/+10/+5 and
_____magic weapon two +15/+10
That format is telling you to make the first three attacks at +15/+10/+5 and THEN to make the off-hand attacks at +15/+10. You always read from left to right, from top to bottom. That's how the English language works.
Take a look at the Pirate Captain in the NPC gallery as another example:
Melee +1 dagger +17/+12 (1d4+6/17–20) and mwk whip +17/+12 (1d3+1 nonlethal)
Why wouldn't they write it out differently if it was just as you say?
Then how come every Pathfinder stat block I've ever seen always list the attack lines as follows:Melee magic weapon one +15/+10/+5 and
_____magic weapon two +15/+10That format is telling you to make the first three attacks at +15/+10/+5 and THEN to make the off-hand attacks at +15/+10. You always read from left to right, from top to bottom. That's how the English language works.
Why wouldn't they write it out differently if it was as you say?
1. Ease of reading.
It's a lot easier to read:
weapon one +x/ +x
Weapon two +x/ +x
than:
Weapon one +x/ weapon two +x/ Weapon one +x/ weapon two +x
It's simply short hand... much like they don't actually list out spell books for the wizards in their APs even though the wizards must have that spell book.
2. Saves word count.
3. Assumes you as a GM know the rules and will do it your way regardless of how they put it in the book.
4. Because we know paizo never makes mistakes. (a little snark here, but not meant to be offensive).
If nothing else, it seems silly that a feat with as many prerequisites and penalties as Shield Slam would essentially force you into one of two undesirable situations all the time:
1) 1st main attack, bash & bull rush then either follow (if you can) or lose your other attacks.
or
2) 1st main attack, bash & give up your bull rush because you want to make other attacks.
In the first scenario the feat penalizes you by reducing your attack chain or forcing you to eat up your movement (and doesn't work at all with Improved and Greater TWF), while the second forces you to disregard the utility of a feat you've purchased in many situations. Certainly allowing you to take your bash after you've completed your main attacks should be allowable, if only to make the feat worth taking, and this is from someone who has ALWAYS assumed that two-weapon fighting attack progression went +15/+15/+10/+10/+5/+5 (from 3.5).
We've always resolved attacks in any order the attacker chooses. I've never come into a situation where it mattered enough to care. The rules themselves are mostly silent on the issue, so whatever works for you.