Say I have a sap master rogue ("Siinsa") with a sap in one hand and a sword of subtlety in the other. She is 9th-level and thus gets two attacks with a full attack action. She has a necromancer on one side of her, and his zombie companion on the other. The zombie is immune to her sap, but the necromancer is not. Likewise, the zombie is especially vulnerable to her short sword. Therefore, I want to attack both, one with each weapon.
Can she attack with each weapon once without penalty? In other words, do the TWF penalties only come into play when a person gets one or more extra off-hand attacks? Or is it any time you attack with two weapons in the same round, period?
If the latter interpretation is true, I feel real sorry for thrower builds that draw out and use more than one throwing weapon in the same round.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Say I have a sap master rogue ("Siinsa") with a sap in one hand and a sword of subtlety in the other. She is 9th-level and thus gets two attacks with a full attack action. She has a necromancer on one side of her, and his zombie companion on the other. The zombie is immune to her sap, but the necromancer is not. Likewise, the zombie is especially vulnerable to her short sword. Therefore, I want to attack both, one with each weapon.
Can she attack with each weapon once without penalty? In other words, do the TWF penalties only come into play when a person gets one or more extra off-hand attacks? Or is it any time you attack with two weapons in the same round, period?
If the latter interpretation is true, I feel real sorry for thrower builds that draw out and use more than one throwing weapon in the same round.
In terms of mechanics, you are TWFighting from the moment you declare a full-round attack action including at least one additional attack with an off-hand weapon. I don't see what you mean with thrower builds though - nothing pushes them to add an off-hand attack to their full-round attack (and doing so isn't so bad, since a level 11 fighter with improved two weapon fighting and rapid shot could do 6 attacks per round).
|
In terms of mechanics, you are TWFighting from the moment you declare a full-round attack action including at least one additional attack with a off-hand weapon.
Well said: clear, complete, and simple. While a character might hold another weapon in the off-hand (whichever that might be), as long as he goes for standard attack actions - eg. standard actions, in the PFRPG double standard nomenclature - the TWF penalty does not matter at all.
It's something that kicks in with the full round attack and the off-hand weapon used along the main-hand one.
I don't see what you mean with thrower builds though - nothing pushes them to add an off-hand attack to their full-round attack (and doing so isn't so bad, since a level 11 fighter with improved two weapon fighting and rapid shot could do 6 attacks per round).He doesn't mean anything by it.. it's a strawman comparison on the order of "If you don't like my poodle you must hate dogs. RD typically throws these in when he's trying to get support for an answer he already favors on a question he throws out.
That sounds mildly ad hominem for someone pointing out a straw man argument. I can understand the question here as a valid one. Normally, TWF gives you -6 to your main weapon, -10 to your offhand in exchange for an extra attack above and beyond what your BAB allows normally (ex: monk's flurry of blows is just TWF with unarmed strikes) There is no described penalty for using different weapons as part of a full-round action when you have the BAB for it. (ex: trade an attack for a combat maneuver).
conclusion: Using TWF, Ravingdork's rogue would get three attacks (2 from BAB, 1 from TWF). As such, he does not incur a penalty due to TWF from using the two attacks he is normally afforded from BAB.
This is comparable to using a trip weapon to attack and then to trip within the same full-round attack. Perfectly valid, but requires a different use of the weapons available.
|
|
Switching a held object from one hand to the other doesn't require an action
by that statement you could attack with your sap, switch your sword to your main hand and attack the other target without incurring penalties, granted by that you could also dual wield a single weapon by switching hands in between attacks
Using TWF, Ravingdork's rogue would get three attacks (2 from BAB, 1 from TWF). As such, he does not incur a penalty due to TWF from using the two attacks he is normally afforded from BAB.
Agreed. You only take the penalties if you use the extra attack.
Using TWF, Ravingdork's rogue would get three attacks (2 from BAB, 1 from TWF). As such, he does not incur a penalty due to TWF from using the two attacks he is normally afforded from BAB.Agreed. You only take the penalties if you use the extra attack.
Completely agree.
Relevant rules text from the SRD-
"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."
If you aren't getting the extra attack, I dont think you take the penalties; you aren't using two weapon fighting as you aren't making an 'offhand' attack, you're just switching the weapon you're making your regular attacks with.
Related question: is there any doubt that you could fight one round with all of your attacks coming from your right hand at no penalty, and then the next with your left at no penalty? I dont see any support for this being an issue.
So why should there be an issue with declaring your 'primary hand' on an attack by attack basis? Certainly, since you can just take the free-action to switch hands anyway, its not a balance issue... its just a workaround alternative to juggling weapons :P
Since sheathing a weapon is a move action , if you want to switch between 2 held weapons so as not to incur your TWF penalties, you would have to drop one of them. So sure, attack with one weapon, drop it as a free, switch other weapon to main hand as a free, and attack with other weapon. So you end the round with the second weapon in your primary hand, and the first weapon on the ground.
Switching a held object from one hand to the other doesn't require an actionby that statement you could attack with your sap, switch your sword to your main hand and attack the other target without incurring penalties, granted by that you could also dual wield a single weapon by switching hands in between attacks
That's an awesome bit of clarification from a designer. :D
But what if I'm fighting with a heavy shield and a sword, making one attack each (and I get two attacks from my base attack bonus)? I can't just switch the shield to my primary hand and the sword to my off-hand as the shield is strapped in place and can't be moved quickly.
So, if my sword and board fighter, who is flanked, attacked one foe with the shield and the other with his sword, does he take TWF penalties? Why or why not?
I'm thinking not, but I'm curious to hear what others think.
I don't see what you mean with thrower builds though - nothing pushes them to add an off-hand attack to their full-round attack (and doing so isn't so bad, since a level 11 fighter with improved two weapon fighting and rapid shot could do 6 attacks per round).
Under the first interpretation, you are correct. Nothing forces the thrower build to gain the extra attack and gain TWF penalties.
The second interpretation however, are held those people who believe you take TWF penalties for fighting with more than one weapon, not just for getting the extra attack. Under that interpretation, a thrower would ALWAYS suffer from TWF penalties if he ever drew out and threw more than one weapon.
Make sense now?
|
|
Switching a held object from one hand to the other doesn't require an actionby that statement you could attack with your sap, switch your sword to your main hand and attack the other target without incurring penalties, granted by that you could also dual wield a single weapon by switching hands in between attacks
That's an awesome bit of clarification from a designer. :D
But what if I'm fighting with a heavy shield and a sword, making one attack each (and I get two attacks from my base attack bonus)? I can't just switch the shield to my primary hand and the sword to my off-hand as the shield is strapped in place and can't be moved quickly.
So, if my sword and board fighter, who is flanked, attacked one foe with the shield and the other with his sword, does he take TWF penalties? Why or why not?
I'm thinking not, but I'm curious to hear what others think.
I want to say yes since shields are designated specifically as an off hand attack
Shield Bash Attacks: You can bash an opponent with a heavy shield, using it as an off-hand weapon. See “shield, heavy” on Table 6–4 for the damage dealt by a shield bash.
Used this way, a heavy shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon. For the purpose of penalties on attack rolls, treat a heavy shield as a one-handed weapon. If you use your shield as a weapon, you lose its AC bonus until your next turn. An enhancement bonus on a shield does not improve the e ffectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but the shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right.
I would say that unless you gain the benifit of the extra attack there should be no resulting penalty. It makes no sense from a purely gamist perspective.
Sure there is the logical fact that using your non dominant hand is more difficult...but logic flew out the window on the back of one of those fire breathing lizards or some such.
Likewise, the zombie is especially vulnerable to her short sword.
I was unaware that the short sword was changed to slashing damage
I want to say yes since shields are designated specifically as an off hand attack
The developers have already clarified that the shield is no more an off-hand weapon than any other weapon (the forum post is around here somewhere). The wording only exists because they are TYPICALLY used as off-hand weapons, not because it is a requirement. For example, if it were the only weapon you wielded, you would not take any off-hand penalties to attacks (which, RAW, don't even exist unless you are benefiting from extra attacks during TWF).
Likewise, the zombie is especially vulnerable to her short sword.I was unaware that the short sword was changed to slashing damage
Odd, I thought it was DR/piercing OR slashing. Guess I was a bit off there. Make it a Rakshasa then. :)
He doesn't mean anything by it.. it's a strawman comparison on the order of "If you don't like my poodle you must hate dogs. RD typically throws these in when he's trying to get support for an answer he already favors on a question he throws out.
Less slander, maybe?
Anyway, I remember a dev post a while back, that started you took the TWF penalties if you attacked with two or more different weapons in one round no matter whether you got extra TWF attacks or not. This would totally hose any thrower build. I don't know if it ever made it into official faq or not though, but it could be something similar RD was referring to.
If it was me, I'd also rule that you only take TWF penalties when actively getting the extra attacks from TWF, but I don't know if that's the officially correct interpretation.
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.
I think the question here is what does "this way" refer to. I believe it refers to "get one extra attack per round".
There is no consistent mechanical advantage to choosing to hold two weapons for the purpose of full attacking without taking the extra attack. You are sacrificing a free hand to be holding a shield, retrieving items, and all manner of fun things hands can do. On top of that, if you intend these two weapons to be effective, you'll be investing in two weapons. So I see no need to penalize a player who has chosen to take a non-optimal approach to their fighting. I don't think RAW does either.
If a rules designer intends otherwise, they need to FAQ it.
|
I am in the camp that believes that no extra attack means no penalty, unless specified otherwise (for example in the weapon's description). I will try to find the well-written post that convinced me of this.
Concerning the shield, its description makes it an exception to the common rule as you get off-hand penalties on it if you attack with your shield and another weapon in the same round, even if you did not get an extra attack.
This second point is the only way IMO to make sense of :
1) the way a shield bash is described in the CRB
2) the post of the developer stating that when attacking only with a shield, you do not get off-hand penalties
3) the Shield Fighter ability of the Shielded Fighter Archetype (APG) : "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."
I believe that `off-hand` only exists within the 2WF rules, nothing else.
If you aren`t 2WF`ing, there is no reason to invoke off-hand rules.
Certainly the rules never direct you to do so: it`s only invoked within 2WF rules which grant an extra attack.
There is no `handedness` in the game, nor facing, and `off-hands` don`t even necessarily correspond to hands.
So RD`s Rogue should be able to make two `normal` attacks, one just using the lowest Iterative BAB.
The only problem is the Shielded Fighter Archetype ability mentioned above.
It seems to implicitly assume that one normally CAN`T switch between a sword and shield, using different iteratives and not gaining extra 2WF attacks - neither would be off-hand in that case, since it specially granting that capacity to the Archetype.
On the other hand, I don`t believe there is any rule saying you CAN`T do so (mix around iteratives with whatever weapons you want), or anything restricting the general paradigm that when you can make an attack, you can do so with any weapon you are threatening with. Besides the fact that Thrown Weapon users are supposed to be able to throw multiple weapons as fast as they can draw them (and there`s nothing saying all have to be the same type of throwing weapon), what would happen if you are disarmed of your sole weapon as an AoO after your first attack, but still have 3 iteratives left? If switching weapons amidst a full attack is barred, you couldn`t switch to UAS, or draw a new weapon (yet drawing a weapon seems to work for thrown weapons), or even use Armor Spikes without 2WF`ing.
Personally, I think the Shielded Fighter Archetype CAN`T be taken as significant in this case... I believe it was simply a case of the writer wanting to emphasize a non-2WF option, yet mistakenly choosing to phrase it in a way that it appeared as a new option, rather than one that EVERYBODY can currently take (which I believe is the case). I think they also f+&#ed up because the whole point was to emphasize that archetype`s non-dependence on 2WF, yet the main Shield Fighting Feats still require 2WF as a Pre-Req, which is silly since the Archetype goes on about how you don`t even need to use 2WF. It`s been quite a while now, and the issue`s been posted here before, but I wouldn`t be surprised if they Errata it to remove the 2WF Pre-Reqs, and hopefully re-word that passage so it doesn`t seem like a new ability.
Under Full-Attack
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.
So... when do I declare the penalties again and when do the effect the attack roll(s)? :D
I declare an Attack and miss, I then decide to keep going and make a full-attack with both weapons.
=====
Personally in going back over all the rules as a collective whole it reads to me like this:
• Declare a Full-Attack action
• Declare anything that gives multiple attacks
• Apply penalties and modifiers (power attack, TWF, etc.)
• Make 1st attack (with penalties)
• If Hit and kill and no foes in range, drop remaining attacks and Gain a Move Action.
• If Miss, keep attacking or not.
This does not apply declaring a single Attack. If you chose to make a single attack (standard action) and miss you cannot then add the rest of your Full Attack sequence by forgoing your move action.
=====
I agree with Quandary, Off-Hand only applies to Two-Weapon Fighting as the rules don't assume that characters are Right or Left hand dominant. You pick which "hand" is your Primary when attacking.
I've never seen it suggested even from the early days of the OGL (3.0 D&D) that you can't mix attacks from different weapons on just your BAB based attacks. Armor Spikes come to mind as to Unarmed Attacks. You make each attack separately and can pick different targets. Say I'm a Monk, I'll kick the mook in front of me, if he goes down I'll throw my shurikens at the BBEG, if not I'll give him a followup elbow and then throw the shurikens on attack 3.
=====
This is from the old 3.5 Glossary.
off hand
A character's weaker or less dexterous hand (usually the left). An attack made with the off hand incurs a -4 penalty on the attack roll. In addition, only one-half of a character's Strength bonus may be added to damage dealt with a weapon held in the off hand.
Keep in mind that in 3.0 characters were not assumed ambidextrous and there was actually a feat for it. This got rolled into Two-Weapon Fighting in 3.5.
* If a character's second weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each.
* The Ambidexterity feat reduces the penalty against the second weapon by 4.
* The Two-Weapon Fighting feat reduces both penalties by 2.
If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. (An unarmed strike is always considered light.)
The Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6.
Note the bold parts. You see that in 3.5 TWF covers both Ambidexterity and Two-Weapon Fighting.
In Pathfinder the old 3.5 Glossry entry on Off Hand is gone (likely due to it not being in the SRD). However this leaves us with Off-Hand only showing up under TWF rules, and only for the hand making the extra attack(s).
You're fine alternating like that on iterative attacks, no penalty.
Interesting debate.
You DO gain an advantage using two different weapons, one in each hand, even if you don't gain extra attacks - you can have two damage types, have two weapons with different properties, etc.
You also, as pointed out, lose the ability to use a shield.
What I would suggest is that you do get an off-hand penalty of -2 on the second weapon (regardless of size), simply because it IS your off-hand. I say this merely for verisimilitude as I can't use my left hand as well as my right. However, I would also make 'Ambidextrous' a trait that banishes or reduces this penalty (and maybe helps with TWFing).
Ambidextrous
You can use your left hand as well as your right. When using a Two Weapon Fighting you may reduce the penalty on wielding your weapons by 1. If you are using a weapon in your off-hand without Two Weapon Fighting, and not making any additional attacks but instead swapping attacks between the two weapons, your off-hand penalty is removed.