This might have been missed.
Assuming you are correct, what would this mean for shields, armor spikes, and unarmed strikes while using the improved unarmed strikes?
If you are an unarmed fighter, and you have the improved unarmed strike, you always have a 2nd hand, foot, chin, elbow, etc able to be used as a weapon, so you will always take these minuses from TWF if the rules worked the way you say they do.
Nope, the word wield is quite specific. If you choose not to use a secondary weapon in an attack round (hand, foot, chin etc) then you are not wielding it that round. Hence not TWF.
Next round you may decide to use it, take the penalties, then during the attack round decide what secondary weapon to use and you may also choose to make an extra attack with the secondary weapon.
So, that's your house rule, good. It's not the actual rules, or a representation of such.
Calling things names does not make it true.
Therefore, if you are not choosing to use the game mechanic known as "Two Weapon Fighting" you cannot be subject to its penalties or its benefits. You are instead using Full Attack with two weapons using iterative attacks. And if you read the Full Attack Section you'll see that you can use two weapons (without penalty) and choose to start with either one.
If you can find me the quote that states you can full attack with two weopons and no penalty it would be nice. The only reference has been the Normal penalty from the TWF feat, which usually detail the rules for not having the feat (standard rules for whatever). For example ...
"Improved Unarmed Strike (Combat)
You are skilled at fighting while unarmed.
Benefit: You are considered to be armed even when unarmed—you do not provoke attacks of opportunity when you attack foes while unarmed. Your unarmed strikes can deal lethal or nonlethal damage, at your choice." PRD
"Normal: Without this feat, you are considered unarmed when attacking with an unarmed strike, and you can deal only nonlethal damage with such an attack." PRD
Given this then surely the standard penalties from fighting with two weapons primary/off hand would be detailed in the TWF feat.
"Normal penalties –6/–10" PRD
Calling things names does not make it true.So, that's your house rule, good. It's not the actual rules, or a representation of such.
Of course it's a house rule, simply because it's not the rules as written, and I doubt that it's the rules as intended.
This might have been missed.
Assuming you are correct, what would this mean for shields, armor spikes, and unarmed strikes while using the improved unarmed strikes?
If you are an unarmed fighter, and you have the improved unarmed strike, you always have a 2nd hand, foot, chin, elbow, etc able to be used as a weapon, so you will always take these minuses from TWF if the rules worked the way you say they do.
Nope, the word wield is quite specific. If you choose not to use a secondary weapon in an attack round (hand, foot, chin etc) then you are not wielding it that round. Hence not TWF.
Next round you may decide to use it, take the penalties, then during the attack round decide what secondary weapon to use and you may also choose to make an extra attack with the secondary weapon.
So you are saying that one with armor spikes could not trip a person with their fist attack with some whip, then use their next attack to kick them with the spikes on their boots at an already -5 to hit.
P.S. How would you tell which is the primary hand and which is the off hand weapon?
Nope, the word wield is quite specific
It is in fact. And it hasn't changed since the last time it was quoted to match the definition of 'make an attack with'. You are wielding a shield when you are gaining an AC bonus from it, and unless you are going to make the unsupported argument that shields dont threaten because they are schroedinger's weapon, and are only a weapon when its convenient for you, your argument requires anyone wielding a shield (or any object or no object at all) to take penalties for TWF.
Okay, in the above situation, I choose that the armor spikes attack is the primary hand attack.
That would mean that first attack takes a -8 to hit, to perform the trip, and the primary attack would be at a total of -9
(-5 of being at a lower base attack bonus, and -4 for using the primary hand attack in two weapon fighting).
Where the person could have equally have done -4 and -8 at the same base attack bonus, gotten an extra attack, and done both at a lower minus to hit. I am sorry but at this point the only benefit warranting the minuses to hit is the fact that you get an extra attack.
Here is a question though, assume the fighter has quick draw, he trips a person with a whip on the first attack, drops the whip and quick draws a reach weapon to attack the fallen foe on the ground on their next irriative attack you would treat that as two weapon fighting?
If you read the rules how I read it. The minuses are directly tied to getting an extra attack, and that a person could use a different weapon at each attack granted by a base attack. You have a fighter with a light weapon in one hand, is trained in unarmed strikes, and has a light shield in the other hand. On the first attack granted by BaB he uses his unarmed strike, on the second he uses his weapon, on the thrid (Bab of 11) he use a shield.
There are no off off hand attack, how would you interpret the TWF rules when the fighter uses 3 weapons?
It is in fact. And it hasn't changed since the last time it was quoted to match the definition of 'make an attack with'. You are wielding a shield when you are gaining an AC bonus from it, and unless you are going to make the unsupported argument that shields dont threaten because they are schroedinger's weapon, and are only a weapon when its convenient for you, your argument requires anyone wielding a shield (or any object or no object at all) to take penalties for TWF.Nope, the word wield is quite specific
nope
Okay, in the above situation, I choose that the armor spikes attack is the primary hand attack.
That would mean that first attack takes a -8 to hit, to perform the trip, and the primary attack would be at a total of -9
(-5 of being at a lower base attack bonus, and -4 for using the primary hand attack in two weapon fighting).Where the person could have equally have done -4 and -8 at the same base attack bonus, gotten an extra attack, and done both at a lower minus to hit. I am sorry but at this point the only benefit warranting the minuses to hit is the fact that you get an extra attack.
Here is a question though, assume the fighter has quick draw, he trips a person with a whip on the first attack, drops the whip and quick draws a reach weapon to attack the fallen foe on the ground on their next irriative attack you would treat that as two weapon fighting?
If you read the rules how I read it. The minuses are directly tied to getting an extra attack, and that a person could use a different weapon at each attack granted by a base attack. You have a fighter with a light weapon in one hand, is trained in unarmed strikes, and has a light shield in the other hand. On the first attack granted by BaB he uses his unarmed strike, on the second he uses his weapon, on the thrid (Bab of 11) he use a shield.
There are no off off hand attack, how would you interpret the TWF rules when the fighter uses 3 weapons?
You are required to specify a primary attack, all others are considered secondary. Pathfinder is quite kind in that it allows you to designate a different primary attack each round.
It is a trade off, options for penalties. It may be sub optimal. People may not like it. It's in the rules.No, it's not. It's not because you refuse to acknowledge the fact there is a condition to suffering the penalties. The condition is taking the extra attack. As it has been noted before, it specifies the attack that you are making with your off-hand. If you are not making the attack you are not taking these penalties. It even clears it up further by noting it only occurs when fighting this way."When you are fighting in this way" refers to the first part of the sentence, the condition, "If you wield a weapon in your off hand".
Just because you choose to make the attack bold does not make it the condition.
No, the attack is bolded. "The" is significant because it notes that it is the extra attack, the specific extra attack. It does not say you take penalties on all main hand attacks and all off-hand attacks, it says you get your "regular attack or attacks with your main hand" and "the attack with your off hand", and does not specify any other attacks.
If you are not making THE extra off-hand attack which is specifically in addition to your regular attacks then you are not fighting that way.
It is not rocket science. I think you are intentionally being obtuse.
It is in fact. And it hasn't changed since the last time it was quoted to match the definition of 'make an attack with'. You are wielding a shield when you are gaining an AC bonus from it, and unless you are going to make the unsupported argument that shields dont threaten because they are schroedinger's weapon, and are only a weapon when its convenient for you, your argument requires anyone wielding a shield (or any object or no object at all) to take penalties for TWF.Nope, the word wield is quite specific
Let's not forget that literally everything is a weapon.
Improvised Weapons: Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use, any creature that uses an improvised weapon in combat is considered to be nonproficient with it and takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls made with that object. To determine the size category and appropriate damage for an improvised weapon, compare its relative size and damage potential to the weapon list to find a reasonable match. An improvised weapon scores a threat on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit. An improvised thrown weapon has a range increment of 10 feet.
That potion flask in your hand? That's a weapon. The frying pan on the table? Weapon. The beermug? Weapon. The unconscious barmaid? Yeah, that's a weapon too.
It is not rocket science. I think you are intentionally being obtuse.
You know I've been thinking the same thing, but have been too polite to mention it.
It is in fact. And it hasn't changed since the last time it was quoted to match the definition of 'make an attack with'. You are wielding a shield when you are gaining an AC bonus from it, and unless you are going to make the unsupported argument that shields dont threaten because they are schroedinger's weapon, and are only a weapon when its convenient for you, your argument requires anyone wielding a shield (or any object or no object at all) to take penalties for TWF.Nope, the word wield is quite specific
Let's not forget that literally everything is a weapon.
Improvised Weapons: Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use, any creature that uses an improvised weapon in combat is considered to be nonproficient with it and takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls made with that object. To determine the size category and appropriate damage for an improvised weapon, compare its relative size and damage potential to the weapon list to find a reasonable match. An improvised weapon scores a threat on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit. An improvised thrown weapon has a range increment of 10 feet.That potion flask in your hand? That's a weapon. The frying pan on the table? Weapon. The beermug? Weapon. The unconscious barmaid? Yeah, that's a weapon too.
If you don't plan on using it, it's not as weapon.
It is a trade off, options for penalties. It may be sub optimal. People may not like it. It's in the rules.No, it's not. It's not because you refuse to acknowledge the fact there is a condition to suffering the penalties. The condition is taking the extra attack. As it has been noted before, it specifies the attack that you are making with your off-hand. If you are not making the attack you are not taking these penalties. It even clears it up further by noting it only occurs when fighting this way."When you are fighting in this way" refers to the first part of the sentence, the condition, "If you wield a weapon in your off hand".
Just because you choose to make the attack bold does not make it the condition.
No, the attack is bolded. "The" is significant because it notes that it is the extra attack, the specific extra attack. It does not say you take penalties on all main hand attacks and all off-hand attacks, it says you get your "regular attack or attacks with your main hand" and "the attack with your off hand", and does not specify any other attacks.
If you are not making THE extra off-hand attack which is specifically in addition to your regular attacks then you are not fighting that way.
It is not rocket science. I think you are intentionally being obtuse.
I have already stated that, as written, the optional extra attack is a byproduct of two weapon fighting..not the condition. Clear your mind of preconceptions and read the book.
If you don't plan on using it, it's not as weapon.
Intent does not modify things. If a thing is a weapon, it is a weapon regardless of whether or not you intend (or in fact do) use it as such or not.
You cannot make something not a weapon simply by wishing it so.
So it was mentioned several pages ago, that if someone wanted to switch weapons that they would need to use the Quick Draw feat. What happens if you are disarmed during your attack (maybe the enemy readied an action or you provoked)? Can you continue attacking with your fists? If you have Improved Unarmed Strike, would that change anything? Do you need Quick Draw to switch weapons or is your fist considered already equipped? What if you use your Unarmed Strike to Grapple, can you use Quick Draw to draw a dagger to stab your opponent using the same hand so as to not incur Two-Weapon Fighting penalties?
Oh, and there is a benefit to switching weapons back and forth during the same attack routine even if you aren't gaining the extra attack. You should be able to use your full Strength bonus for each attack since you won't have an off-hand attack. Unless I missed that in all these pages (which is possible). It is also possible that you could have feats that are unique to specific weapons so switching back and forth can be useful. For example, you could Trip with one weapon (let's say you have a flail and Greater Trip) and then you want to Sunder the weapon your opponent has but your off-hand is an adamantine battle axe. I can see lot's of reasons to switch weapons with a benefit. I can also see that you don't need to have Improved Two-Weapon Fighting to get the extra attacks if you have other feats to help make up for that.
Oh and James Jacobs, as much as he is on here and is part of the Paizo team, has admitted that his rulings are his opinion and not necessarily official rulings. I generally agree with his rulings, but since they aren't official and he isn't one of the crunch guys, I think we should take his interpretations with a grain of salt.
consider..
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.
consider..
If you hold a burning coal in both hands, you can use it to light your camp fire. You suffer burns on both hands if you choose to wield it this way.
you may of may not get to light the fire, you still get burned.
If you don't plan on using it, it's not as weapon.Intent does not modify things. If a thing is a weapon, it is a weapon regardless of whether or not you intend (or in fact do) use it as such or not.
You cannot make something not a weapon simply by wishing it so.
But you can not wield it as a weapon if you wish.
By Calistria's chastity are we at over 450 posts, 33 FAQ tags and still no word from the developers?
By Calistria's chastity are we at over 450 posts, 31 FAQ tags and still no word from the developers?
Is it just their attention you crave? Surely given the depth of argument you have made up your own mind by now.
By Calistria's chastity are we at over 450 posts, 31 FAQ tags and still no word from the developers?Is it just their attention you crave? Surely given the depth of argument you have made up your own mind by now.
Now that was just unnecessarily antagonistic.
As I have stated before, I feel that both camps have merits in their arguments. I simply wish to see what would be the rule in a PFS game, since it might affect both a character in a current game and possibly my next character in a PFS game.
By Calistria's chastity are we at over 450 posts, 31 FAQ tags and still no word from the developers?Is it just their attention you crave? Surely given the depth of argument you have made up your own mind by now.
Do you have to act like such a jerk to FiddlersGreen?
Do you have to act like such a jerk to FiddlersGreen?By Calistria's chastity are we at over 450 posts, 31 FAQ tags and still no word from the developers?Is it just their attention you crave? Surely given the depth of argument you have made up your own mind by now.
Are you seriously telling me that FiddlersGreen has not been sitting on the fence and enjoying the attention to his thread? Look back and see that everytime one side flags he steps in to stir the pot again. It's not a bad thing, but honesty is not being a jerk. Read my question to him again, if you would be so kind, and tell me if it's not only true, but also fair.
P.S. You were much harsher in your critisism of me.
Do you have to act like such a jerk to FiddlersGreen?By Calistria's chastity are we at over 450 posts, 31 FAQ tags and still no word from the developers?Is it just their attention you crave? Surely given the depth of argument you have made up your own mind by now.Are you seriously telling me that FiddlersGreen has not been sitting on the fence and enjoying the attention to his thread? Look back and see that everytime one side flags he steps in to stir the pot again. It's not a bad thing, but honesty is not being a jerk. Read my question to him again, if you would be so kind, and tell me if it's not only true, but also fair.
P.S. You were much harsher in your critisism of me.
1. I don't see this thread as my own. I started with a question, but it has in some ways gone far beyond the original question I posted. In fact, if we decide ownership by number of posts, this thread could well be seen as your's, and for all I care you can claim ownership if you like.
2. I don't see how either side has "flagged" at all, and one thing that gets me is how little either side seems to see that the opposing side makes relevant points at times. Furthermore, I don't see how my comments have "stirred the pot". I have however at points interjected to offer my thoughts, as you have (more so than I, I might add), and I don't accuse you of stirring the pot...well, at least, not until you decided that personal accusations were a good way to draw attention to yourself.
3. If I had been trying to draw attention to myself, I would have made more posts on the thread. I have not. You on the other hand have made probably close to ten times the number of posts I have, despite having followed the thread for a shorter period of time. Who then, I wonder, is trying to get attention, I presume, by shouting louder than his opposition that he is right, notwithstanding the fact that he continually reiterates and rehashes arguments that have been offered and made before?
@ Kegluneq: The benefit is getting to use any bonuses from special materials, enchantments, or damage types from multiple weapons. Ultimately, it's more costly to maintain those multiple weapons, but there's the benefit.
Reverting to the topic: I've seen a couple of convincing arguments from both sides. I've also seen a number of specious arguments on both sides. I'm going to attempt to sum what I see as the major supporting arguments of both sides up in an objective fashion below, but a close reading of the thread will reveal all points to a reader.
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **...
+1
This is a great summation. I agree, and also agree with your personal interpretation. What I like about your post is that you acknowledge the validity of both sides of the discussion. The people who or are saying "This is how it is, and those of you who don't agree are willfully ignoring the unarguable rule" are not helping at all. It IS arguable or we would not have so many people making excellent points on both sides. I am done posting in this thread, we are only rehashing the same positions over and over now Asuna thank you for your excellent summation.
1. I don't see this thread as my own. I started with a question, but it has in some ways gone far beyond the original question I posted. In fact, if we decide ownership by number of posts, this thread could well be seen as your's, and for all I care you can claim ownership if you like.
2. I don't see how either side has "flagged" at all, and one thing that gets me is how little either side seems to see that the opposing side makes relevant points at times. Furthermore, I don't see how my comments have "stirred the pot". I have however at points interjected to offer my thoughts, as you have (more so than I, I might add), and I don't accuse you of stirring the pot...well, at least, not until you decided that personal accusations were a good way to draw attention to yourself.
3. If I had been trying to draw attention to myself, I would have made more posts on the thread. I have not. You on the other hand have made probably close to ten times the number of posts I have, despite having followed the thread for a shorter period of time. Who then, I wonder, is trying to get attention, I presume, by shouting louder than his opposition that he is right, notwithstanding the fact that he continually reiterates and rehashes arguments that have been offered and made before?
All the arguements from page one, where I joined the debate, have been rehashed. I have tried to draw attention to the rules, as written and meant. Everyone enjoys the spotlight when highlighting their side of an arguement, to say you don't is disingenuous.
All the arguements from page one, where I joined the debate, have been rehashed. I have tried to draw attention to the rules, as written and meant. Everyone enjoys the spotlight when highlighting their side of an arguement, to say you don't is disingenuous.
Indeed they have been rehashed, but you have been party to that rehashing. Quite substantially, I might add, going from your posts.
Now, by your admission, your opinion is that "Everyone enjoys the spotlight when highlighting their side of an arguement". Now, I would disagree, since I think that people can seek to chime in on a discussion if they are seeking an answer or feel they have something genuine to contribute.
But insofar as it is an opinion you clearly hold (since you seek to attribute it to 'everyone', which I take it includes yourself), I need to ask which of the two of us has gone to greater lengths to highlight their side of the argument. Hint: I've said at least twice now that I believe both sides have merits, and you yourself have called me a fence-sitter, which should mean I have no 'side' with regards to this 'argument'.
All the arguements from page one, where I joined the debate, have been rehashed. I have tried to draw attention to the rules, as written and meant. Everyone enjoys the spotlight when highlighting their side of an arguement, to say you don't is disingenuous.
Indeed they have been rehashed, but you have been party to that rehashing. Quite substantially, I might add, going from your posts.
Now, by your admission, your opinion is that "Everyone enjoys the spotlight when highlighting their side of an arguement". Now, I would disagree, since I think that people can seek to chime in on a discussion if they are seeking an answer or feel they have something genuine to contribute.
But insofar as it is an opinion you clearly hold (since you seek to attribute it to 'everyone', which I take it includes yourself), I need to ask which of the two of us has gone to greater lengths to highlight their side of the argument. Hint: I've said at least twice now that I believe both sides have merits, and you yourself have called me a fence-sitter, which should mean I have no 'side' with regards to this 'argument'.
When asking a question one may meerly be seeking an answer. When continuing, or seeking to continue a debate then you have an agenda. Whether that agenda is to seek truth or argue for the sake of it one (yes that means you/me/everybody) wants to be listened to.
I have taken it that your interest in the arguement is to get a ruling legitimated that allows your charactger to use two weapons, if only in a 'cool way' without having to pay a 'feat tax' or take any penalties. However you have enjoyed the amount of attention your thread has created, or else you would not celebrate the big numbers. Am I incorrect? Whichever way please read the next part which makes clear, I hope, my motivations.
My interest, driving goal, is that so many threads on the forum also try to get this "something for nothing" ruling. This leads to what I consider to be "rules creep" which leads to "power creep".
Once a rule becomes softened in this way the next guy along suggests that a -6/-10 penalty is obviously way too much considering you can already weild two weapons in an attack round with no penalty.
This way leads the feat TWF to be less beneficial. So someone else will suggest (and believe me they will) that greater benefits be ascribed to the feat. ..... however this makes Flurry of Blows less good so......
This is why I am arguing in this thread, and why I have been so vocal.
P.S. lots of my posts have been direct answers to direct questions.
My interest, driving goal, is that so many threads on the forum also try to get this "something for nothing" ruling. This leads to what I consider to be "rules creep" which leads to "power creep".
Once a rule becomes softened in this way the next guy along suggests that a -6/-10 penalty is obviously way too much considering you can already weild two weapons in an attack round with no penalty.
This way leads the feat TWF to be less beneficial. So someone else will suggest (and believe me they will) that greater benefits be ascribed to the feat. ..... however this makes Flurry of Blows less good so......
This is why I am arguing in this thread, and why I have been so vocal.
I gotta call shenanigans on this. This is the way it has worked for years. Nobody suggests that you shouldn't take Two Weapon Fighting if you want to dual wield. The only benefit to dual wielding is getting the extra attack, or for flavor. Getting the extra attack hits you with a -30%/-40% accuracy with a light weapon without the feat, and only a -10%/-10% with the feat.
Do you seriously, seriously think that people are going to suggest that paying twice as much for more weapons, not getting 1.5 the strength modifier, and not getting a shield, and just making your regular attacks with weapons you are wielding is somehow going to disempower the TWF Feats???
Not only do you have to read the text incorrectly (already pointed out that the TWF rules mention it in the case you are getting an extra attack, and calls it out separate from your regular attack(s)), but it doesn't make sense from a balance perspective, nor flavor perspective, or pretty much anything else.
The idea that someone is trying to "get something for nothing" here is astounding. It's actually like they're trying to pay too much for a bit of flavor with no real return.
All the arguements from page one, where I joined the debate, have been rehashed. I have tried to draw attention to the rules, as written and meant. Everyone enjoys the spotlight when highlighting their side of an arguement, to say you don't is disingenuous.
Indeed they have been rehashed, but you have been party to that rehashing. Quite substantially, I might add, going from your posts.
Now, by your admission, your opinion is that "Everyone enjoys the spotlight when highlighting their side of an arguement". Now, I would disagree, since I think that people can seek to chime in on a discussion if they are seeking an answer or feel they have something genuine to contribute.
But insofar as it is an opinion you clearly hold (since you seek to attribute it to 'everyone', which I take it includes yourself), I need to ask which of the two of us has gone to greater lengths to highlight their side of the argument. Hint: I've said at least twice now that I believe both sides have merits, and you yourself have called me a fence-sitter, which should mean I have no 'side' with regards to this 'argument'.
When asking a question one may meerly be seeking an answer. When continuing, or seeking to continue a debate then you have an agenda. Whether that agenda is to seek truth or argue for the sake of it one (yes that means you/me/everybody) wants to be listened to.
I have taken it that your interest in the arguement is to get a ruling legitimated that allows your charactger to use two weapons, if only in a 'cool way' without having to pay a 'feat tax' or take any penalties. However you have enjoyed the amount of attention your thread has created, or else you would not celebrate the big numbers. Am I incorrect? Whichever way please read the next part which makes clear, I hope, my motivations.
My interest, driving goal, is that so many threads on the forum also try to get this "something for nothing" ruling. This leads to what I consider to be "rules...
I am not celebrating the big numbers so much as trying to suggest that a good number of people regard this as a genuine grey area (from the number of FAQ tags), or at least wish to see some closure to this issue, which word from a developer would (I hope) provide.
As for the number of posts, given that relatively few of those posts were made by me, I fail to see how it is about me. Rather, I am exasperated at how it has been going in circles. Hence why I am hoping this thread will END CONCLUSIVELY, with a definite answer given on what the developers think the rule should be. And in all this, I fail to see how attention will be drawn to myself.
My intention in asking the question then is, as you say, to find out if I can achieve a stylistic element to my character whilst being able to spend a feat slot on something else. As many have pointed out, I am weakening my own character in doing so, but PFS games are known to be sticklers for the rules.
So then, I am interested in neither power creep, nor am I interested in any limelight-and indeed I wonder what limelight you think can be achieved from a forum where none of us use our real names, and indeed no one I know personally even knows that I am on these forums. To this end, you have been unnecessarily inflammatory in your comments, having based them on assumptions about myself and your own preconceptions.
Now as I demonstrated, a case could easily be made based on your past few posts that you are the one seeking attention rather than myself, but if you will stop casting aspersions on myself and my intentions, I will not do so on your's, and the thread can resume its intended purpose.
The idea that someone is trying to "get something for nothing" here is astounding. It's actually like they're trying to pay too much for a bit of flavor with no real return.
Not only that, its silly and arbitrary.
No one can argue that if you are holding a weapon in each hand, a sword and a club, you can make an attack with either the sword OR the club at no penalty. And in fact, on round 1 you can make an attack with the sword, then on round 2, you can make an attack with the club, again at no penalty.
What is being claimed is that if you are making both of the formentioned sorts of attacks in the same round (due to a high BAB, haste, etc) for some reason you are suddenly subject to the TWF rules.
Is it because you didn't wait long enough? Is there some hidden are hard to find rule stating that after making an attack, the hand you made your attack with is your primary hand until the start of your next turn (hint: no, you can make AOO's with either hand between turns)?
Why is the first situation above (attacks over two rounds) different from the second (both normal attacks in one round due to a special action)? Both are making normal attacks in succession, the only difference I can see is the amount of time in between the attacks and the action used to gain those attacks (neither of which restrict which weapons may be used to make said attacks).
The idea that someone is trying to "get something for nothing" here is astounding. It's actually like they're trying to pay too much for a bit of flavor with no real return.Not only that, its silly and arbitrary.
No one can argue that if you are holding a weapon in each hand, a sword and a club, you can make an attack with either the sword OR the club at no penalty. And in fact, on round 1 you can make an attack with the sword, then on round 2, you can make an attack with the club, again at no penalty.
I'm that no one. If you are holding two weapons in your hand, you have to designate which one is in your primary hand and which one is off hand because you are NOT ambidextrous. If you attack with a primary and off hand weapon than Two Weapon Fighting rules apply, no matter how many attacks you take with either. The primary hand is the only one that gets the normal iterative of attacks. The whole problem here is the poster is trying to bypass that rule. Why, I don't know. Apparantly he wants to fight with two weapons, not spend the feat the do so, and not have the penalties that the rules mandate for primary and off hand weapon use.
Off hand attacks are only gained as extra attacks in addition to your regular attacks from your base attack bonus. Full attacks specifically note that if you are fighting with two weapons, you can can attack with either weapon first, or either end of the double weapon as part of the 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.
I'm that no one. If you are holding two weapons in your hand, you have to designate which one is in your primary hand and which one is off hand because you are NOT ambidextrous. If you attack with a primary and off hand weapon than Two Weapon Fighting rules apply, no matter how many attacks you take with either. The primary hand is the only one that gets the normal iterative of attacks. The whole problem here is the poster is trying to bypass that rule. Why, I don't know. Apparantly he wants to fight with two weapons, not spend the feat the do so, and not have the penalties that the rules mandate for primary and off hand weapon use.
Citation. Please.
Also, as Ashiel quoted, the Full Attack rules specifically allow you to choose which hand is primary, even while two weapon fighting.
Even if THEY didn't, the FAQ on shield bashing ALSO notes you can choose which weapon is primary on the fly.
I'm that no one. If you are holding two weapons in your hand, you have to designate which one is in your primary hand and which one is off hand because you are NOT ambidextrous. If you attack with a primary and off hand weapon than Two Weapon Fighting rules apply, no matter how many attacks you take with either. The primary hand is the only one that gets the normal iterative of attacks. The whole problem here is the poster is trying to bypass that rule. Why, I don't know. Apparantly he wants to fight with two weapons, not spend the feat the do so, and not have the penalties that the rules mandate for primary and off hand weapon use.
Citation. Please.
Also, as Ashiel quoted, the Full Attack rules specifically allow you to choose which hand is primary, even while two weapon fighting.
Even if THEY didn't, the FAQ on shield bashing ALSO notes you can choose which weapon is primary on the fly.
I do try to be a fair debater and always follow the rurus. ^-^
I think it's the Lawful Good/Evil in me. ;)
The idea that someone is trying to "get something for nothing" here is astounding. It's actually like they're trying to pay too much for a bit of flavor with no real return.Not only that, its silly and arbitrary.
No one can argue that if you are holding a weapon in each hand, a sword and a club, you can make an attack with either the sword OR the club at no penalty. And in fact, on round 1 you can make an attack with the sword, then on round 2, you can make an attack with the club, again at no penalty.
I'm that no one. If you are holding two weapons in your hand, you have to designate which one is in your primary hand and which one is off hand because you are NOT ambidextrous. If you attack with a primary and off hand weapon than Two Weapon Fighting rules apply, no matter how many attacks you take with either. The primary hand is the only one that gets the normal iterative of attacks. The whole problem here is the poster is trying to bypass that rule. Why, I don't know. Apparantly he wants to fight with two weapons, not spend the feat the do so, and not have the penalties that the rules mandate for primary and off hand weapon use.
If I may interject, since my intentions have already been misconstrued once in the last hour or so. The end-effect that I am seeking to discover whether the rules permit is mechanically inferior in precisely the following ways:
1. I make the same number of attacks as I would with a full attack with 1 weapon, but gain only my STR bonus on each attack (as opposed to 1.5 times if I used one weapon with 2 hands).
2. My attacks with one weapon will be weaker by precisely the degree to which that weapon is inferior to the other (admittedly this will be 0 if the 2 weapons are identical, but see point 3).
3. I am further weakened to the extent that I do not have a magic item that I might have bought with the money spent on the the weaker weapon.
However, I do get the aesthetic effect of fighting with two weapons. But since this affects a character in an upcoming PFS game, I want to know if the rules support this. If yes, yay, if no, fine so be it and I'll amend the character accordingly.
Now that my intentions are made clear, hopefully people will stop commenting about it one way or the other.
Yes, you choose which weapon is first. That's to be expected. I mean, you have to know which weapon is primary, right?
Which is only relevant to Two Weapon Fighting, or any of its derivitives or similar abilities most of which actually refer back to Two Weapon Fighting.
Normal attacks and full attacks do not refer at all to primary or off hand attacks.
When you wield two weapons, one is primary and the other is off-hand. Either of them can be primary, but they both can't. That's why you have to choose.
Only if you make an extra TWF attack. Otherwise not.
When you wield two weapons, one is primary and the other is off-hand. Either of them can be primary, but they both can't. That's why you have to choose.Yes, you choose which weapon is first. That's to be expected. I mean, you have to know which weapon is primary, right?Which is only relevant to Two Weapon Fighting, or any of its derivitives or similar abilities most of which actually refer back to Two Weapon Fighting.
Normal attacks and full attacks do not refer at all to primary or off hand attacks.
So let me back up a second here, and let me see if I can understand what you're saying; I have two normal attacks.
I make an attack a +6 (BAB) with one weapon, dealing dx+str.
If I make my second normal attack with my other hand, its at +1 (BAB - 5) dealing damage equal to dx+1/2str.
Is this what you're saying? Looking at things, I could be convinced this is correct.
My main concern has been the attack penalties associated with two weapon fighting. Which I still say dont apply, as you aren't gaining the extra attack the penalties are associated with. But the 1/2 str to damage is referenced independantly in several other places.
FYI:
Similar discussion (3.5):
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/archive/index.php?t-209064.html
|
Wow, this debate got out of hand in 24hrs. 2x the amount of posts since I left it.
Personally, I think the whole debate is a little silly. I can only think of 2 instances where it would be applicable.
1. Sword and Shield where you want to put in a Shield Bash as the one of the attacks and don't want to take the penalties of TWF
2. Your Off hand weapon is a Tripping weapon. This way, you can hit them once for normal damage and then have a chance of Tripping them on the second hit eventhough it is -5 to hit.
Beyond that...I don't see any benefit to switching between two weapons during a full attack and not using TFW.
I do like how this debate shows that the rules cannot take into account all scenerios and that is why we have GMs and Houserules.
Wow, this debate got out of hand in 24hrs. 2x the amount of posts since I left it.
Personally, I think the whole debate is a little silly. I can only think of 2 instances where it would be applicable.
1. Sword and Shield where you want to put in a Shield Bash as the one of the attacks and don't want to take the penalties of TWF
2. Your Off hand weapon is a Tripping weapon. This way, you can hit them once for normal damage and then have a chance of Tripping them on the second hit eventhough it is -5 to hit.Beyond that...I don't see any benefit to switching between two weapons during a full attack and not using TFW.
I do like how this debate shows that the rules cannot take into account all scenerios and that is why we have GMs and Houserules.
The example thats been in my head is fighting skeletons and zombies (not uncommon). In your right hand, you have a sword and in your left a club (or maybe a torch). Your first attack fells a zombie, leaving a skeleton in reach for the second. You use whichever weapon bypasses the DR of the enemy you're fighting.
And you get TWF penalty to both of them, because you're attacking with two weapons.
However, you aren't fighting in the manner described under TWF (on which those penalties are conditional). You're making a standard full attack. Which doesn't have any additional penalties listed for primary or off hand attacks.
You wield two weapons. You get the penalties for wielding two weapons.
There are no penalties for wielding two weapons, save for the case where you make extra attacks.
|
|
Firstly, you have the option of gaining an additional attack. Why would you not? Well to avoid the penalties of making extra attacks.
What rule are you using to base this assumption on? Your "camp" has yet to provide a rule that supports your claim. The only thing your "camp" has done has tried to argue why my "camp's" claim is wrong, rather than trying to provide evidence as to why your "camp" is right.
Secondly, I provided a perfectly legal example as to why the TWF penalties would apply, and yet the extra attack allowed by wielding the second weapon is not made. How do you justify your position in that context? The penalty applied to the first attack cannot be retroactively removed. He declared that he intended to make the off hand attack, but then decided to not make his off hand attack.
Again, it is not the actual act of rolling the die for the extra attack, that you are so passionately espousing, that creates the condition for applying the TWF penalties, it is the act of declaring your intent to wield the two weapons in the same round.
EDIT: Formatting errors.