|
I don't even know how to respond to your post. By your line of thought, in conjunction with my example, once the player decides to no longer make any more attacks after his first attack, he must retroactively remove the penalties he had applied to his first attack due to the fact that he did not make the "extra attack". How the hell is this legal?I never said that. In fact I said if you decide to use TWF you must keep the penalties even if you stop attacking.
The issue between myself and you is that you believe the intent of TWF is to use two weapons. I believe it is to get the extra attack.
I even broke down the ability to use two weapons and get an extra attack into two fake feats.
I asked would people rather take the feat giving a -2 for an extra attack or take a feat that lets them use two weapons, but not extra attack and still take a -2. Nobody choose the idea of using two weapons without an extra attack which fell in line with my reasoning that the main point of TWF was the extra attack.It does not take a spreadsheet to figure out which idea makes is the most advantageous barring corner cases, and the devs are pretty smart so with that information which one do you think they would place the penalty on?
Please reference my post to Asiel where I pointed out that the rules only allow you to choose which weapon to use for the first attack. The rules do not allow you to choose which weapon to use for the second, third, or additional attacks.
Of course people are going to pick an option that allows them to gain a benefit without paying the price. That doesn't change the fact that RAW states there is a price to be paid for using that benefit.
You are arguing why your house rule is better than RAW. Until you point to me a rule that shows that your house rule is RAW, it remains a house rule, and therefore has no bearing on the "Rules Questions" thread.
It is a fact. Read the rules. Carefully this time. and don't forget to think while you're doing it.You keep saying this like it's a fact. It isn't a fact. It is your interpretation of the rules. It may or may not be RAI, but RAW isn't so clear. If it was, then several people who are very well versed in the rules wouldn't be on opposing sides of the discussion.What is being said is that if you have a heavy steel shield in one hand and a sword in the other, as a level 13 fighter, you can attack with your sword at +13, your shield at +8, and your sword again at +3. Several people have pointed out that this is normally going to be a sub-optimal way to fight.And also not RAW.
There's no need to be a jerk. I intentionally had rewritten my post (before actually posting) to remove all my snarky and jerky comments. I would ask that you do the same. You aren't right simply because you are rude. You don't get to be rude even if you think you are right.
As for reading the rules, I have read them over and over. I have applied my understanding of the English language as well as my understanding of logic, just as you have. You don't hold any special insight just because you are frustrated.
I suggest that you step away from the keyboard. Grab a cup of your favorite drink. Get a slice of something you enjoy (sandwich, pizza, cake, pie, whatever). Then come back with a clear head so you can play nice.
|
|
Imperator and Hanger:
You keep mentioning that the fact that you retain the penalties for 2WF even if you don't take the extra attack proves that the extra attack is unrelated to the penalties. This is not correct. Choosing to take the extra attack causes the penalties, if you don't end up taking that attack they do not retroactively disappear.Look at Rapid Shot (which is worded almost identically to 2WF). When you make a full attack, you can take one extra attack. All your attacks take -2. Now, if you kill the enemy with your first shot obviously you wouldn't be taking the extra one... but you still take the penalties. Likewise for 2WF. It is the 'activation' of the ability which triggers the penalties (declaring "I'm using Rapid Shot/2WF"), whether the attack actually goes off or not is irrelevant. You declare that you are using 2WF to gain an extra attack and thus the penalties are applied.
And once again, you are supporting my argument. Thank you for that. It is the INTENT to use, not rolling the die for, the extra off hand attack, that causes the TWF penalties to apply.
EDIT: RAW does not support the notion that you can make a full attack action using only one of your weapons, and then switch weapons for later iterations.
I'm going out on a limb here by assuming that if you are holding a weapon in each hand, and you take a full attack action, unless you tell me otherwise, you are planning on attacking with both of those weapons. As such, your attack iteration is: primary hand/off hand/ 2nd primary/ 3rd primary (assuming a BAB of +13).
But, if you explicitly state that you are only going to attack with one weapon, your attack iteration becomes: +13/+8/+3 and you cannot decide to use weapon "B" for the +8 or +3 iteration, you must use weapon "A" for the entire attack cycle.
On the other hand, if you have a fighter who has a sword and shield, he is assumed to be attacking with just the sword and his attack iteration is: +13/+8/+3. IT would be the same if he says (for whatever reason) that he only wants to use his shield to shield bash, but not use his sword.
If he says that he wants to shield bash while he is attacking with his sword, and assuming he attacks with his sword first, he must then apply the TWF penalties, and his attack iteration becomes: primary weapon (sword)/ off hand (shield)/ 2nd primary/ 3rd primary. If he attacked with his shield first, then the shield would be the primary, and the sword would be the off hand.
This is RAW. If you want to play it another way, go right ahead and do so, but don't claim that you are playing RAW.
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.
YOU consider:
If you hold a gun in each hand, you can fire more shots. You use more ammo when you shoot this way.In and of itself the sentence structure is ambiguous. Context determines the meaning. Obviously holding coals burns you, so in your sentence the meaning is clearly that holding them causes the penalty. But obviously holding a gun doesn't use ammo, firing it does, so in my sentence firing more shots causes the penalty. The sentence does not have one universal meaning, it has a meaning which must be judged according to the circumstance around it.
So in the context of 2WF, and based on precedent such as Rapid Shot and Flurry, do you still think that wielding the weapon is what gives you the penalties, or would you agree that penalties for using that weapon to gain extra attacks make more sense?
EDIT:
And once again, you are supporting my argument. Thank you for that. It is the INTENT to use, not rolling the die for, the extra off hand attack, that causes the TWF penalties to apply.
Right. And if you don't intend to use the extra off hand attack then you aren't using 2WF so no penalties apply.
What is being said is that if you have a heavy steel shield in one hand and a sword in the other, as a level 13 fighter, you can attack with your sword at +13, your shield at +8, and your sword again at +3. Several people have pointed out that this is normally going to be a sub-optimal way to fight.And also not RAW.
I now cast see invisibility on you.
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.
1. If you get more than one attack because your base attack bonus is high enough means that you have a BAB of +6 or better.
2. The next part entails getting an extra attack because you have two weapons or a double weapon.
In this case you can have a BAB of +5 or less, but you decided to use TWF'ing to get an extra attack. Now you are not pointed to the two weapon rules, but that is the only section entailing more precise rules on using two weapons to get an extra attack. <---That means this(fighting with two weapons for an extra attack has been covered.
3. Now lets go to the last paragraph. This one only discusses making attacks because your BAB is high enough. It then goes on to stipulate that a restrition is that the attack must be made in order of highest bonus to lowest.
4.It then says that if you or using two weapons or a double weapon you may strike with either weapon or side first with no mention of extra attacks. Extra in this case meaning above and beyond what you are normally allowed with strict accordance with BAB.
The only place mentioning "extra" attacks is the TWF section which mentions "extra" attacks and using two weapons, and fighting in that way. Fighting in that way would have to include both options to be valid not just one or the other, and there are no rules that if you must use two weapons and take the extra attack.
The rules do state that in order to get an extra attack you must use TWF which involves using two weapons or a double weapon.
Now why would the second paragraph of a full attack action in general bother with TWF'ing if it was handled in the first paragraph?
Now if it read:
"If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, 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 get one extra attack per round with that weapon when doing so."
In that case I would say there is no argument to be had. By that wording the penalties are from using the extra weapon alone, and the extra attack is just an after thought.
As you can see there is a big difference.
Please reference my post to Asiel where I pointed out that the rules only allow you to choose which weapon to use for the first attack. The rules do not allow you to choose which weapon to use for the second, third, or additional attacks.
Of course people are going to pick an option that allows them to gain a benefit without paying the price. That doesn't change the fact that RAW states there is a price to be paid for using that benefit.
You are arguing why your house rule is better than RAW. Until you point to me a rule that shows that your house rule is RAW, it remains a house rule, and therefore has no bearing on the "Rules Questions" thread.
What's the real benefit for using two-weapons without gaining an additional attack? If you are using the same type of weapon (let's say daggers) in each hand, then you aren't really going to see much difference between alternating weapons. If you are using two different weapons, you are probably not going to have a bunch of feats to make both weapons roughly equivalent so you aren't getting much of a benefit.
If someone has built their character to take advantage of being able to use both weapons without taking the Two-Weapon Fighting tree, they are probably getting some benefits but at the same time, they invested to get those benefits. Why should they be penalized more? They aren't getting the benefit of the extra attack, so they shouldn't get the penalty associated with that extra attack. The rules for the Special Attack of Two-Weapon Fighting support this with the opening sentence.
I'd agree with Ashiel, there's nothing in RAW disputing this as you must be weilding and using the two-weapon fighting special attack in order to incur penalties. Much like a power attack, you must declare it BEFORE you take your actions.
Otherwise, everyone should be taking a two-weapon fighting penalty for having unarmed strikes, a shield, slam attack or armor spikes available. It's up to the player to be clear of their intent to use special attacks before they roll.
Just checking!
|
And once again, you are supporting my argument. Thank you for that. It is the INTENT to use, not rolling the die for, the extra off hand attack, that causes the TWF penalties to apply.Imperator and Hanger:
You keep mentioning that the fact that you retain the penalties for 2WF even if you don't take the extra attack proves that the extra attack is unrelated to the penalties. This is not correct. Choosing to take the extra attack causes the penalties, if you don't end up taking that attack they do not retroactively disappear.Look at Rapid Shot (which is worded almost identically to 2WF). When you make a full attack, you can take one extra attack. All your attacks take -2. Now, if you kill the enemy with your first shot obviously you wouldn't be taking the extra one... but you still take the penalties. Likewise for 2WF. It is the 'activation' of the ability which triggers the penalties (declaring "I'm using Rapid Shot/2WF"), whether the attack actually goes off or not is irrelevant. You declare that you are using 2WF to gain an extra attack and thus the penalties are applied.
So, if I intend to use the extra attack I take the penalties. I am good with that. By the corollary, if I do not intend to make an extra attack above my normal BAB allowance, I should not take the penalties for TWF, even if I am using two different weapons to take my normal BAB allowed attacks.
So, to those advocating being able to switch which hand is primary and which is off in the middle of a full attack action, can I do the same during a Two weapon fighting action? If so, it would follow I could change which hand is off as well right? Then I could have only one really nice weapon and use it for all my attacks including the extra ones gained by two weapon fighting and just hold a crappy dagger in my off hand that I never actually attack with, or better yet a shield I never attack with. I will just hold a shield declare a two weapon fighting attack and substitute in more sword attacks instead of the shield for my off hand weapon attacks. So who says you have to invest in two nice weapons?Two weapon fighting is clearly an exception to the normal rules for full attacking.
That is the whole point here; if you aren't using that exception, use the normal rules for a full attack. Which dont restrict which weapons you may use for your attacks during your attack progression.
And that exception clearly only applies penalties when wielding two weapons, and choosing to take the extra attack which can be gained by doing so.
So your saying that as soon as you declare you are two weapon fighting, you are locking in a primary and secondary hand, and if you don't declare two weapon fighting you have no primary and secondary hand? Were does the RAW say that? That makes little sense to me at all
I don't even know how to respond to your post. By your line of thought, in conjunction with my example, once the player decides to no longer make any more attacks after his first attack, he must retroactively remove the penalties he had applied to his first attack due to the fact that he did not make the "extra attack". How the hell is this legal?I never said that. In fact I said if you decide to use TWF you must keep the penalties even if you stop attacking.
The issue between myself and you is that you believe the intent of TWF is to use two weapons. I believe it is to get the extra attack.
I even broke down the ability to use two weapons and get an extra attack into two fake feats.
I asked would people rather take the feat giving a -2 for an extra attack or take a feat that lets them use two weapons, but not extra attack and still take a -2. Nobody choose the idea of using two weapons without an extra attack which fell in line with my reasoning that the main point of TWF was the extra attack.It does not take a spreadsheet to figure out which idea makes is the most advantageous barring corner cases, and the devs are pretty smart so with that information which one do you think they would place the penalty on?
Please reference my post to Asiel where I pointed out that the rules only allow you to choose which weapon to use for the first attack. The rules do not allow you to choose which weapon to use for the second, third, or additional attacks.
Of course people are going to pick an option that allows them to gain a benefit without paying the price. That doesn't change the fact that RAW states there is a price to be paid for using that benefit.
You are arguing why your house rule is better than RAW. Until you point to me a rule that shows that your house rule is RAW, it remains a house rule, and therefore has no bearing on the "Rules Questions" thread.
The rules don't restrict you to the first weapon. That is shown in my latest post. I made it so it was not invisible this time. Now if you can show me where it says you must stick with weapon A then I will agree with you.
So by my reference you can use more than one weapon. You now have to show me where you can't use more than one weapon. At best we have a rules conflict, but I doubt you will anything saying I can't use more than one weapon, while I have found a rule saying you can.
The ball is in your court.
I was not arguing that a house rule is better than the RAW. I only broke down the TWF mechanic into two feats, and asked you to look at them and decide which one that someone would realistically be asked to pay for vs which one you are suggesting is actually applying the penalty.
It seems that you agree that the extra attack is better than the ability to use two weapons, but still insisting that the game wants you to pay for the two weapons instead.
So, to those advocating being able to switch which hand is primary and which is off in the middle of a full attack action, can I do the same during a Two weapon fighting action? If so, it would follow I could change which hand is off as well right? Then I could have only one really nice weapon and use it for all my attacks including the extra ones gained by two weapon fighting and just hold a crappy dagger in my off hand that I never actually attack with, or better yet a shield I never attack with. I will just hold a shield declare a two weapon fighting attack and substitute in more sword attacks instead of the shield for my off hand weapon attacks. So who says you have to invest in two nice weapons?That's not what anyone is advocating. If you are using the Two-Weapon Fighting Special Attack, then you will have one weapon as your primary weapon and the other as your off-hand. That is clearly part of the description of the Two-Weapon Special Attack.
What is being said is that if you have a heavy steel shield in one hand and a sword in the other, as a level 13 fighter, you can attack with your sword at +13, your shield at +8, and your sword again at +3. Several people have pointed out that this is normally going to be a sub-optimal way to fight.
What is also being said is that you could choose to attack with your sword three times and your shield once, gaining you an additional attack, but you now have +7/+2/-3 with your sword and +3 with your heavy steel shield. Or you could have +7/+2/-3 with your heavy steel shield and +3 with your sword. If you want to change those penalties and get even more attacks, then you would have to also take the appropriate feats.
See my post above, I fail to see where it says you are locking in a primary and secondary hand when you activate two weapon fighting and not when you don't
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.
YOU consider:
If you hold a gun in each hand, you can fire more shots. You use more ammo when you shoot this way.In and of itself the sentence structure is ambiguous. Context determines the meaning. Obviously holding coals burns you, so in your sentence the meaning is clearly that holding them causes the penalty. But obviously holding a gun doesn't use ammo, firing it does, so in my sentence firing more shots causes the penalty. The sentence does not have one universal meaning, it has a meaning which must be judged according to the circumstance around it.
So in the context of 2WF, and based on precedent such as Rapid Shot and Flurry, do you still think that wielding the weapon is what gives you the penalties, or would you agree that penalties for using that weapon to gain extra attacks make more sense?
At least you have a valid form of arguement, I still don't agree with that reading however.
The next part you attribute to me erroneously.
EDIT:
Right. And if you don't intend to use the extra off hand attack then you aren't using 2WF so no penalties apply.actually no I didn't
And once again, you are supporting my argument. Thank you for that. It is the INTENT to use, not rolling the die for, the extra off hand attack, that causes the TWF penalties to apply.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, if I intend to use the extra attack I take the penalties. I am good with that. By the corollary, if I do not intend to make an extra attack above my normal BAB allowance, I should not take the penalties for TWF, even if I am using two different weapons to take my normal BAB allowed attacks.
By the RAW, I don't think you CAN switch between weapons on normal attacks. One weapon is always your primary and one is your off hand, so in order to make attacks with the off hand weapon you need to use 2WF to gain extra attacks. That said, as others have mentioned it's such a small thing that I would certainly let someone do it.
I think an important point that has not been mentioned so far:
Even IF by RAW using two weapons in two different hands in the same turn incurs the penalties, it really shouldn't.
It generally offers no advantage and is actually disadvantegeous most of the time.
But: its cool.
Slam with the shield, hit with the sword, kick in the nuts - awesome. Much more interesting than "I hit him three times with my sword".
And in the rare circumstances where it reall makes sense (whip for tripping in one hand, sword in the other, mace an sword vs skeletons & zombies), its simply a good, interesting tactic that is in no way too powerful.
By the RAW, I don't think you CAN switch between weapons on normal attacks. One weapon is always your primary and one is your off hand, so in order to make attacks with the off hand weapon you need to use 2WF to gain extra attacks. That said, as others have mentioned it's such a small thing that I would certainly let someone do it.
So, if I intend to use the extra attack I take the penalties. I am good with that. By the corollary, if I do not intend to make an extra attack above my normal BAB allowance, I should not take the penalties for TWF, even if I am using two different weapons to take my normal BAB allowed attacks.
click me. Look at point 4. PS: TWF'ing is covered in the firt paragraph as the post says.
|
|
Please reference my post to Asiel where I pointed out that the rules only allow you to choose which weapon to use for the first attack. The rules do not allow you to choose which weapon to use for the second, third, or additional attacks.
Of course people are going to pick an option that allows them to gain a benefit without paying the price. That doesn't change the fact that RAW states there is a price to be paid for using that benefit.
You are arguing why your house rule is better than RAW. Until you point to me a rule that shows that your house rule is RAW, it remains a house rule, and therefore has no bearing on the "Rules Questions" thread.
What's the real benefit for using two-weapons without gaining an additional attack? If you are using the same type of weapon (let's say daggers) in each hand, then you aren't really going to see much difference between alternating weapons. If you are using two different weapons, you are probably not going to have a bunch of feats to make both weapons roughly equivalent so you aren't getting much of a benefit.
If someone has built their character to take advantage of being able to use both weapons without taking the Two-Weapon Fighting tree, they are probably getting some benefits but at the same time, they invested to get those benefits. Why should they be penalized more? They aren't getting the benefit of the extra attack, so they shouldn't get the penalty associated with that extra attack. The rules for the Special Attack of Two-Weapon Fighting support this with the opening sentence.
Because the rules say they should be penalized. You are pointing out the crux of the issue: people want the benefit without paying for it. That's fine as a house rule, but is not RAW.
I think an important point that has not been mentioned so far:
Even IF by RAW using two weapons in two different hands in the same turn incurs the penalties, it really shouldn't.
It generally offers no advantage and is actually disadvantegeous most of the time.
But: its cool.
Slam with the shield, hit with the sword, kick in the nuts - awesome. Much more interesting than "I hit him three times with my sword".
And in the rare circumstances where it reall makes sense (whip for tripping in one hand, sword in the other, mace an sword vs skeletons & zombies), its simply a good, interesting tactic that is in no way too powerful.
While I agree that it is not allowed by my interpretation of the RAW, I also agree that it is not overpowered. I think its more of a complexity issue, especially if you allow it during a two weapon fighting round, which I see no reason not to allow, if you allow it in general
Because the rules say they should be penalized. You are pointing out the crux of the issue: people want the benefit without paying for it. That's fine as a house rule, but is not RAW.Please reference my post to Asiel where I pointed out that the rules only allow you to choose which weapon to use for the first attack. The rules do not allow you to choose which weapon to use for the second, third, or additional attacks.
Of course people are going to pick an option that allows them to gain a benefit without paying the price. That doesn't change the fact that RAW states there is a price to be paid for using that benefit.
You are arguing why your house rule is better than RAW. Until you point to me a rule that shows that your house rule is RAW, it remains a house rule, and therefore has no bearing on the "Rules Questions" thread.
What's the real benefit for using two-weapons without gaining an additional attack? If you are using the same type of weapon (let's say daggers) in each hand, then you aren't really going to see much difference between alternating weapons. If you are using two different weapons, you are probably not going to have a bunch of feats to make both weapons roughly equivalent so you aren't getting much of a benefit.
If someone has built their character to take advantage of being able to use both weapons without taking the Two-Weapon Fighting tree, they are probably getting some benefits but at the same time, they invested to get those benefits. Why should they be penalized more? They aren't getting the benefit of the extra attack, so they shouldn't get the penalty associated with that extra attack. The rules for the Special Attack of Two-Weapon Fighting support this with the opening sentence.
As another poster asked, but was never answered, with a lot more detail than I am about to-->What is the benefit? I am maintaining two weapons without using TWF'ing.
As another poster asked, but was never answered, with a lot more detail than I am about to-->What is the benefit? I am maintaining two weapons without using TWF'ing.Because the rules say they should be penalized. You are pointing out the crux of the issue: people want the benefit without paying for it. That's fine as a house rule, but is not RAW.Please reference my post to Asiel where I pointed out that the rules only allow you to choose which weapon to use for the first attack. The rules do not allow you to choose which weapon to use for the second, third, or additional attacks.
Of course people are going to pick an option that allows them to gain a benefit without paying the price. That doesn't change the fact that RAW states there is a price to be paid for using that benefit.
You are arguing why your house rule is better than RAW. Until you point to me a rule that shows that your house rule is RAW, it remains a house rule, and therefore has no bearing on the "Rules Questions" thread.
What's the real benefit for using two-weapons without gaining an additional attack? If you are using the same type of weapon (let's say daggers) in each hand, then you aren't really going to see much difference between alternating weapons. If you are using two different weapons, you are probably not going to have a bunch of feats to make both weapons roughly equivalent so you aren't getting much of a benefit.
If someone has built their character to take advantage of being able to use both weapons without taking the Two-Weapon Fighting tree, they are probably getting some benefits but at the same time, they invested to get those benefits. Why should they be penalized more? They aren't getting the benefit of the extra attack, so they shouldn't get the penalty associated with that extra attack. The rules for the Special Attack of Two-Weapon Fighting support this with the opening sentence.
Well for one thing, I think if you accept the arguments made for swapping weapons when not two weapon fighting, you have to accept them when you are as I have seen nothing to indicate one is valid and the other is not, at which point you have to accept that its ok to substitute your primary weapon in for your secondary on the extra attacks, that would be a big benefit
click me. Look at point 4. PS: TWF'ing is covered in the firt paragraph as the post says.
I don't think that's a very compelling argument. The section includes extra attacks from 2WF, and it seems to me that the statement is referring to taking those extra attacks. The fact that the first sentence in the paragraph refers to high base attack doesn't mean that every sentence refers to it.
See my post above, I fail to see where it says you are locking in a primary and secondary hand when you activate two weapon fighting and not when you don'tSo, to those advocating being able to switch which hand is primary and which is off in the middle of a full attack action, can I do the same during a Two weapon fighting action? If so, it would follow I could change which hand is off as well right? Then I could have only one really nice weapon and use it for all my attacks including the extra ones gained by two weapon fighting and just hold a crappy dagger in my off hand that I never actually attack with, or better yet a shield I never attack with. I will just hold a shield declare a two weapon fighting attack and substitute in more sword attacks instead of the shield for my off hand weapon attacks. So who says you have to invest in two nice weapons?That's not what anyone is advocating. If you are using the Two-Weapon Fighting Special Attack, then you will have one weapon as your primary weapon and the other as your off-hand. That is clearly part of the description of the Two-Weapon Special Attack.
What is being said is that if you have a heavy steel shield in one hand and a sword in the other, as a level 13 fighter, you can attack with your sword at +13, your shield at +8, and your sword again at +3. Several people have pointed out that this is normally going to be a sub-optimal way to fight.
What is also being said is that you could choose to attack with your sword three times and your shield once, gaining you an additional attack, but you now have +7/+2/-3 with your sword and +3 with your heavy steel shield. Or you could have +7/+2/-3 with your heavy steel shield and +3 with your sword. If you want to change those penalties and get even more attacks, then you would have to also take the appropriate feats.
I never said that you have a primary and off-hand attack when not using the Special Attack of Two-Weapon Fighting. I used the standard -5 to hit with iterative attacks. When using the Two-Weapon Fighting, there clearly is an off-hand attack. It is clearly stated as such in the description.
I never said that you have a primary and off-hand attack when not using the Special Attack of...See my post above, I fail to see where it says you are locking in a primary and secondary hand when you activate two weapon fighting and not when you don'tSo, to those advocating being able to switch which hand is primary and which is off in the middle of a full attack action, can I do the same during a Two weapon fighting action? If so, it would follow I could change which hand is off as well right? Then I could have only one really nice weapon and use it for all my attacks including the extra ones gained by two weapon fighting and just hold a crappy dagger in my off hand that I never actually attack with, or better yet a shield I never attack with. I will just hold a shield declare a two weapon fighting attack and substitute in more sword attacks instead of the shield for my off hand weapon attacks. So who says you have to invest in two nice weapons?That's not what anyone is advocating. If you are using the Two-Weapon Fighting Special Attack, then you will have one weapon as your primary weapon and the other as your off-hand. That is clearly part of the description of the Two-Weapon Special Attack.
What is being said is that if you have a heavy steel shield in one hand and a sword in the other, as a level 13 fighter, you can attack with your sword at +13, your shield at +8, and your sword again at +3. Several people have pointed out that this is normally going to be a sub-optimal way to fight.
What is also being said is that you could choose to attack with your sword three times and your shield once, gaining you an additional attack, but you now have +7/+2/-3 with your sword and +3 with your heavy steel shield. Or you could have +7/+2/-3 with your heavy steel shield and +3 with your sword. If you want to change those penalties and get even more attacks, then you would have to also take the appropriate feats.
Ok, but if I can declare either hand my primary hand during an attack sequence, why can't I declare either hand my secondary at any point during the sequence?
Well for one thing, I think if you accept the arguments made for swapping weapons when not two weapon fighting, you have to accept them when you are as I have seen nothing to indicate one is valid and the other is not, at which point you have to accept that its ok to substitute your primary weapon in for your secondary on the extra attacks, that would be a big benefit
I have seen no arguments for swapping weapons when not TWF'ing. What benefit am I gaining?
I don't think that's a very compelling argument. The section includes extra attacks from 2WF, and it seems to me that the statement is referring to taking those extra attacks. The fact that the first sentence in the paragraph refers to high base attack doesn't mean that every sentence refers to it.
click me. Look at point 4. PS: TWF'ing is covered in the firt paragraph as the post says.
The first paragraph refers to TWF. The second one alludes to fighting with double weapons or two weapons.
Each paragraph is also broken down. Would you mind telling me where I may have went wrong?
|
|
As another poster asked, but was never answered, with a lot more detail than I am about to-->What is the benefit? I am maintaining two weapons without using TWF'ing.
The benefit IS attacking with two different weapons in the same round. And because you are wielding two different weapons in the same round, you automatically get the attack iteration of 1st primary/off hand/2nd primary/third primary....etc...
Whether you choose to use all of the available attack iterations is completely up to you. If you don't use all of them, it doesn't change the fact that you declared you are going to be attacking with both weapons, and you are using the two-weapon fighting attack iteration tree.
Regarding your request for me to post a rule that says "you can't". I already have. The rule only addresses the fact that you choose which weapon to use on the first attack. It doesn't need to address which weapon you get to use on the second attack, because once you have established that you will be attacking with both weapons, you use the two-weapon fighting attack iteration tree.
If you declare that you are only attacking with one weapon, then the whole weapon A/weapon B attacking first is irrelevant, because you are not using two weapons, you are only using one weapon. You can't decide at a later time to use the second weapon when you decided to use only one 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.
EDIT: Changed "of" to "is" in the first sentence.
Well for one thing, I think if you accept the arguments made for swapping weapons when not two weapon fighting, you have to accept them when you are as I have seen nothing to indicate one is valid and the other is not, at which point you have to accept that its ok to substitute your primary weapon in for your secondary on the extra attacks, that would be a big benefitI have seen no arguments for swapping weapons when not TWF'ing. What benefit am I gaining?
that's exactly what people have been arguing, that you can take iterative attacks with any weapon you are holding right? If you can do that why can't you do the same with the iterative attacks granted by the TWF feat?
Because the rules say they should be penalized. You are pointing out the crux of the issue: people want the benefit without paying for it. That's fine as a house rule, but is not RAW.Please reference my post to Asiel where I pointed out that the rules only allow you to choose which weapon to use for the first attack. The rules do not allow you to choose which weapon to use for the second, third, or additional attacks.
Of course people are going to pick an option that allows them to gain a benefit without paying the price. That doesn't change the fact that RAW states there is a price to be paid for using that benefit.
You are arguing why your house rule is better than RAW. Until you point to me a rule that shows that your house rule is RAW, it remains a house rule, and therefore has no bearing on the "Rules Questions" thread.
What's the real benefit for using two-weapons without gaining an additional attack? If you are using the same type of weapon (let's say daggers) in each hand, then you aren't really going to see much difference between alternating weapons. If you are using two different weapons, you are probably not going to have a bunch of feats to make both weapons roughly equivalent so you aren't getting much of a benefit.
If someone has built their character to take advantage of being able to use both weapons without taking the Two-Weapon Fighting tree, they are probably getting some benefits but at the same time, they invested to get those benefits. Why should they be penalized more? They aren't getting the benefit of the extra attack, so they shouldn't get the penalty associated with that extra attack. The rules for the Special Attack of Two-Weapon Fighting support this with the opening sentence.
But the rules do not actually state that. The rules state that you are penalized when making the extra attack while Two-Weapon Fighting. An extra attack is defined as one beyond what you are allowed based on your Base Attack Bonus.
Let me ask this question: If a 13th level fighter has Quickdraw, a longsword, a flail, and a battle axe, can they attack with all 3 weapons in the same round without incurring the Two-Weapon Fighting rules? If so, other than Quickdraw, how is it any different than what we are saying?
At least you have a valid form of arguement, I still don't agree with that reading however.
Okay... why? Do you agree that the sentence is not absolute and its meaning must be inferred? If so, why would you choose to interpret it as "wielding=penalties" and not "extra attack=penalties"? Is it game balance, fluff, precedent, or what?
The next part you attribute to me erroneously.
Yeah, I was responding to someone else and edited it in to not have multiple back to back replies. Bad habit I guess.
As another poster asked, but was never answered, with a lot more detail than I am about to-->What is the benefit? I am maintaining two weapons without using TWF'ing.The benefit IS attacking with two different weapons in the same round. And because you are wielding two different weapons in the same round, you automatically get the attack iteration of 1st primary/off hand/2nd primary/third primary....etc...
Whether you choose to use all of the available attack iterations is completely up to you. If you don't use all of them, it doesn't change the fact that you declared you are going to be attacking with both weapons, and you are using the two-weapon fighting attack iteration tree.
Regarding your request for me to post a rule that says "you can't". I already have. The rule only addresses the fact that you choose which weapon to use on the first attack. It doesn't need to address which weapon you get to use on the second attack, because once you have established that you will be attacking with both weapons, you use the two-weapon fighting attack iteration tree.
If you declare that you are only attacking with one weapon, then the whole weapon A/weapon B attacking first is irrelevant, because you are not using two weapons, you are only using one weapon. You can't decide at a later time to use the second weapon when you decided to use only one 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.EDIT: Changed "of" to "is" in the first sentence.
Remember that the posters that don't agree with you are not getting the extra attack so what is the benefit they are getting?
Ok, but if I can declare either hand my primary hand during an attack sequence, why can't I declare either hand my secondary at any point during the sequence?
As I mentioned before, if you are not using the Special Attack of Two-Weapon Fighting, then you don't have an off-hand. If you do, then you must declare which weapon is your primary and which is your off-hand. I also mentioned in a previous post that, as GM, I would have you declare an off-hand if you wanted to switch between weapons even if not using the Special Attack of Two-Weapon Fighting.
As another poster asked, but was never answered, with a lot more detail than I am about to-->What is the benefit? I am maintaining two weapons without using TWF'ing.Regarding your request for me to post a rule that says "you can't". I already have. The rule only addresses the fact that you choose which weapon to use on the first attack. It doesn't need to address which weapon you get to use on the second attack, because once you have established that you will be attacking with both weapons, you use the two-weapon fighting attack iteration tree.
I see we just have another interpretations of the rules which is why we see it differently. I don't think either one of us is going to convince anyone at this point on the issue of a second weapon being allowed without, so I guess the benefit issue is the point of discussion.
The benefit IS attacking with two different weapons in the same round. And because you are wielding two different weapons in the same round, you automatically get the attack iteration of 1st primary/off hand/2nd primary/third primary....etc...
What if you just happen to have two longswords, one in each hand, and you happen to encounter a rust monster? You attack with your first longsword but it turns to rust. You still using a longsword. Would this scenario really be any different than if you had Quickdraw? If not, why add more complexity to a scenario than is needed?
that's exactly what people have been arguing, that you can take iterative attacks with any weapon you are holding right? If you can do that why can't you do the same with the iterative attacks granted by the TWF feat?Well for one thing, I think if you accept the arguments made for swapping weapons when not two weapon fighting, you have to accept them when you are as I have seen nothing to indicate one is valid and the other is not, at which point you have to accept that its ok to substitute your primary weapon in for your secondary on the extra attacks, that would be a big benefitI have seen no arguments for swapping weapons when not TWF'ing. What benefit am I gaining?
I am still lost and see no benefit.
IIRC "people want the benefits without the penalties", is what was said.
I want you to pretend I am 5 years old and explain to my what my benefit is for using two weapons if I don't take the extra attack.
Ok, but if I can declare either hand my primary hand during an attack sequence, why can't I declare either hand my secondary at any point during the sequence?As I mentioned before, if you are not using the Special Attack of Two-Weapon Fighting, then you don't have an off-hand. If you do, then you must declare which weapon is your primary and which is your off-hand. I also mentioned in a previous post that, as GM, I would have you declare an off-hand if you wanted to switch between weapons even if not using the Special Attack of Two-Weapon Fighting.
right but where does it say in the RAW that I have to declare a primary and secondary hand if I am using Two Weapon fighting and I don't if I am not using Two Weapon fighting?
that's exactly what people have been arguing, that you can take iterative attacks with any weapon you are holding right? If you can do that why can't you do the same with the iterative attacks granted by the TWF feat?Well for one thing, I think if you accept the arguments made for swapping weapons when not two weapon fighting, you have to accept them when you are as I have seen nothing to indicate one is valid and the other is not, at which point you have to accept that its ok to substitute your primary weapon in for your secondary on the extra attacks, that would be a big benefitI have seen no arguments for swapping weapons when not TWF'ing. What benefit am I gaining?
Because the Special Attack of Two-Weapon Fighting clearly states that you must have a primary and off-hand attack. No one is arguing otherwise.
|
|
Let me ask this question: If a 13th level fighter has Quickdraw, a longsword, a flail, and a battle axe, can they attack with all 3 weapons in the same round without incurring the Two-Weapon Fighting rules? If so, other than Quickdraw, how is it any different than what we are saying?
No. He cannot assign a different weapon to each attack iteration. At best, he can declare that he is attacking with two of the three and has the TWF attack iteration of: 1st primary/off hand/2nd primary/3rd primary. At best, he could drop one weapon as a free action and quick draw the third weapon with that hand.
So, if he has the longsword as a primary attack, and the flail as the off hand attack. He can choose to make the 1st primary attack with the longsword, drop it, quick draw the battleaxe, make the off hand attack with the flail, and then make the remaining primary attacks with the battleaxe. And this is assuming the GM allows the player to use both free actions in the same turn.
TWF penalties would apply to each attack appropriately.
If you can do that why can't you do the same with the iterative attacks granted by the TWF feat?
You can make that attack with an off hand weapon, which can implicitly not be your primary-hand weapon.
Now, if you have multiple qualifying attacks... say a shield, armor spikes, or an unarmed strike, I'd say you can choose one of those to make that attack with.
The restriction would be you cannot make the attack with whichever weapon you decided was primary, by swinging with it as your first attack.
The first paragraph refers to TWF. The second one alludes to fighting with double weapons or two weapons.Each paragraph is also broken down. Would you mind telling me where I may have went wrong?
The issue would be "if you are using two weapons you can". I read that as "if you are using the two weapon fighting rules to gain extra attacks as mentioned in paragraph one and the 2WF rules". I think that by itself the statement could be read either way, but keeping in mind other rules regarding primary and off hand weapons (particularly shield bashing) the implication is that one weapon is always primary and the other is off hand.
right but where does it say in the RAW that I have to declare a primary and secondary hand if I am using Two Weapon fighting and I don't if I am not using Two Weapon fighting?Ok, but if I can declare either hand my primary hand during an attack sequence, why can't I declare either hand my secondary at any point during the sequence?As I mentioned before, if you are not using the Special Attack of Two-Weapon Fighting, then you don't have an off-hand. If you do, then you must declare which weapon is your primary and which is your off-hand. I also mentioned in a previous post that, as GM, I would have you declare an off-hand if you wanted to switch between weapons even if not using the Special Attack of Two-Weapon Fighting.
When not Two-Weapon Fighting, there is nothing that states you must declare a primary and off-hand attack. When two-weapon fighting, it is written into the description:
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.
My personal house rule (assuming that my interpretation is RAI) would be that you would have to declare a primary weapon if you would like to switch weapons if not using Two-Weapon Fighting but would still like to use two weapons.
that's exactly what people have been arguing, that you can take iterative attacks with any weapon you are holding right? If you can do that why can't you do the same with the iterative attacks granted by the TWF feat?Well for one thing, I think if you accept the arguments made for swapping weapons when not two weapon fighting, you have to accept them when you are as I have seen nothing to indicate one is valid and the other is not, at which point you have to accept that its ok to substitute your primary weapon in for your secondary on the extra attacks, that would be a big benefitI have seen no arguments for swapping weapons when not TWF'ing. What benefit am I gaining?I am still lost and see no benefit.
IIRC "people want the benefits without the penalties", is what was said.
I want you to pretend I am 5 years old and explain to my what my benefit is for using two weapons if I don't take the extra attack.
My bad, I did not explain it well. The benefit I was describing does not apply to when your not two weapon fighting, it applies to when your Two Weapon fighting as a function of ruling that you can switch weapons when you are. I think if you rule you can switch weapons when you are not two weapon fighting, by logical extension, you need to rule you can do so when you are as well, and that is where I see the big issue. Because if you can switch when you are, you could take the penalty, gain the extra attack and take all of the attacks with one weapon
Let me ask this question: If a 13th level fighter has Quickdraw, a longsword, a flail, and a battle axe, can they attack with all 3 weapons in the same round without incurring the Two-Weapon Fighting rules? If so, other than Quickdraw, how is it any different than what we are saying?No. He cannot assign a different weapon to each attack iteration. At best, he can declare that he is attacking with two of the three and has the TWF attack iteration of: 1st primary/off hand/2nd primary/3rd primary. At best, he could drop one weapon as a free action and quick draw the third weapon with that hand.
So, if he has the longsword as a primary attack, and the flail as the off hand attack. He can choose to make the 1st primary attack with the longsword, drop it, quick draw the battleaxe, make the off hand attack with the flail, and then make the remaining primary attacks with the battleaxe. And this is assuming the GM allows the player to use both free actions in the same turn.
TWF penalties would apply to each attack appropriately.
What if he attacks with the longsword, drops it, draws his flail and attacks, drops it, draws his battle axe and attacks? Is that any different that what we are saying the rules allow? He can drop each of them and draw each of them as a free action.
Okay... why? Do you agree that the sentence is not absolute and its meaning must be inferred? If so, why would you choose to interpret it as "wielding=penalties" and not "extra attack=penalties"? Is it game balance, fluff, precedent, or what?
At least you have a valid form of arguement, I still don't agree with that reading however.
The reason I read it as wielding, rather than attack, is actually from personal experience.
I have enjoyed Fencing (swordplay rather than home improvement) and also Live Roleplaying (latex swords hurt so much less). I have found that merely the attempt to use more than one weapon at a time hinders effacity of the weapon in the main hand. Practice can help alleviate this, and a short weapon in the off hand makes it a little easier.
My reading of the rules accords with personal experience....
...and I guess the OP's attempt to lose the off hand penalty to strength bonus also lead me to look at the real world aspect of the situation.
Edit: I do not claim to be an olimpic class fencer. I'm sure that many other people on this thread who also have swordplay experience, and that they may read the text differently and have different physical experiences to me.
nevermind this post :/
The benefit IS attacking with two different weapons in the same round.
If a level 1 fighter, who has a whip and a shortsword, moves 20' then standard-action attacks something with his whip, does he threaten any squares for the rest of the round? Or should he have taken TWF penalties on his single attack action in order to 'wield' the sword so he can threaten?
A wizard has a dagger, but during his turn he casts a touch spell, does he take TWF penalties on the touch attack if he wants to keep threatening with his dagger afterward?
I fight with my rapier and dagger, using TWF, and taking all appropriate penalties. After my turn, an orc provokes, and I make an AoO with my rapier. Do I take TWF penalties?
My other questions are still unanswered.
What if he attacks with the longsword, drops it, draws his flail and attacks, drops it, draws his battle axe and attacks? Is that any different that what we are saying the rules allow? He can drop each of them and draw each of them as a free action.He's claiming you simply can't do that.
Apparently, he's read a version of the rulebook that mentions which weapons you are allowed to use for any given attack, as opposed to the one I'm working from where it doesn't actually restrict you at all as to what you may use to make your series of completely unrelated attacks.
I would love to see the ruling on why that wouldn't be allowed. It is 100% allowed by RAW with no ambiguity.