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.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.
I already asked that BoB. Your entire full attack just came to a halt by his interpretation.
The reason I read it as wielding, rather than attack, is actually from personal experience.
why would you choose to interpret it as "wielding=penalties" and not "extra attack=penalties"? Is it game balance, fluff, precedent, or what?
Ingenwulf,
Thank you for answering why you feel the rules work as you have been saying. Seriously.
IRL, attacking with a weapon in each hand is difficult, which I think is where the original TWF/penalty idea came from.
I already asked that BoB. Your entire full attack just came to a halt by his interpretation.
I don't have See Invisibility up often enough. I missed that. It's still a good question and hopefully we can get a good answer.
|
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?
I'm not arguing glossing over the rules to make things less complicated, I'm arguing the rules as they are written, which includes all the complication associated with those rules. If you don't want the complication, you are using house rules to make your life easier.
As far as your scenario, it depends, did you declare that you were going to be attacking with both longswords? If you did, then one longsword is a primary hand attack, and the second longsword is an off hand attack. It doesn't matter that they are they same type of weapon, and once established you can't freely change the two. If your primary longsword got chomped during it's first attack, you could quick draw your second longsword to your primary hand, which would leave you with an unarmed strike for your off hand, and your remaining primary attacks can be made with the longsword. TWF penalties apply.
On the other hand, if you stated you were only going to attack with one of the longswords, and it gets chomped, you could quickdraw the other longsword to attack your remaining BAB iteration attacks. TWF penalties do not apply, because you were not wielding both weapons.
I would love to see the ruling on why that wouldn't be allowed. It is 100% allowed by RAW with no ambiguity.
I actually kindof misquoted him there, so I tried to kill the post.
Not that I think he's right, he did allow for the idea of somehow turning that whole thing into TWF penalties; nevermind that like you said, per RAW, there is no restriction on what weapon you may use to perform each of a your series of normal unlrelated attacks on a full attack action.
|
|
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.I already asked that BoB. Your entire full attack just came to a halt by his interpretation.
Wraith, if you did ask this scenario, I didn't see it (or didn't interpret it in this manner), and I apologize (High 5's, BTW).
But as far as Bob's scenario is concerned, it appears to me that he would only be WIELDING one weapon at a time. RAW does not prevent this sort of action from happening, assuming the GM would allow four free actions to happen in a turn.
I already asked that BoB. Your entire full attack just came to a halt by his interpretation.I don't have See Invisibility up often enough. I missed that. It's still a good question and hopefully we can get a good answer.
LOL. It is ok BoB. I think I posted it before you got here.
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.
Heh totally, first of all let me say that having a discussion of "real life" fighting as it pertains to this game is fairly useless, this game is a very abstracted simulation. I do SCA heavy fighting in full armor, I am a knight and have been doing it for almost 25 years, so I am pretty good and know what I am talking about. I used to fight quite a bit of two sword and I can tell you, that the Pathfinder two weapon fighting system is nowhere close to accurate. First of all, when you wield two weapons you generally have a better chance to hit someone, not a worse chance. Why? because your opponent now has to deal with attacks form more angles, so the -2 to hit on all attacks, is not realistic at all, its a game mechanic. I reality, you gain quite a bit of offense and give up defense over a shield. Also, in Pathfinder if we attack with only one weapon during a round we get full strength bonus, in reality for like 90% of the population, one arm is stronger then the other, so not having handedness is inaccurate, if simpler for gaming
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.
I think you're misunderstanding what the rules represent here. You can wield a weapon without actually using it, so a character might be holding a disrupting light mace in one hand and a wounding rapier in the other but would only actually fight with one or the other. This is effectively no different from holding a torch/wand/whatever in one hand and a weapon in the other, which I imagine you would agree would not incur the penalties. So wielding in and of itself should not be an issue.
When it comes to switching attacks between them without actually taking any extras, as I've said before I don't think you can do that. But for the sake of argument, let's say that same character has a Base Attack of +6, makes an attack with the rapier only to discover that his foe is undead, then makes an attack at his +1 iterative with the mace. I agree with you that neither weapon should be operating at peak efficiency in this case, but the rules actually already represent that. His rapier is only attacking at +6 instead of +6/+1 and the mace is only attacking at +1. He trades off effectiveness with the rapier for an attack with the mace. 'True' two weapon fighting hand would be +6/+1 with the rapier and +6/+1 with the mace with a -2 penalty across the board, because he is actually trying to fight effectively with both weapons at the same time, as opposed to starting with one and then switching to another, and suffers a loss in effectiveness as a result.
The reason I read it as wielding, rather than attack, is actually from personal experience.
why would you choose to interpret it as "wielding=penalties" and not "extra attack=penalties"? Is it game balance, fluff, precedent, or what?Ingenwulf,
Thank you for answering why you feel the rules work as you have been saying. Seriously.
IRL, attacking with a weapon in each hand is difficult, which I think is where the original TWF/penalty idea came from.
Not true at all, IRL attacking with two hands is easier, defending yourself while doing it is harder
When it comes to switching attacks between them without actually taking any extras, as I've said before I don't think you can do that.
Important question: why are we using the term 'switching' here?
Its a series of independant normal attacks at a decreasing attack bonus; its no different from attacking one round with one weapon and a different one the next, other than the interval between the attacks.
You aren't 'switching' weapons; you're making an attack with weapon X, and then you are making a different subsequent attack under identical restrictions you had for the first attack. If the first attack let you choose any available weapon, so should the second.
You aren't 'switching' weapons unless you're quickdrawing a new one, and its not indicated anywhere that this would be at all questionable.
I dont know. My left hand is pretty pathetic when it comes to hand-eye coordination, while my right has is blessed by some deity.
Theo:Does everyone(95% or better) do better TWF'ing in real life or do some people do better?
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?I'm not arguing glossing over the rules to make things less complicated, I'm arguing the rules as they are written, which includes all the complication associated with those rules. If you don't want the complication, you are using house rules to make your life easier.
As far as your scenario, it depends, did you declare that you were going to be attacking with both longswords? If you did, then one longsword is a primary hand attack, and the second longsword is an off hand attack. It doesn't matter that they are they same type of weapon, and once established you can't freely change the two. If your primary longsword got chomped during it's first attack, you could quick draw your second longsword to your primary hand, which would leave you with an unarmed strike for your off hand, and your remaining primary attacks can be made with the longsword. TWF penalties apply.
On the other hand, if you stated you were only going to attack with one of the longswords, and it gets chomped, you could quickdraw the other longsword to attack your remaining BAB iteration attacks. TWF penalties do not apply, because you were not wielding both weapons.
So besides the fact that there is fundamentally no difference, you would assume there is enough of a difference anyway and penalize the character?
What if you didn't have more than two swords? What if your first sword is rusted and you are left with one sword and your fist? Do you need Quick Draw to be able to use your fist as the primary attack? Are both your remaining attacks considered off-hand attacks?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I cleaned up some posts. Sometimes it's best to step back and cool down before posting.
When it comes to switching attacks between them without actually taking any extras, as I've said before I don't think you can do that.Important question: why are we using the term 'switching' here?
Its a series of independant normal attacks at a decreasing attack bonus; its no different from attacking one round with one weapon and a different one the next, other than the interval between the attacks.
You aren't 'switching' weapons; you're making an attack with weapon X, and then you are making a different subsequent attack under identical restrictions you had for the first attack. If the first attack let you choose any available weapon, so should the second.
You aren't 'switching' weapons unless you're quickdrawing a new one, and its not indicated anywhere that this would be at all questionable.
So if as you say "If the first attack let you choose any available weapon, so should the second." Then why shouldn't the bonus attacks granted by Two Weapon fighting??
So if as you say "If the first attack let you choose any available weapon, so should the second." Then why shouldn't the bonus attacks granted by Two Weapon fighting??
Oops, you're actually right here. But only because Improved Two Weapon Fighting specifically calls out the extra attack having to come from the same weapon.
Note: to clarify, ITWF calls out gaining a second attack with your off hand weapon. So you couldn't change that weapon.
|
|
So besides the fact that there is fundamentally no difference, you would assume there is enough of a difference anyway and penalize the character?What if you didn't have more than two swords? What if your first sword is rusted and you are left with one sword and your fist? Do you need Quick Draw to be able to use your fist as the primary attack? Are both your remaining attacks considered off-hand attacks?
Fundamentally no difference between what?
As far as the second paragraph, are you stating that you initiate the combat by wielding both swords and the primary gets chomped, or are you initiating the combat with one sword and the other is an empty hand?
Heh totally, first of all let me say that having a discussion of "real life" fighting as it pertains to this game is fairly useless, this game is a very abstracted simulation. I do SCA heavy fighting in full armor, I am a knight and have been doing it for almost 25 years, so I am pretty good and know what I am talking about. I used to fight quite a bit of two sword and I can tell you, that the Pathfinder two weapon fighting system is nowhere close to accurate. First of all, when you wield two weapons you generally have a better chance to hit someone, not a worse chance. Why? because your opponent now has to deal with attacks form more angles, so the -2 to hit on all attacks, is not realistic at all, its a game mechanic. I reality,...
While I agree that the game rules cannot hope to reflect reality, and that combat is abstracted, it is abstracted FROM reality. As I said before, and you have demonstrated, my experience will not be everyones. However my perception is filtered by my experience not yours, and the rules (as I read them) accord with my experience. Also you have 25 years of swordplay experience, think back to the difficulty you had when first picking up and using two weapons. Will you not admit it's trickier than sword and shield, or single sword until you have quite a bit of practice (which I would equate with buying the Two Weapon Feat)?
I dont know. My left hand is pretty pathetic when it comes to hand-eye coordination, while my right has is blessed by some deity.
Theo:Does everyone(95% or better) do better TWF'ing in real life or do some people do better?
Oh my left is much weaker then my right hand also, when I two weapon fight, I get far more kills with my right hand, but the threat of an attack from my left that has to be responded to with a block, makes my right far more likely to land.
I would not say most people do better TWF because their defense is severely limited by not having a shield. We are a "One stout shot to the head" kills you group, so missing even one block can loose you the fight, often too big a disadvantage to overcome even for the offensive benefit. There are people extremely talented at two weapon fighting, but they are not in the majority.
Important question: why are we using the term 'switching' here?Its a series of independant normal attacks at a decreasing attack bonus; its no different from attacking one round with one weapon and a different one the next, other than the interval between the attacks.
You aren't 'switching' weapons; you're making an attack with weapon X, and then you are making a different subsequent attack under identical restrictions you had for the first attack. If the first attack let you choose any available weapon, so should the second.
You aren't 'switching' weapons unless you're quickdrawing a new one, and its not indicated anywhere that this would be at all questionable.
I'm using 'switching' to denote starting a full attack with one weapon and then continuing that attack with a different weapon. You are 'switching' which weapon you are using in the full attack.
That is to say, I'm using it in exactly the same sense as if you switched weapons between full attacks on separate rounds. I'm noting that you are now using a different weapon than you were previously, not implying that you're sheathing one and drawing another or the like.It's questionable because of how primary and off hand weapons are described in the rules, such as in 2WF, one handed/light weapons, and shield bashes. It appears that when you attack you nominate one weapon to be your primary weapon, and all other weapons are off hand weapons.
Fundamentally no difference between what?
So besides the fact that there is fundamentally no difference, you would assume there is enough of a difference anyway and penalize the character?What if you didn't have more than two swords? What if your first sword is rusted and you are left with one sword and your fist? Do you need Quick Draw to be able to use your fist as the primary attack? Are both your remaining attacks considered off-hand attacks?
There is no difference, mechanically, between quick drawing and dropping your swords, and already having them both drawn and reading the Full Attack Rules the same way we are. Unless you are saying that Quick Draw is the key here. I don't believe it is though.
As far as the second paragraph, are you stating that you initiate the combat by wielding both swords and the primary gets chomped, or are you initiating the combat with one sword and the other is an empty hand?
I'm taking my first attack according to the rules for a Full Attack. I do not have to declare anything other than my first attack.
It's questionable because of how primary and off hand weapons are described in the rules, such as in 2WF, one handed/light weapons, and shield bashes. It appears that when you attack you nominate one weapon to be your primary weapon, and all other weapons are off hand weapons.
Whats funny is ITWF and GTWF both seem to treat your Off Hand weapon as a singular thing.
I'd almost say that what may be important to designate when two weapon fighting is which weapon is your Off Hand weapon, not which is your primary.
IE, which weapon are you getting your bonus attacks from?
Not true at all, IRL attacking with two hands is easier, defending yourself while doing it is harder
Come now, this is a very sweeping statement. In fencing, in my experience, it is easier to defend if one has a short, agile weapon which you use only to defend on body area. It is dependent on the style and nature of the combatant.
While, for you the statement may be right, not all others are you.
So if as you say "If the first attack let you choose any available weapon, so should the second." Then why shouldn't the bonus attacks granted by Two Weapon fighting??Oops, you're actually right here. But only because Improved Two Weapon Fighting specifically calls out the extra attack having to come from the same weapon.
Note: to clarify, ITWF calls out gaining a second attack with your off hand weapon. So you couldn't change that weapon.
so, two weapon fighting says
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.
And your argument is that the trigger for two weapon fighting is getting the extra attack, not wielding the weapon ion your off hand. By that argument aren't I wielding a weapon in my off hand regardless of whether I take the penalty or not? And if am, then aren't I changing which is my primary and off hand if I attack once with the right and once with the left without 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.
And your argument is that the trigger for two weapon fighting is getting the extra attack, not wielding the weapon ion your off hand. By that argument aren't I wielding a weapon in my off hand regardless of whether I take the penalty or not? And if am, then aren't I changing which is my primary and off hand if I attack once with the right and once with the left without two weapon fighting?
No, the trigger for two weapon fighting is wielding two weapons then deciding to fight with those two weapons in order to gain an extra attack. Doing this makes you subject to the restrictions and penalties of Two Weapon Fighting. This includes adding additional restrictions to how you make your attacks, such as a primary and off hand.
If you make a normal Full Attack, you are making a series of normal attacks which are no more related to one another than making an attack this round and a different one the next, beyond the fact that your bonus to hit decreases incrementally. Attack #1 can be with a different weapon from Attack #2, regardless of whether attack 1 happens in the same action as attack 2 or on the next round.
That is my argument.
I think you're misunderstanding what the rules represent here. You can wield a weapon without actually using it, so a character might be holding a disrupting light mace in one hand and a wounding rapier in the other but would only actually fight with one or the other. This is effectively no different from holding a torch/wand/whatever in one hand and a weapon in the other, which I imagine you would agree would not incur the penalties. So wielding in and of itself should not be an issue.
For me the rules represent the split of concentration required to effectively use a weapon in each hand. If no attempt is made to attack with the off-hand weapon then it is just being held (requiring no concentration) if it is used to attack, even as an iterative attack then it splits concentraion, effects stance and makes the whole series of attacks more tricky. Sub optimal unless you have trained yourself to use two weapons well in which case the penalty is lessened and you may as well use the expertise to have the extra attack.
|
|
So if as you say "If the first attack let you choose any available weapon, so should the second." Then why shouldn't the bonus attacks granted by Two Weapon fighting??Oops, you're actually right here. But only because Improved Two Weapon Fighting specifically calls out the extra attack having to come from the same weapon.
Note: to clarify, ITWF calls out gaining a second attack with your off hand weapon. So you couldn't change that weapon.
so, two weapon fighting says
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.
And your argument is that the trigger for two weapon fighting is getting the extra attack, not wielding the weapon ion your off hand. By that argument aren't I wielding a weapon in my off hand regardless of whether I take the penalty or not? And if am, then aren't I changing which is my primary and off hand if I attack once with the right and once with the left without two weapon fighting?
Think about it. Why would you take this MASSIVE penality, just because you had a weapon in your off hand?
So you are saying, that if I have a Longsword in my primary hand and a Dagger in my off-hand, that even if I don't attack with the Dagger at all, that attacking with the Longsword is -6?
Mind you that same off-hand could be holding a Shield and you would have no penality to the attack. Or actually anything in that hand and per the rules, you would have no penality...but if you have a weapon the primary attacks are -6
For me the rules represent the split of concentration required to effectively use a weapon in each hand. If no attempt is made to attack with the off-hand weapon then it is just being held (requiring no concentration) if it is used to attack, even as an iterative attack then it splits concentraion, effects stance and makes the whole series of attacks more tricky. Sub optimal unless you have trained yourself to use two weapons well in which case the penalty is lessened and you may as well use the expertise to have the extra attack.
But as Krispy has mentioned, the abstraction is not effectively using the same weapon in each hand - that's two weapon fighting with all its extra attacks. The abstraction is fighting with one weapon then switching to another, there is no difference in that respect between using the rapier in round 1 and switching to the mace in round 2 and using the rapier at +6 and switching to the mace at +1. In both cases you are only ever fighting with one weapon at a time.
Mind you that same off-hand could be holding a Shield and you would have no penality to the attack. Or actually anything in that hand and per the rules, you would have no penality...but if you have a weapon the primary attacks are -6
It is important to remember, that under the assumption that you take a penalty for simply wielding a weapon in the off hand (which I dont subscribe to), you are always taking this penalty.
Shields are weapons (they are on the list of weapons, and using them as a dinner plate does not remove them from this list, nor does using it as armor), as are Unarmed Strikes.
I'm just restating this because its REALLY absurd.
|
|
For me the rules represent the split of concentration required to effectively use a weapon in each hand. If no attempt is made to attack with the off-hand weapon then it is just being held (requiring no concentration) if it is used to attack, even as an iterative attack then it splits concentraion, effects stance and makes the whole series of attacks more tricky. Sub optimal unless you have trained yourself to use two weapons well in which case the penalty is lessened and you may as well use the expertise to have the extra attack.I think you're misunderstanding what the rules represent here. You can wield a weapon without actually using it, so a character might be holding a disrupting light mace in one hand and a wounding rapier in the other but would only actually fight with one or the other. This is effectively no different from holding a torch/wand/whatever in one hand and a weapon in the other, which I imagine you would agree would not incur the penalties. So wielding in and of itself should not be an issue.
Look you can't have it both ways. The way the sentences read. Either the penality is because you have a weapon in your off-hand or the penality is because you are making an EXTRA attack with that off-hand.
Nothing in those sentences or any other sentences in the book does it say that you get a penality for attacking with both hands as part of a Full Attack.
But as Krispy has mentioned, the abstraction is not effectively using the same weapon in each hand - that's two weapon fighting with all its extra attacks. The abstraction is fighting with one weapon then switching to another, there is no difference in that respect between using the rapier in round 1 and switching to the mace in round 2 and using the rapier at +6 and switching to the mace at +1. In both cases you are only ever fighting with one weapon at a time.
For me the rules represent the split of concentration required to effectively use a weapon in each hand. If no attempt is made to attack with the off-hand weapon then it is just being held (requiring no concentration) if it is used to attack, even as an iterative attack then it splits concentraion, effects stance and makes the whole series of attacks more tricky. Sub optimal unless you have trained yourself to use two weapons well in which case the penalty is lessened and you may as well use the expertise to have the extra attack.
With the exception that you have to assign a primary hand each round rather than each attack . Even if your BAB allows extra attacks it does not create extra rounds.
With the exception that you have to assign a primary hand each round rather than each attack . Even if your BAB allows extra attacks it does not create extra rounds.
Oh sweet, thats awesome! That you found a quote saying you have to do this.
Can we have a link?
Or does it not exist?
Because as far as I know, there's nothing saying you have to assign this unless you're using Two Weapon Fighting; otherwise you're just making a series of normal attacks.
|
So um... I dont think we are going to clear this up with the rules as currently available.
*Pulls out popcorn*
Some thoughts from outside the argument: Some people are arguing rules as they consider reasonable, others are arguing rules as written.
Here are the topics I see people arguing over. Feel free to add anything that I missed:
1. What qualifies as wielding? Just having the ability to make an attack with it? Declaring it as part of your attack routine?
2. Can you alternate between multiple limbs for iterative attacks?
3. If you can: Do you suffer twf penalties for doing so (leaving the extra twf attacks out of it).
Personally what I consider reasonable does not seem to match up with rules as written. I think rules as written still match up with SKR in 3.x where he said you can only make iterative attacks with your primary hand, and attacks from other limbs only occur as a benefit of extra attacks from twf. In PF thats whatever hand you designate for that round. However, I acknowledge that being able to alternate is more interesting, and not unbalancing.
I dont think this argument will go anywhere until there is an official ruling, however.
And this mostly affects RAW. How I run my game wont change, but whether or not how I do iteratives is a houserule or not will be defined by the official answer.
At the number of houserules I already have, I dont care if I add one more paragraph.
But feel free to continue arguing. Youre not making any progress.
and I still say one side is "The rules should work like this" and the other side is "the rules dont support your idea."
Look you can't have it both ways. The way the sentences read. Either the penality is because you have a weapon in your off-hand or the penality is because you are making an EXTRA attack with that off-hand.Nothing in those sentences or any other sentences in the book does it say that you get a penality for attacking with both hands as part of a Full Attack.
Here we go again. I thought that I had made at least this part of my thinking clear, even if you don't agree with it.
It is not the having of a weapon in the off hand that makes me believe the TWF rules apply. It is the use of that secondary weapon within the combat round.
Weapon held in off hand...no penalty.
Use of weapon in off hand for attack (any attack whether iterative or extra...penalty.
Use of only off hand weapon....no penalty as it can then be considered primary hand.
So if as you say "If the first attack let you choose any available weapon, so should the second." Then why shouldn't the bonus attacks granted by Two Weapon fighting??Oops, you're actually right here. But only because Improved Two Weapon Fighting specifically calls out the extra attack having to come from the same weapon.
Note: to clarify, ITWF calls out gaining a second attack with your off hand weapon. So you couldn't change that weapon.
so, two weapon fighting says
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.
And your argument is that the trigger for two weapon fighting is getting the extra attack, not wielding the weapon ion your off hand. By that argument aren't I wielding a weapon in my off hand regardless of whether I take the penalty or not? And if am, then aren't I changing which is my primary and off hand if I attack once with the right and once with the left without two weapon fighting?
Think about it. Why would you take this MASSIVE penality, just because you had a weapon in your off hand?
So you are saying, that if I have a Longsword in my primary hand and a Dagger in my off-hand, that even if I don't attack with the Dagger at all, that attacking with the Longsword is -6?
Mind you that same off-hand could be holding a Shield and you would have no penality to the attack. Or actually anything in that hand and per the rules, you would have no penality...but if you have a weapon the primary attacks are -6
I am not saying that at all. , only if you attack with the dagger would you get the penalty in my book
With the exception that you have to assign a primary hand each round rather than each attack . Even if your BAB allows extra attacks it does not create extra rounds.
That's what I think too, and why I don't think you can switch between weapons (although in practice I would let players do it since it seems like a non-issue). But that's not really what we're talking about here. The question is whether "fighting this way" in 2WF refers to having (or using if you allow it) the second weapon, or to making extra attacks with it. Your argument that the second weapon is distracting so the penalties would reasonably apply without the extra attack has nothing to do with whether or not the weapon counts as primary, and does not provide a reason why penalties should apply for switching weapons during a round but not between rounds. That is to say, pointing out that the weapon counts as off hand by the rules does not indicate that changing weapons during a round rather than between rounds must accrue penalties or is more distracting.
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.
And your argument is that the trigger for two weapon fighting is getting the extra attack, not wielding the weapon ion your off hand. By that argument aren't I wielding a weapon in my off hand regardless of whether I take the penalty or not? And if am, then aren't I changing which is my primary and off hand if I attack once with the right and once with the left without two weapon fighting?
No, the trigger for two weapon fighting is wielding two weapons then deciding to fight with those two weapons in order to gain an extra attack. Doing this makes you subject to the restrictions and penalties of Two Weapon Fighting. This includes adding additional restrictions to how you make your attacks, such as a primary and off hand.
If you make a normal Full Attack, you are making a series of normal attacks which are no more related to one another than making an attack this round and a different one the next, beyond the fact that your bonus to hit decreases incrementally. Attack #1 can be with a different weapon from Attack #2, regardless of whether attack 1 happens in the same action as attack 2 or on the next round.
That is my argument.
That is a decent argument, but I think applying the concept of on and off handedness only when applying two weapon fighting is dumb and inconsistent and while you argued it elegantly, I still think its only one of two possible interpretations. To further clarify, does that mean if I have three attacks per round and am declaring two weapon fighting and have knee spikes a sword and an axe, I could not attack once with my sword as primary, once with mt knee spikes as primary, another with my sword as primary and then once with my axe as secondary, because by the very nature of declaring Two weapon fighting I had to lock in my primary and secondary weapons?
That is a decent argument, but I think applying the concept of on and off handedness only when applying two weapon fighting is dumb and inconsistent and while you argued it elegantly, I still think its only one of two possible interpretations. To further clarify, does that mean if I have three attacks per round and am declaring two weapon fighting and have knee spikes a sword and an axe, I could not attack once with my sword as primary, once with mt knee spikes as primary, another with my sword as primary and then once with my axe as secondary,...
I do not know why not. As long as your off hand remains set (ITWF and GTWF seem to think its singular) you should be able to treat your normal set of attacks normally... all of them taking the appropriate penalties for TWF of course (though they should be primary hand).
I will say this: I grow more and more convinced that the system is woefully unclear on dealing with the fact that a level 6 fighter can easily have 4 modes of attack available for each attack at any given time (sword, shield, armor spikes, unarmed strikes). It seems that the system only really assumes you're going to want to use the Sword and the Shield, though with the varying types of DR and damage type triggered effects floating about, thats not really a great assumption.
That is a decent argument, but I think applying the concept of on and off handedness only when applying two weapon fighting is dumb and inconsistent and while you argued it elegantly, I still think its only one of two possible interpretations. To further clarify, does that mean if I have three attacks per round and am declaring two weapon fighting and have knee spikes a sword and an axe, I could not attack once with my sword as primary, once with mt knee spikes as primary, another with my sword as primary and then once with my axe as secondary,...I do not know why not. As long as your off hand remains set (ITWF and GTWF seem to think its singular) you should be able to treat your normal set of attacks normally... all of them taking the appropriate penalties for TWF of course (though they should be primary hand).
I will say this: I grow more and more convinced that the system is woefully unclear on dealing with the fact that a level 6 fighter can easily have 4 modes of attack available for each attack at any given time (sword, shield, armor spikes, unarmed strikes). It seems that the system only really assumes you're going to want to use the Sword and the Shield, though with the varying types of DR and damage type triggered effects floating about, thats not really a great assumption.
So you have to declare you off hand, but not your primary hand? Doesn't having an offhand imply you have a primary hand? even more confusing :)
And yea I agree with the woefully unclear comment. Hopefully it will get clarified a bit
With the exception that you have to assign a primary hand each round rather than each attack . Even if your BAB allows extra attacks it does not create extra rounds.Oh sweet, thats awesome! That you found a quote saying you have to do this.
Can we have a link?
Or does it not exist?
Because as far as I know, there's nothing saying you have to assign this unless you're using Two Weapon Fighting; otherwise you're just making a series of normal attacks.
In the section regarding multiple attacks for natural weapons.
"You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used for each attack. For example, you cannot make a claw attack and also use that hand to make attacks with a longsword. When you make additional attacks in this way, all of your natural attacks are treated as secondary natural attacks, using your base attack bonus minus 5 and adding only 1/2 of your Strength modifier on damage rolls." -PRD. Which addresses primary and secondary allocations for attacks with natural weapons, however "In addition, all of your attacks made with melee weapons and unarmed strikes are made as if you were two-weapon fighting. Your natural attacks are treated as light, off-hand weapons for determining the penalty to your other attacks. Feats such as Two-Weapon Fighting and Multiattack can reduce these penalties."
Natural attacks work the way some people are reading the iterative attacks rule. As you can see melee and unarmed attacks are treated differently from the natural attacks, and invoke the TWF rule
With the exception that you have to assign a primary hand each round rather than each attack . Even if your BAB allows extra attacks it does not create extra rounds.Oh sweet, thats awesome! That you found a quote saying you have to do this.
Can we have a link?
Or does it not exist?
Because as far as I know, there's nothing saying you have to assign this unless you're using Two Weapon Fighting; otherwise you're just making a series of normal attacks.
In the section regarding multiple attacks for natural weapons.
"You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used for each attack. For example, you cannot make a claw attack and also use that hand to make attacks with a longsword. When you make additional attacks in this way, all of your natural attacks are treated as secondary natural attacks, using your base attack bonus minus 5 and adding only 1/2 of your Strength modifier on damage rolls." -PRD. Which addresses primary and secondary allocations for attacks with natural weapons, however "In addition, all of your attacks made with melee weapons and unarmed strikes are made as if you were two-weapon fighting. Your natural attacks are treated as light, off-hand weapons for determining the penalty to your other attacks. Feats such as Two-Weapon Fighting and Multiattack can reduce these penalties."
Natural attacks work the way some people are reading the iterative attacks rule. As you can see melee and unarmed attacks are treated differently from the natural attacks, and invoke the TWF rule
The references to twf in the natural attack section are in error. They don't apply. The correct rules are in the bestiary and should be in the errata.
The references to twf in the natural attack section are in error. They don't apply. The correct rules are in the bestiary and should be in the errata.
I can only work with the tools given, the current online PRD.
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.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?
But by your house rule, this is three weapon fighting. Not two weapon fighting.
The references to twf in the natural attack section are in error. They don't apply. The correct rules are in the bestiary and should be in the errata.I can only work with the tools given, the current online PRD.
For the reading impaired:
Bestiary = "Creatures with natural attacks and attacks made with weapons can use both as part of a full attack action (although often a creature must forgo one natural attack for each weapon clutched in that limb, be it a claw, tentacle, or slam). Such creatures attack with their weapons normally but treat all of their natural attacks as secondary attacks during that attack, regardless of the attack's original type."
Core = "You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used for each attack. For example, you cannot make a claw attack and also use that hand to make attacks with a longsword. When you make additional attacks in this way, all of your natural attacks are treated as secondary natural attacks, using your base attack bonus minus 5 and adding only 1/2 of your Strength modifier on damage rolls. In addition, all of your attacks made with melee weapons and unarmed strikes are made as if you were two-weapon fighting. Your natural attacks are treated as light, off-hand weapons for determining the penalty to your other attacks. Feats such as Two-Weapon Fighting and Multiattack can reduce these penalties."
So Bestiary says "weapon attacks are made normally" and the Core book says "weapon attacks are made with two-weapon fighting penalties".
Ah.
Part of the problem, alas, is that this is a rules mechanic that Jason was wrestling with up to the very last second.
The Bestiary rules are correct. The part in the core rules that contradicts this is a fragment, alas, that stuck in there. It should be cleaned up, I agree. It's unfortunate that the confusion is in there, but again, as far as I understand the game and as far as I've been using the rules for the last several volumes of Pathfinder, the rules from the Bestiary are the correct ones.
|
|
I am not saying that at all. , only if you attack with the dagger would you get the penalty in my bookSo if as you say "If the first attack let you choose any available weapon, so should the second." Then why shouldn't the bonus attacks granted by Two Weapon fighting??Oops, you're actually right here. But only because Improved Two Weapon Fighting specifically calls out the extra attack having to come from the same weapon.
Note: to clarify, ITWF calls out gaining a second attack with your off hand weapon. So you couldn't change that weapon.
so, two weapon fighting says
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.
And your argument is that the trigger for two weapon fighting is getting the extra attack, not wielding the weapon ion your off hand. By that argument aren't I wielding a weapon in my off hand regardless of whether I take the penalty or not? And if am, then aren't I changing which is my primary and off hand if I attack once with the right and once with the left without two weapon fighting?
Think about it. Why would you take this MASSIVE penality, just because you had a weapon in your off hand?
So you are saying, that if I have a Longsword in my primary hand and a Dagger in my off-hand, that even if I don't attack with the Dagger at all, that attacking with the Longsword is -6?
Mind you that same off-hand could be holding a Shield and you would have no penality to the attack. Or actually anything in that hand and per the rules, you would have no penality...but if you have a weapon the primary attacks are -6
But there is nothing in the rules that state that. Yours and other peoples entire defense of the penality is based on the two lines from the Two Weapon Fighting paragraph. You argument is that you have a penality when fighting with an off hand weapon. I say the penality is only if you actually use the EXTRA attack.
So if you are correct that the penality is because of the off hand weapon, than you should still have it even if you don't use it.
Now, if you are saying that your point is an opinion.....than say that. Stop trying to hide behind two sentences that do not support your position.
|
|
The problem with using the Beastiary rules is that they do not take into account BAB. Yes in many cases the multible attacks from a creature do follow the -5 per rule, but there are just as many cases where it never reduces or they only have 1 attack at full with no progression.
You can't use Beast rules for Character combat.
The problem with using the Beastiary rules is that they do not take into account BAB. Yes in many cases the multible attacks from a creature do follow the -5 per rule, but there are just as many cases where it never reduces or they only have 1 attack at full with no progression.
You can't use Beast rules for Character combat.
The BAB does not matter. Whether the BAB is 1 or 100 the penalties, which is what the difference is about, will be the same.
In short it is saying that after I make my attacks based on BAB(1 or 100) that my penalty on attack rolls for natural attacks is -5
If you need proof then check the bestiary.
Here is one example
Troglodyte CR 1
XP 400
CE Medium humanoid (reptilian)
Init –1; Senses darkvision 90 ft.; Perception +0
Aura stench (30 ft., DC 13, 10 rounds)
Defense
AC 15, touch 9, flat-footed 15 (–1 Dex, +6 natural)
hp 13 (2d8+4)
Fort +7, Ref –1, Will +0
Offense
Speed 30 ft.
Melee club +2 (1d6+1), claw –3 (1d4), bite –3 (1d4) or2 claws +2 (1d4+1), bite +2 (1d4+1)
The claw and bite are -5 off from the club.
The problem with using the Beastiary rules is that they do not take into account BAB. Yes in many cases the multible attacks from a creature do follow the -5 per rule, but there are just as many cases where it never reduces or they only have 1 attack at full with no progression.
You can't use Beast rules for Character combat.
I don't see the problem. The Bestiary is clear that you get one attack at full bonus with each of your primary natural attacks and no iteratives (see rust monster and ettercap), and one attack with each of your secondary attacks at -5 with half strength bonus to damage and no iteratives (see nightmare and tarrasque). If you combine attacks with manufactured weapons and naturals, you get normal attacks including iteratives for the weapons and all natural attacks are taken as secondary attacks (see salamander, marilith, and minotaur). There's nothing contradictory or incompatible there.
If the attack roll penalties as listed under the Two-Weapon Fighting core rules subsection applied when taking iterative attacks with multiple weapons, rather than only being applied when actually two-weapon fighting to gain an extra attack... you would have to apply two-weapon fighting attack penalties any time you make a trip combat maneuver plus a weapon attack with iterative attacks (unless using a trip weapon or fighting unarmed).
You would also form some sort of reality-tearing rules conflict if, for example, you attacked with a longsword and then made a trip with the second iterative, because the two-weapon fighting penalty would have to be applied to the first attack despite not needing to specify you're tripping with the second iterative until after the first attack.
The damage done by following this perverse rules interpretation would free Rovagug and end creation. For this reason alone, we should probably accept the argument that RAW you can use a separate attack form/weapon for iterative attacks without incurring two-weapon fighting penalties.