The benefit is an extra attack that you CAN (not must) make on your full attack.
Yeah, and in this case you get the penalties. If you do not make the extra attack, you do NOT get the penalties.
How often do devs remind the players of basic rules? Hm?
From Half Orcs, "•Toothy: Some Half-orcs’ vestigial tusks are massive and sharp, granting a bite attack. This is a primary natural attack that deals 1d4 points of piercing damage. This racial trait replaces the orc ferocity racial trait."
Animal Fury, "While raging, the barbarian gains a bite attack. If used as part of a full attack action, the bite attack is made at the barbarian's full base attack bonus –5. (Clarified by developers to have been written with the assumption the player is full attacking with a weapon, as convenient reminder text, and does NOT overwrite the fact that this is still a normal bite.) If the bite hits, it deals 1d4 points of damage (assuming the barbarian is Medium; 1d3 points of damage if Small) plus half the barbarian's Strength modifier"
Those are the two examples that keep coming to the forefront of my mind, I'm sure there are others.
Both of these reiterate parts of the rules which are clearly outlined elsewhere for convenience and ease of use.
|
If you need proof then check the bestiary.
Here is one example
The claw and bite are -5 off from the club.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)
You can't mix and match like that. Why isn't the Bite in the first attack example -8? Why are they allowed to attack with a weapon in I'm assuming their primary hand at full attack and their off-hand claw at only -5? If you are using this as an example of the penalities for Two Weapon Fighting, then the club should be -4 [2 - 6] and the claw should be -8 [2 - 10] and I won't even deal with the bite. Also for the secondary attack, the Trog is using two weapons, two claws, yet no penality.
You're example doesn't fit your position. Because monster attacks are MADE UP! They don't follow BAB.
You can't use Beast rules for Characters.
------------------
On a side note: What do you do with a character that has a bite attack and +6/+1? If they attack with a sword as the +6 attack and the bite as the +1 attack, are you going to impose a Two Weapon Fighting penalty?
Quick, semi-related question:
Would swapping the weapons you're holding in your hands count as a Free Action?
The rules say only "CAN", not "MUST".Yeah, and in this case you get the penalties. If you do not make the extra attack, you do NOT get the penalties.
The benefit is an extra attack that you CAN (not must) make on your full attack.
The rules also specify which attacks take penalties under 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"
Attacks which are not the bolded attacks do not take penalties for Two Weapon Fighting, ever.
You'll note I also highlighted the word 'and', because that pretty strongly associates the penalties together; you shouldn't have one penalty if the other isn't also there.
More likely, though, it seems this will probably just be ignored.
|
|
How often do devs remind the players of basic rules? Hm?From Half Orcs, "•Toothy: Some Half-orcs’ vestigial tusks are massive and sharp, granting a bite attack. This is a primary natural attack that deals 1d4 points of piercing damage. This racial trait replaces the orc ferocity racial trait."
Animal Fury, "While raging, the barbarian gains a bite attack. If used as part of a full attack action, the bite attack is made at the barbarian's full base attack bonus –5. (Clarified by developers to have been written with the assumption the player is full attacking with a weapon, as convenient reminder text, and does NOT overwrite the fact that this is still a normal bite.) If the bite hits, it deals 1d4 points of damage (assuming the barbarian is Medium; 1d3 points of damage if Small) plus half the barbarian's Strength modifier"
Those are the two examples that keep coming to the forefront of my mind, I'm sure there are others.
Both of these reiterate parts of the rules which are clearly outlined elsewhere for convenience and ease of use.
You missed another one:
Dragon Bite (Ex)
At 2nd level, whenever the dragon disciple uses his bloodline to grow claws, he also gains a bite attack. This is a primary natural attack that deals 1d6 points of damage (1d4 if the dragon disciple is Small), plus 1–1/2 times the dragon disciple’s Strength modifier. Upon reaching 6th level, this bite also deals 1d6 points of energy damage. The type of damage dealt is determined by the dragon disciple's bloodline.
I only know this one off the top of my head because I have one in my current campaign.
How often do devs remind the players of basic rules? Hm?From Half Orcs, "•Toothy: Some Half-orcs’ vestigial tusks are massive and sharp, granting a bite attack. This is a primary natural attack that deals 1d4 points of piercing damage. This racial trait replaces the orc ferocity racial trait."
Animal Fury, "While raging, the barbarian gains a bite attack. If used as part of a full attack action, the bite attack is made at the barbarian's full base attack bonus –5. (Clarified by developers to have been written with the assumption the player is full attacking with a weapon, as convenient reminder text, and does NOT overwrite the fact that this is still a normal bite.) If the bite hits, it deals 1d4 points of damage (assuming the barbarian is Medium; 1d3 points of damage if Small) plus half the barbarian's Strength modifier"
Those are the two examples that keep coming to the forefront of my mind, I'm sure there are others.
Both of these reiterate parts of the rules which are clearly outlined elsewhere for convenience and ease of use.
You missed another one:
Dragon Bite (Ex)
At 2nd level, whenever the dragon disciple uses his bloodline to grow claws, he also gains a bite attack. This is a primary natural attack that deals 1d6 points of damage (1d4 if the dragon disciple is Small), plus 1–1/2 times the dragon disciple’s Strength modifier. Upon reaching 6th level, this bite also deals 1d6 points of energy damage. The type of damage dealt is determined by the dragon disciple's bloodline.I only know this one off the top of my head because I have one in my current campaign.
Oh man! Its like they could have just said it works like a Dragons bite, but instead of pointlessly referring you elsewhere they just told you that you get str and a half instead!
The rules say only "CAN", not "MUST".
The rules don't say "must" (or "MUST" in your example) because if you were forced to take an extra attack but already killed every valid target, you would have nothing to attack but yourself, making two weapon fighting a very dangerous proposition.
The rules say only "CAN", not "MUST".
Certainly you can take a penalty without taking the benefit.
but this only make sense in a situation in which you would have taken the benefit.
In this case the evidence would point to not being able to attack with your off hand weapon with your iterative attacks.
Meaning that the only time in which you would be able to attack with your off hand would be if you were going to use your extra attack that you "CAN", not "MUST" take.
Do you understand?
If you were never planing on taking your extra attack then you were never planing on using the TWF special attack. which means you can't receive the TWF penalties.
The evidence also prove that it is possible to attack with your off hand without taking the penalties(although it requires an extraordinary ability.)
If you need proof then check the bestiary.
Here is one example
The claw and bite are -5 off from the club.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)
You can't mix and match like that. Why isn't the Bite in the first attack example -8? Why are they allowed to attack with a weapon in I'm assuming their primary hand at full attack and their off-hand claw at only -5? If you are using this as an example of the penalities for Two Weapon Fighting, then the club should be -4 [2 - 6] and the claw should be -8 [2 - 10] and I won't even deal with the bite. Also for the secondary attack, the Trog is using two weapons, two claws, yet no penality.
You're example doesn't fit your position. Because monster attacks are MADE UP! They don't follow BAB.
You can't use Beast rules for Characters.
------------------
On a side note: What do you do with a character that has a bite attack and +6/+1? If they attack with a sword as the +6 attack and the bite as the +1 attack, are you going to impose a Two Weapon Fighting penalty?
I'm not 100% clear on what you're getting at here, but you do know that the part of the Natural Attack rules that refer to TWF are in complete error right? (the Bestiary version is correct, as corroborated by the example troglodyte from the bestiary)
The only penalty to natural attacks when combined with weapon attacks is that the natural attacks become secondary, regardless of their original type, and it generally requires you to give up a natural attack to wield a weapon in a limb.
Quick, semi-related question:
Would swapping the weapons you're holding in your hands count as a Free Action?
moving a weapon into an empth hand: maybe.
seapping two weapons: probably a move or standard action.
dropping a weapon is free.
Shield Fighter (Ex): At 5th level, a shielded fighter gains a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls when making a shield bash. These bonuses increase by +1 every four levels beyond 5th. With a full attack action, a shielded fighter may alternate between using his weapon or his shield for each attack. This action does not grant additional attacks or incur penalties as two-weapon fighting does. This ability replaces weapon training 1.I think someone probably posted this already and I skipped it. Sorry.
This is an example of using two weapons out of TWF special attack. but because it's mentioned here it seems that it might not be possible to use the off hand weapon for iterative attacks. That is Not possible without this ability.
This is the type of evidence that I was talking about.
I don't think that this is strong evidence supporting that two-weapons always uses the two-weapon fighting rules.
The sentence: "With a full attack action, a shielded fighter may alternate between using his weapon or his shield for each attack." Could simply be letting players know that this is an option that we can easily see the shielded fighter using.
The sentence: "This action does not grant additional attacks or incur penalties as two-weapon fighting does." Is a reminder that this is not the same as the Special Attack, Two-Weapon Fighting. If he wants the extra attack, he needs to use the Special Attack.
That's how I read it anyway.
Shield Fighter (Ex): At 5th level, a shielded fighter gains a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls when making a shield bash. These bonuses increase by +1 every four levels beyond 5th. With a full attack action, a shielded fighter may alternate between using his weapon or his shield for each attack. This action does not grant additional attacks or incur penalties as two-weapon fighting does. This ability replaces weapon training 1.I think someone probably posted this already and I skipped it. Sorry.
This is an example of using two weapons out of TWF special attack. but because it's mentioned here it seems that it might not be possible to use the off hand weapon for iterative attacks. That is Not possible without this ability.
This is the type of evidence that I was talking about.
I don't think that this is strong evidence supporting that two-weapons always uses the two-weapon fighting rules.
The sentence: "With a full attack action, a shielded fighter may alternate between using his weapon or his shield for each attack." Could simply be letting players know that this is an option that we can easily see the shielded fighter using.
The sentence: "This action does not grant additional attacks or incur penalties as two-weapon fighting does." Is a reminder that this is not the same as the Special Attack, Two-Weapon Fighting. If he wants the extra attack, he needs to use the Special Attack.
That's how I read it anyway.
Bob, it hurts me to say it, but I believe these sorts of arguments are being dismissed as 'Cripplingly damaging to the opposing argument' and simply being declared as weak no matter how much support we throw out from the books.
I find it interesting that we can find a convoluted way to use multiple weapons using the Base Attack and its iterative attacks, which we pretty much agree could happen. Whatever happened to Occam's Razor?
So I could have a +11 Base Attack, quick draw a sickle to help me trip, then drop it. Use my +6 and quick draw a longsword that I have specialized in so I can take advantage of the extra damage (I can use it two-handed) and the bonus to hit on the attack of opportunity I just created, then drop it. Use my +1 and quick draw my dagger because I see that I am about to get swallowed whole by the monster coming my way but since I still have an attack, I will make sure the guy I just attacked gets one more just because I can.
Or, I could just use the sickle in one hand to trip and then use the longsword to attack with the lower base attack. I would still have the sickle or longsword to attack the tripped foe and have the sickle in hand for the oncoming monster that is about to swallow me whole.
BTW. You keep repeating "extra attack" over and over and over again. It's not "extra" attack. It's "any" attack made with your "off-hand".
The two weapon fighting rules are unarguably explicit that only the extra attack with your off hand takes a penalty.
Again.
"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."
Not any attack. The attack.
Your quoted statement is flat out untrue, and the quote I have here clearly illustrates that.
And that is correct. But they are bringing up a situation where you DO. What now?
A rip in the space time continuum. TPK. end of discussion.
The GM tells the player he can't do that and he doesn't.
In other words you can't.
"You can't play bio shock on the Wii"
"ooh, but what if you DO"
*face palm*
Ahem, Can anyone show me a rule supporting attacking with a weapon in each hand an not taking penalties. I just looked through the Combat section of the PRD and not once did I see the word iterative attacks and nothing about attacking with weapons in each hand, save Two Weapon Fighting. Almost 1000 posts because people are try to squeeze more power out of the game for their characters and not occasionally take a few penalties. That being said show me something saying you can and I'll agree 100% as I'm sure most other posters will
@Bob_Loblaw, It's the Shield Fighters Class Feature, if it was to remind everyone that they can do this, it would be in the Combat Section, or the Extra Rules Section of the APG. Under the Rogue features it says he can Sneak Attack, can my Wizard then because if I can fight as a Shield Fighter I should be able to Sneak Attack as a Rogue
BTW. You keep repeating "extra attack" over and over and over again. It's not "extra" attack. It's "any" attack made with your "off-hand".
There is no "off-hand" attack unless you are using the Two-Weapon Fighting Rules. The Two-Weapon Fighting Rules grant an extra attack with your off-hand. You do not have an off-hand all the time.
Meaning that the only time in which you would be able to attack with your off hand would be if you were going to use your extra attack that you "CAN", not "MUST" take.And when do you decide that you want to use your secondary attack?
You declare that you are using two-weapon fighting before you begin your full attack. This is the same no matter which side of the argument you fall on, is it not? I was saying there is no rule in the entire rule set that grants you something extra that you "must" use, possibly with exceptions but not in this case.
BTW. You keep repeating "extra attack" over and over and over again. It's not "extra" attack. It's "any" attack made with your "off-hand".
Exqueeze me? I don't keep repeating anything. I put my opinion like 4000 posts ago and now I just pop in once in a while to say how silly this thread has become and I found the idea that you "must" do anything in this game amusing, so I popped in. If you really didn't notice my actual posting tendencies in this thread, I think this is a good reason why this thread has just become an "us vs. them" arguwar and not a discussion that is going anywhere.
Incidentally, the "extra attack" part is the exact wording from the TWF section so I'm not sure what you're getting at... ;)
I find it interesting that we can find a convoluted way to use multiple weapons using the Base Attack and its iterative attacks, which we pretty much agree could happen. Whatever happened to Occam's Razor?
So I could have a +11 Base Attack, quick draw a sickle to help me trip, then drop it. Use my +6 and quick draw a longsword that I have specialized in so I can take advantage of the extra damage (I can use it two-handed) and the bonus to hit on the attack of opportunity I just created, then drop it. Use my +1 and quick draw my dagger because I see that I am about to get swallowed whole by the monster coming my way but since I still have an attack, I will make sure the guy I just attacked gets one more just because I can.
Or, I could just use the sickle in one hand to trip and then use the longsword to attack with the lower base attack. I would still have the sickle or longsword to attack the tripped foe and have the sickle in hand for the oncoming monster that is about to swallow me whole.
I think the logic/common sense ruling method has been thrown out in favor of the "I'm right, you're wrong, lalalalalalalalala" approach. There's lots of quotes being tossed about (or the same one being posted repeatedly) to support positions, but they're just being summarily ignored.
Ahem, Can anyone show me a rule supporting attacking with a weapon in each hand an not taking penalties. I just looked through the Combat section of the PRD and not once did I see the word iterative attacks and nothing about attacking with weapons in each hand, save Two Weapon Fighting. Almost 1000 posts because people are try to squeeze more power out of the game for their characters and not occasionally take a few penalties. That being said show me something saying you can and I'll agree 100% as I'm sure most other posters will
@Bob_Loblaw, It's the Shield Fighters Class Feature, if it was to remind everyone that they can do this, it would be in the Combat Section, or the Extra Rules Section of the APG. Under the Rogue features it says he can Sneak Attack, can my Wizard then because if I can fight as a Shield Fighter I should be able to Sneak Attack as a Rogue
donaldsangry, point out the difference in the following situations to me.
I have a sword in hand 1 and a shield in hand 2.
I attack with my sword.
I attack with my shield.
Situation 1: I do this with an Attack action over two rounds. Situation 2: I use a full attack action with BAB 6+ and do it in one round.
In both cases, I have made two normal attacks in sequence. Situation 1 is clearly legal, why isn't situation 2? The Full Attack rules do not indicate iterative attacks are not normal attacks made in a sequence, in fact it indicates they are (they must be made in order, from highest bonus to lowest, not all at the same time).
There is no rule (we've been over it) that states that attacking with two weapons over any period of time is two weapon fighting; there is a rule on the other hand that deals with taking an extra attack by fighting with both weapons at once, which involves penalties.
Ahem, Can anyone show me a rule supporting attacking with a weapon in each hand an not taking penalties. I just looked through the Combat section of the PRD and not once did I see the word iterative attacks and nothing about attacking with weapons in each hand, save Two Weapon Fighting. Almost 1000 posts because people are try to squeeze more power out of the game for their characters and not occasionally take a few penalties. That being said show me something saying you can and I'll agree 100% as I'm sure most other posters will
How is anyone trying to get more power? No one has managed to show how it is more powerful to alternate your weapons without taking an extra attack. Even those who think that you can, can't find a way that you would be more powerful.
As we have mentioned many times, the only times that Two-Weapon Fighting is mentioned, there is an additional attack granted beyond what you are allowed by virtue of your Base Attack. If you aren't getting that extra attack, we don't think you should be getting the penalties.
@Bob_Loblaw, It's the Shield Fighters Class Feature, if it was to remind everyone that they can do this, it would be in the Combat Section, or the Extra Rules Section of the APG. Under the Rogue features it says he can Sneak Attack, can my Wizard then because if I can fight as a Shield Fighter I should be able to Sneak Attack as a Rogue
I explained why I felt the sentences were written the way they were. If your wizard has a shield in one hand and a weapon in the other, then he can also use them the way I said. It is an explanation of how a shielded fighter can attack. It does not mean that others can't do this as well. The benefit the shield fighter gets is the +1 to hit and damage for every 4 levels.
Ahem, Can anyone show me a rule supporting attacking with a weapon in each hand an not taking penalties.
Okay, so there is no evidence that you can attack with your off hand weapon except when using the TWF special attack.
Meaning that you can only use your off hand weapon as an extra attack that give all your attacks penalties for that action.
But it might still be possible. After all there are some things that have been confirmed as possible which the rules don't specify are possible.
Such as disarming/sundering something that isn't a weapon.
Okay, so there is no evidence that you can attack with your off hand weapon except when using the TWF special attack.
Is there any rule which states which weapons may not be used to make a normal melee attack?
This is important because if there is not, then its irrelevant which hand you're holding a weapon in during a normal attack, because you just resolve it as a normal melee attack.
So as long as my wizard has a shield and ax (dwarf) in hand and wants to not spend any spells he can 5' step in to flanking and attack with his shield and Ax (BAB +6) and get the sneak attack too?
BTW. You keep repeating "extra attack" over and over and over again. It's not "extra" attack. It's "any" attack made with your "off-hand".The two weapon fighting rules are unarguably explicit that only the extra attack with your off hand takes a penalty.
Again.
"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."
Not any attack. The attack.
Your quoted statement is flat out untrue, and the quote I have here clearly illustrates that.
You're presuming you can attack with both weapons outside the context of TWF, which is precisely the issue to be determined. If you can do so, then your interpretation would be correct. However, the argument is you cannot do so, and there is a good chunk of evidence to support the claim. Repeating this argument is simply begging the question.
You're presuming you can attack with both weapons outside the context of TWF, which is precisely the issue to be determined. If you can do so, then your interpretation would be correct. However, the argument is you cannot do so, and there is a good chunk of evidence to support the claim. Repeating this argument is simply begging the question.
Would you like to tackle my other point then?
The full attack rules clearly state that attacks based on BAB are in sequence, from highest to lowest.
This is no different from how attacks from round to round are in sequence, one after another.
So what does it matter if I make a right hand attack, followed by a left hand one in one round rather than over two?
No where am I restricted in which available weapon I may use to make a normal attack, so therefore it seems I should be able to use a weapon of my choosing (on the other hand, I can think of at least one FAQ that indicates I may choose which weapon to attack with when attacking).
No where is a time period specified where making an attack with each weapon within it that it suddenly becomes two weapon fighting.
@Bob_Loblaw, It's the Shield Fighters Class Feature, if it was to remind everyone that they can do this, it would be in the Combat Section, or the Extra Rules Section of the APG. Under the Rogue features it says he can Sneak Attack, can my Wizard then because if I can fight as a Shield Fighter I should be able to Sneak Attack as a RogueI explained why I felt the sentences were written the way they were. If your wizard has a shield in one hand and a weapon in the other, then he can also use them the way I said. It is an explanation of how a shielded fighter can attack. It does not mean that others can't do this as well. The benefit the shield fighter gets is the +1 to hit and damage for every 4 levels.
Or, it is there because it is clarifying that it is an exception to the ordinary TWF mechanic. The reading makes more sense to me. It is an exception that proves the rule.
Ahem, Can anyone show me a rule supporting attacking with a weapon in each hand an not taking penalties.Okay, so there is no evidence that you can attack with your off hand weapon except when using the TWF special attack.
Meaning that you can only use your off hand weapon as an extra attack that give all your attacks penalties for that action.
But it might still be possible. After all there are some things that have been confirmed as possible which the rules don't specify are possible.
Such as disarming/sundering something that isn't a weapon.
Disarm
You can attempt to disarm your opponent in place of a melee attack. If you do not have the Improved Disarm feat, or a similar ability, attempting to disarm a foe provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver. Attempting to disarm a foe while unarmed imposes a –4 penalty on the attack.
If your attack is successful, your target drops one item it is carrying of your choice (even if the item is wielded with two hands). If your attack exceeds the CMD of the target by 10 or more, the target drops the items it is carrying in both hands (maximum two items if the target has more than two hands). If your attack fails by 10 or more, you drop the weapon that you were using to attempt the disarm. If you successfully disarm your opponent without using a weapon, you may automatically pick up the item dropped.
Sunder
You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack. If you do not have the Improved Sunder feat, or a similar ability, attempting to sunder an item provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver.
If your attack is successful, you deal damage to the item normally. Damage that exceeds the object's Hardness is subtracted from its hit points. If an object has equal to or less than half its total hit points remaining, it gains the broken condition (see Conditions). If the damage you deal would reduce the object to less than 0 hit points, you can choose to destroy it. If you do not choose to destroy it, the object is left with only 1 hit point and the broken condition.
Quick read of the rules and you can disarm and sunder wands, weapons, scrolls, rocks, potions, wondrous items and so on
Or, it is there because it is clarifying that it is an exception to the ordinary TWF mechanic. The reading makes more sense to me. It is an exception that proves the rule.
Its possible, but that would also make Shield Fighter one heck of a huge exception to the rule of how Weapon Training replacement abilities generally work, which seems unlikely to me.
Especially since we have many other examples of reminder text in abilities like it.
Shield Fighter (Ex): At 5th level, a shielded fighter gains a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls when making a shield bash. These bonuses increase by +1 every four levels beyond 5th. With a full attack action, a shielded fighter may alternate between using his weapon or his shield for each attack. This action does not grant additional attacks or incur penalties as two-weapon fighting does. This ability replaces weapon training 1.
You are trivializing a feature that a 5th level shield fighter has by giving it to everyone. And read the bold statement With a full attack action, a shielded fighter not everyone and the Shiled fighter, THE SHIELD FIGHTER!
|
|
If you need proof then check the bestiary.
Here is one example
The claw and bite are -5 off from the club.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)
You can't mix and match like that. Why isn't the Bite in the first attack example -8? Why are they allowed to attack with a weapon in I'm assuming their primary hand at full attack and their off-hand claw at only -5? If you are using this as an example of the penalities for Two Weapon Fighting, then the club should be -4 [2 - 6] and the claw should be -8 [2 - 10] and I won't even deal with the bite. Also for the secondary attack, the Trog is using two weapons, two claws, yet no penality.
You're example doesn't fit your position. Because monster attacks are MADE UP! They don't follow BAB.
You can't use Beast rules for Characters.
------------------
On a side note: What do you do with a character that has a bite attack and +6/+1? If they attack with a sword as the +6 attack and the bite as the +1 attack, are you going to impose a Two Weapon Fighting penalty?
I'm not 100% clear on what you're getting at here, but you do know that the part of the Natural Attack rules that refer to TWF are in complete error right? (the Bestiary version is correct, as corroborated by the example troglodyte from the bestiary)
The only penalty to natural attacks when combined with weapon attacks is that the natural attacks become secondary, regardless of their original type, and it generally requires you to give up a natural attack to wield a weapon in a limb.
No, I get it. His arguement is that you should get the TWF penalty even if you don't use the extra attack and he is using the Monster rules as justification. I'm telling him he is nuts because you can't mix the two rules.
|
|
Shield Fighter (Ex): At 5th level, a shielded fighter gains a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls when making a shield bash. These bonuses increase by +1 every four levels beyond 5th. With a full attack action, a shielded fighter may alternate between using his weapon or his shield for each attack. This action does not grant additional attacks or incur penalties as two-weapon fighting does. This ability replaces weapon training 1.
You are trivializing a feature that a 5th level shield fighter has by giving it to everyone. And read the bold statement With a full attack action, a shielded fighter not everyone and the Shiled fighter, THE SHIELD FIGHTER!
No, we are saying that you are emphasizing the wrong part of the ability. That the true bonus is the +1 att/dam per 4 levels and that your bolded sentence is just a heads up on something you can do. Something anyone can do.
You're presuming you can attack with both weapons outside the context of TWF, which is precisely the issue to be determined. If you can do so, then your interpretation would be correct. However, the argument is you cannot do so, and there is a good chunk of evidence to support the claim. Repeating this argument is simply begging the question.Would you like to tackle my other point then?
The full attack rules clearly state that attacks based on BAB are in sequence, from highest to lowest.
This is no different from how attacks from round to round are in sequence, one after another.
So what does it matter if I make a right hand attack, followed by a left hand one in one round rather than over two?
No where am I restricted in which available weapon I may use to make a normal attack, so therefore it seems I should be able to use a weapon of my choosing (on the other hand, I can think of at least one FAQ that indicates I may choose which weapon to attack with when attacking).
No where is a time period specified where making an attack with each weapon within it that it suddenly becomes two weapon fighting.
This goes back to my point last night. You're now attempting to concoct any instance under the sun in which to create a seeming contradiction or undesired result. This isn't a mathematical proof - one odd, convoluted counterexample to a theorem does not disprove the simplest application of this rule. And frankly, this little exercise doesn't even lead to a contradiction.
Generally speaking, any time you make more than one attack in a round, it is a full round action. TWF is a full round action. If you attack with both hands in the same round, you are TWF. A round seems like the natural, clear time limit to place. If you can reassign which weapon is primary in each round, you can reassign which hand you are or are not going to attack with in each round. It leads to absurdity to say that you are two weapon fighting now because in three rounds, you might choose to attack with your other hand. Whether you disagree with my interpretation or not, this line of argument isn't going to help resolve any issues because it's patently ridiculous.
Attack once a round in two rounds is an entirely separate scenario than attacking once each with two weapons in one round. This is both obvious and irrelevant to a determination of the issue at hand.
No, we are saying that you are emphasizing the wrong part of the ability. That the true bonus is the +1 att/dam per 4 levels and that your bolded sentence is just a heads up on something you can do. Something anyone can do.
Most importantly, we're trying to point out that all similar archetypes gain the attack and damage bonuses, and nothing else; this would mean that IF the Shield Fighter gain and additional ability, they are a complete abberation among fighter archetypes.
After all there are some things that have been confirmed as possible which the rules don't specify are possible.
Such as disarming/sundering something that isn't a weapon.
Quick read of the rules and you can disarm and sunder wands, weapons, scrolls, rocks, potions, wondrous items and so on
Drat defeated.
Still there are some rules that aren't specified especially for corner cases where the rules didn't take into account specific.
A better place to look for example are the other rules that have been FAQ'ed.
"Elven accuracy and displacement" is a great example.
The final ruling is that you can close your eyes.
Not all things that are allowed are listed.
|
|
Ahem, Can anyone show me a rule supporting attacking with a weapon in each hand an not taking penalties. I just looked through the Combat section of the PRD and not once did I see the word iterative attacks and nothing about attacking with weapons in each hand, save Two Weapon Fighting. Almost 1000 posts because people are try to squeeze more power out of the game for their characters and not occasionally take a few penalties. That being said show me something saying you can and I'll agree 100% as I'm sure most other posters will
@Bob_Loblaw, It's the Shield Fighters Class Feature, if it was to remind everyone that they can do this, it would be in the Combat Section, or the Extra Rules Section of the APG. Under the Rogue features it says he can Sneak Attack, can my Wizard then because if I can fight as a Shield Fighter I should be able to Sneak Attack as a Rogue
Ahem, can you show me anywhere in the text that says you can't switch between weapons as a full action? The only thing I see is a penalty if you get an EXTRA attack during that full action with your other weapons.
As for squeezing out more power in the game.....what extra power are you talking about? Personally I think the whole idea is just more combat flavor than anything else. I can only think of a handful of reasons you would even want to do this:
1. You want to do a Shield bash, but not take the full TWF. So you do less damage than your sword, but get a chance to do some bashing things
2. You have a weapon that does a nice effect once per round, but doesn't do a lot of damage. This way you get the effect off, but than can do real damage with your off-hand [less 1/2 STR in my opinion]
3. You are fighting both zombies and skeletons and need a slashing and blunt weapon. [Thanks Krispy for that one]
4. You have a Tripping weapon and want to use that as either your primary attack or secondary attack to help with a Trip.
99% of all people are going to have a primary weapon that does more damage than any other weapon in their golf bag. We aren't breaking the natural law here, just coming up with a little combat flavor, that in my opinion is perfectly reasonable.
No, we are saying that you are emphasizing the wrong part of the ability. That the true bonus is the +1 att/dam per 4 levels and that your bolded sentence is just a heads up on something you can do. Something anyone can do.Shield Fighter (Ex): At 5th level, a shielded fighter gains a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls when making a shield bash. These bonuses increase by +1 every four levels beyond 5th. With a full attack action, a shielded fighter may alternate between using his weapon or his shield for each attack. This action does not grant additional attacks or incur penalties as two-weapon fighting does. This ability replaces weapon training 1.
You are trivializing a feature that a 5th level shield fighter has by giving it to everyone. And read the bold statement With a full attack action, a shielded fighter not everyone and the Shiled fighter, THE SHIELD FIGHTER!
That does not in any way read like reminder text (particularly since it's not referencing anything written anywhere else in the rules). It reads like an exception much more than simply explanatory text.
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.
A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons, but he incurs all the normal attack penalties associated with two-weapon combat, just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon.
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way.
I'd say you can infer at the very least that you do not suffer two-weapon fighting penalties for either weapon unless you take advantage of the extra attack. The question in my head now is more along the lines of would the "second weapon" only (by the rules) apply 1/2 Strength bonus to the damage result? Starting to miss Ambidexterity.
This goes back to my point last night. You're now attempting to concoct any instance under the sun in which to create a seeming contradiction or undesired result. This isn't a mathematical proof - one odd, convoluted counterexample to a theorem does not disprove the simplest application of this rule. And frankly, this little exercise doesn't even lead to a contradiction.
What? I have two clear situations, and I'm asking you to find a problem with it in the rules.
Generally speaking, any time you make more than one attack in a round, it is a full round action.
Generally, yes.
TWF is a full round action.
Yup.
If you attack with both hands in the same round, you are TWF.
This is your invention and is not stated in the rules of the game anywhere.
A round seems like the natural, clear time limit to place.
It may, but its not in the rules, and therefore is irrelevant.
A round seems like the natural, clear time limit to place.
A full round action isn't a full round long. A full round action is your rounds worth of actions for your turn but it isn't a round long.
Attacks of Opportunity don't suffer TWF penalties unless they occur on your TWF special attack action.
|
I was last in this thread ... over four-hundred posts ago. I have read everything in between then and now with a look of dull disbelief. I only just now realized that this thread is reproducing, its first spin-off thread on handedness having just been born.
Schools of rules-thought have become entrenched here. I advise all new arrivals in this thread to just reference back to Asuna's thorough post on the matter here and then wait for a developer to weigh in.
Personal Views:
- Alone, grammar ambiguous enough to cause this much argument is too ambiguous to make decisive rulings on.
- Two-Weapon Fighting is listed as a special attack and therefore requires some degree of choice on whether or not it is applied. The alternative is a larger set of clarifications and exceptions for all cases where one hand or arm is burdened (such as when climbing, carrying a bag, holding a lantern, holding a leg of mutton which may or may not be an improvised weapon, etc.)
- All people are "wielding" multiple weapons at all times (fists, spikes, rude words, etc.) and defining wielding as "active use" is cumbersome at best (see point above).
- Archetype rules are poor sources to reference for rules support, given the degree of redundancy-for-emphasis in them and comparatively poorer editing relative to the Core.
- GM adjudication would have ended this same debate in minutes if not seconds.
- Combinations of free-action hand-switching, the Quickdraw feat, dropping held items and more can introduce circumstances analogous to holding and attacking with two weapons.
- Holding two separate weapons penalizes (no 1.5 STR to damage for two-handedness, no free hand for emergencies, additional cost of acquiring additional weapon, etc.) as much as it aids (ability to carry weapons of different materials, enchantments, damage types, etc.)
- Various natural weapon attacks may be added to a Full Attack action without influencing the modifiers of the Iterative attack progression.
- Having the option to use TWF but not using it is suboptimal in the majority of cases.
- Therefore, my personal belief is that because it does not constitute a competitive advantage except in rare circumstances and because it introduces fewer complications/exceptions, iterative attacks acquired via BAB may be split among whatever weapons are available as appropriate in any given Full Attack action. While I acknowledge ambiguity exists, I believe this to be consistent with the language of the rules concerning Full Attack and Two Weapon Fighting and less complicated than the alternative interpretation which demands further exceptions and clarifications.
- Separate but related to this line of logic is a general sentiment that anything that needlessly (i.e. without a clear mechanical or thematic aim in mind) cuts off options -- especially options that won't rock the Optimization boat -- detracts from the game.
Found this interesting:
Shield Bash Attacks: You can bash an opponent with a heavy shield, using it as an off-hand weapon. See “shield, heavy” on Table: Weapons for the damage dealt by a shield bash. Used this way, a heavy shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon. For the purpose of penalties on attack rolls, treat a heavy shield as a one-handed weapon. If you use your shield as a weapon, you lose its AC bonus until your next turn. An enhancement bonus on a shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but the shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right.
These rules actually make it seem like a Shield may only be used as an off-hand weapon. Never really noticed that before. Of course, I wouldn't have any issue houseruling the ability to use a Shield as a primary attack, but it seems clear that Shield Bash is a secondary weapon only per RAW. Also, that's a reference to off-hand weapons without explicit reference to TWF, for what it's worth.
The reference to penalties is inconclusive (though obviously I would argue that it implies that whenever it is used for an attack, penalties apply, specifically, TWF penalties since it is an "off-hand" attack).
Found this interesting:
Shield Bash Attacks: You can bash an opponent with a heavy shield, using it as an off-hand weapon. See “shield, heavy” on Table: Weapons for the damage dealt by a shield bash. Used this way, a heavy shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon. For the purpose of penalties on attack rolls, treat a heavy shield as a one-handed weapon. If you use your shield as a weapon, you lose its AC bonus until your next turn. An enhancement bonus on a shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but the shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right.These rules actually make it seem like a Shield may only be used as an off-hand weapon. Never really noticed that before. Of course, I wouldn't have any issue houseruling the ability to use a Shield as a primary attack, but it seems clear that Shield Bash is a secondary weapon only per RAW. Also, that's a reference to off-hand weapons without explicit reference to TWF, for what it's worth.
The reference to penalties is inconclusive (though obviously I would argue that it implies that whenever it is used for an attack, penalties apply, specifically, TWF penalties since it is an "off-hand" attack).
Read the FAQ. This has been addressed, officially, there.
|
|
Okay, let me ask the people that are for the penalty for using the off-hand during a Full Attack.
Why are we giving someone the same penalty when they are not using that action to it's full benefit?
Example:
6th lvl fighter. Longsword and shortsword.
If they just attack with one and than the other, and give them the penalty, they are +2 for the Longsword and -7 for the shortsword.
Or if they use their extra attack for TWF, they are +2 for Longsword, -3 for Longsword and -2 for shortsword.
Why the hell would anyone even attack that way? Using TWF as it is stated, not only do you get an extra attack, but the second Longsword attack and the Shorsword attack have a much higher chance to hit than the secondary shortsword attack.
Last time I checked we don't penalize people worse for not using an ability to it's full potential.
Okay, let me ask the people that are for the penalty for using the off-hand during a Full Attack.
Why are we giving someone the same penalty when they are not using that action to it's full benefit?
Example:
6th lvl fighter. Longsword and shortsword.
If they just attack with one and than the other, and give them the penalty, they are +2 for the Longsword and -7 for the shortsword.
Or if they use their extra attack for TWF, they are +2 for Longsword, -3 for Longsword and -2 for shortsword.
Why the hell would anyone even attack that way? Using TWF as it is stated, not only do you get an extra attack, but the second Longsword attack and the Shorsword attack have a much higher chance to hit than the secondary shortsword attack.
Last time I checked we don't penalize people worse for not using an ability to it's full potential.
I think the rules are ambiguous enough that they could be interpreted both ways. Basically, it's going to boil down to whether your GM wants to be nice/fair (not penalizing a decision that yields no mechanical benefit so as not to punish someone for aesthetic playstyle) or not.