|
I believe I understand you now. You mean, if two weapon fighting, with a BAB of +6 or higher, do you add full strength to an attack used by a hand that previously attacked with a different weapon, and was considered primary? Yes, imagine if you were doing so with thrown weapons, it will make understanding it a bit easier.Not quite. Perhaps it's easiest if I put it this way. You have a longsword in your right hand and a dagger in your left. You attack with your longsword as your primary weapon, applying your full str bonus to damage, and your dagger as your off-hand weapon, applying half your str bonus to damage. But you still have an iterative attack. If you now choose to deliver your iterative attack with your dagger (note this is not the attack from TWF, but the attack from having a high enough BAB), do you apply your full str bonus or half your str bonus to the attack?
But this question itself hinges on the question in the OP, which is whether you can deliver iterative attacks using a different weapon from the weapon used in the first attack.
Once your TWF you now have an off hand and your iterative attacks are
Made with your primary
In this particular case, I would suggest one would just grab the double slice feat and avoid the whole headache.
I think the intent is that the player decides what sort of attack sequence they're gonna do, and apply all the penalties. Your opponent dropped in one hit? Oh well you took a full round. Opponent could have dropped in one hit but you missed by 2? Whoops, sorry, tough luck.
Which means that the TWF penalties absolutely DO NOT need to apply just because you are wielding a second weapon (and indeed, as Trikk pointed out, everyone does).
So the real and final question is, what's the deal off-hand? Why you causin problems? I was originally under the impression that handedness was gone from PF. I got lied to.
By the rules, I'm going to have to guess that the player must decide, on each strike, if it's the primary or off-hand weapon that's being swung on the iterative. (So why wouldn't you just swing with primary every time? I guess burst weapons or something I dunno.)
You do not get TWF penalties if you are not making extra attacks, if you only make one attack in a round when holding two weapons you do not get TWF penalties, making itterative attacks without additional attacks is much the same. Nothing unbalanced or illogical about it.
|
You do not get TWF penalties if you are not making extra attacks, if you only make one attack in a round when holding two weapons you do not get TWF penalties, making itterative attacks without additional attacks is much the same. Nothing unbalanced or illogical about it.
Not by the rules, you should go back and read the thread as it deals with this and what people say. Jumping in on page three and making a declaration doesn't help anyone, it just add fire to the whole thing, especially as you did not state anything that supports your declaration.
It is entirely possible that in my ramblings I have nearly derailed my own thread. Please refer to the opening post for the main issue in question.
Well I am going to sleep.
Good night, and don't get sneak attacked! =D
You do not get TWF penalties if you are not making extra attacks, if you only make one attack in a round when holding two weapons you do not get TWF penalties, making itterative attacks without additional attacks is much the same. Nothing unbalanced or illogical about it.Not by the rules, you should go back and read the thread as it deals with this and what people say. Jumping in on page three and making a declaration doesn't help anyone, it just add fire to the whole thing, especially as you did not state anything that supports your declaration.
And you shouldn't assume that your declaration is the correct one. Many, many people disagree with your interpretation of RAW.
And you shouldn't assume that your declaration is the correct one. Many, many people disagree with your interpretation of RAW.You do not get TWF penalties if you are not making extra attacks, if you only make one attack in a round when holding two weapons you do not get TWF penalties, making itterative attacks without additional attacks is much the same. Nothing unbalanced or illogical about it.Not by the rules, you should go back and read the thread as it deals with this and what people say. Jumping in on page three and making a declaration doesn't help anyone, it just add fire to the whole thing, especially as you did not state anything that supports your declaration.
Well, throwaway statements aside, this thread has yielded some good points that shed some light on the issue, firstly that a weapon does not become an "offhand weapon" simply by virtue of being held whilst a weapon in the other hand is being used (as evidenced indirectly but rather conclusively from the rules on shield-bashing), and secondly that you are not dual-wielding simply by virtue of holding two weapons (by virtue of the unarmed attacks illustration).
Still nothing conclusive though on the primary question of whether iterative attacks need to be delivered with the same weapon as the primary attack, so may I humbly request that if any party has light to shed on this issue they do so giving their reasons based on the rules, and if not kindly FAQ the OP so we can all find out what the real answer is? =)
This is the way I look at it from the way the rules are read. The moment you choose to swing two weapons in a round you have a primary hand and a secondary hand attack. Your primary hand is always going to take the primary hand penalty to attack and the primary bonus to damage...this would also lead us to believe that your secondary hand will always take the the secondary hand penalty to attack and the secondary bonus to damage. If you look at someone putting a beating on someone with a staff using it for it's two weapon properties they would hit a person with the primary end first and do full strength damage and then pivot the secondary end around and hit them with the secondary strength damage. You would not however be able to justify spinning the staff in your hand and hitting them with the second end of the staff with your primary hand and doing primary strength damage...this would be saying you are using two weapon fighting rules with one hand just to gain a second attack...so going on that same logic, a sixth level fighter with a BAB of +6/+1 would be able to with his first attack beat on an opponent with his first primary attack and get primary strength bonus, and with his secondary attack if he chose to beat on someone with the second end of the staff for reasons of multiple enchantments on the staff lets say, he would pivot the other end around and strike with his off hand and do off hand damage with his second attack, unless of course you allow him to spin his staff as a free action all "Little John" style and strike with the second end in his primary hand. That is the way I visualize it.
On to the second part of the discussion, the TWF feat allows you to make an extra attack with your "off hand weapon" in a full round attack...the feat itself is not causing the two weapon fighting penalties it is just allowing an extra attack with the penalties for fighting with two weapons already in place...which are 1/2 strength bonus for an off hand weapon strike and the penalties to attack respectively. Why would there ever be feats like the multiple Two Weapon Fighting feats and Double Slice in the first place if one could just ignore all of the penalties by fighting with two hands with a full round attack by the time you reached a +6 BAB. Also why would the game designers take the time to create alternate character abilities that supported game mechanics that did not exist:
From Shielded Fighter Fighter Archetype in Advanced Player's Guide:
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 [b]or incur penalties as two-weapon fighting does.[b/]
This ability replaces Weapon Training 1.
From Two Weapon Warrior Fighter Archetype in Advanced Player's Guide:
Doublestrike (Ex)
At 9th level, a two-weapon warrior may, as a standard action, make one attack with both his [b]primary and secondary weapons. The penalties for attacking with two weapons apply normally.[b/]
This ability replaces Weapon Training 2.
It seems like they would not have taken the time to clarify that attacking with two weapons penalties did or did not qualify for the situation and that there were indeed primary and secondary weapons if this was not the case.
No the two weapon fighting feat does not allow you to take the extra attack. You could do that already. The two weapon fighting feat simply reduces the penalties.
I am sorry Mr. Spalding I should have said allows you to make an attack with your off hand weapon at a reduced penalty. I should have proof read a little more closely.
I also forgot to add the point about using a Defending weapon in your off hand strictly for for it's bonus to AC. This would not function as attacking with two weapons if the Defending weapon was never actually used in the attack, thus no penalty to attack. Thanks!
I am sorry Mr. Spalding I should have said allows you to make an attack with your off hand weapon at a reduced penalty. I should have proof read a little more closely.
I also forgot to add the point about using a Defending weapon in your off hand strictly for for it's bonus to AC. This would not function as attacking with two weapons if the Defending weapon was never actually used in the attack, thus no penalty to attack. Thanks!
Defending Weapon Property: Do I have to make attack rolls with the weapon to gain its AC bonus?Yes. Merely holding a defending weapon is not sufficient. Unless otherwise specified, you have to use a magic item in the manner it is designed (use a weapon to make attacks, wear a shield on your arm so you can defend with it, and so on) to gain its benefits.
Therefore, if you don't make an attack roll with a defending weapon on your turn, you don't gain its defensive benefit.
Likewise, while you can give a shield the defending property (after you've given it a +1 enhancement bonus to attacks, of course), you wouldn't get the AC bonus from the defending property unless you used the shield to make a shield bash that round--unless you're using the shield as a weapon (to make a shield bash), the defending weapon property has no effect.—Sean K Reynolds, 06/06/11
This is another example given from the Inner Sea Primer.
Rondelero Duelist (Taldor) Fighter Archetype.
Strong Swing (Ex)
At 5th level, a rondelero gains a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls when wielding a falcata and buckler that applies to attacks made by either hand. These bonuses increase by +1 for every four levels beyond 5th. [b]With a full-attack action, a rondelero may alternate between using his falcata or his buckler for each attack. This does not grant additional attacks or incur penalties as two-weapon fighting does.[b/]
This ability replaces Weapon Training 1.
This is another example given from the Inner Sea Primer.
Rondelero Duelist (Taldor) Fighter Archetype.
Strong Swing (Ex)
At 5th level, a rondelero gains a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls when wielding a falcata and buckler that applies to attacks made by either hand. These bonuses increase by +1 for every four levels beyond 5th. [b]With a full-attack action, a rondelero may alternate between using his falcata or his buckler for each attack. This does not grant additional attacks or incur penalties as two-weapon fighting does.[b/]
This ability replaces Weapon Training 1.
I had forgotten about that one. I guess that is the intent then even though I won't penalize someone for flavor in a game I am running.
Nice find on the Defending point...Thanks!
So can someone define wielding for me as in what the action is and when I have to decide.
Also Do you DM's in the Weilding = penalties make your whip fighters who Can't threathen suddenly start taking penalties on thier AoO from greater trip if they use a weapon thats in the other hand?
Edit removed the thing about the duelist archetype realized i was off on that one.
This is another example given from the Inner Sea Primer.
Rondelero Duelist (Taldor) Fighter Archetype.
Strong Swing (Ex)
At 5th level, a rondelero gains a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls when wielding a falcata and buckler that applies to attacks made by either hand. These bonuses increase by +1 for every four levels beyond 5th. [b]With a full-attack action, a rondelero may alternate between using his falcata or his buckler for each attack. This does not grant additional attacks or incur penalties as two-weapon fighting does.[b/]
This ability replaces Weapon Training 1.
First off this could be another Polearm Fighter thing.
Second does this mean that the Shielded fighter takes TWF penalties when he uses his abiliity?
This is another example given from the Inner Sea Primer.
Rondelero Duelist (Taldor) Fighter Archetype.
Strong Swing (Ex)
At 5th level, a rondelero gains a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls when wielding a falcata and buckler that applies to attacks made by either hand. These bonuses increase by +1 for every four levels beyond 5th. [b]With a full-attack action, a rondelero may alternate between using his falcata or his buckler for each attack. This does not grant additional attacks or incur penalties as two-weapon fighting does.[b/]
This ability replaces Weapon Training 1.
First off this could be another Polearm Fighter thing.
Second does this mean that the Shielded fighter takes TWF penalties when he uses his abiliity?
*bashes head on keyboard* I was just about to buy the argument till you brought up the Polearm Fighter precedent.
Also, I assume that the shielded fighter ability you are referring to is this one.
"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."
In this case at least it specifically distinguishes such an action from two weapon fighting, and so does not incur the penalties.
Actually, for that matter, this raises an interesting point. The shielded fighter and rondelero abilities seem to suggest that alternating between two weapons for each attack in a full attack is NOT two weapon fighting , since it specifically distinguishes such an action from two weapon fighting. The question then becomes whether such an option is a general option that we are merely reminded of here, (as was the case in the polearm fighter incident) or do the rules simply not allow you to alternate between weapons in a full attack generally.
Actually, for that matter, this raises an interesting point. The shielded fighter and rondelero abilities seem to suggest that alternating between two weapons for each attack in a full attack is NOT two weapon fighting , since it specifically distinguishes such an action from two weapon fighting. The question then becomes whether such an option is a general option that we are merely reminded of here, (as was the case in the polearm fighter incident) or do the rules simply not allow you to alternate between weapons in a full attack generally.
I hope it's not the latter. Weapon throwers are already weak enough as it is.
Why does the game push so heavily for certain character builds and not others? Play a mobile skirmisher or a weapons thrower and you are CRAP compared to other builds.
Actually, for that matter, this raises an interesting point. The shielded fighter and rondelero abilities seem to suggest that alternating between two weapons for each attack in a full attack is NOT two weapon fighting , since it specifically distinguishes such an action from two weapon fighting. The question then becomes whether such an option is a general option that we are merely reminded of here, (as was the case in the polearm fighter incident) or do the rules simply not allow you to alternate between weapons in a full attack generally.I hope it's not the latter. Weapon throwers are already weak enough as it is.
Why does the game push so heavily for certain character builds and not others? Play a mobile skirmisher or a weapons thrower and you are CRAP compared to other builds.
Not really. Mobile skirmishers are pretty good if you don't have to worry about defending another squishy target. As a mobile skirmisher, you don't deal full attacks, but also ensure that full attacks are not dealt to you. Very effective against builds/enemies that excel at full attacks, provided the full-attacker does not have the option of simply mowing down a party member.
So if your party consists of a flying wizard, a levitating oracle and a burrowing druid, a mobile skirmisher would probably work better than a full-armour tank.
Question: can I, without the Two Weapon Fighting feat, deliver the first attack with my axe, and the next two attacks with my scimitar (i.e. axe attack with +13, and then two scimitar attacks at +8 and +3 respectively)?Edit: also, would the attacks with the scimitar only gain half my str bonus to damage, or the full bonus?
In Skip Williams Article "Two-Handed Fighting (Part One)" he states:
Attacks with the off hand take a -4 penalty on the attack roll (see page 311 in the Player's Handbook) and only half the character’s Strength bonus (rounded down) applies to damage from the attack. Fighting with a weapon in each hand brings even bigger penalties.
He also states that:
The game rules don’t really care about whether you’re right-handed or left-handed, and it’s even OK to change your off hand designation from one round to the next.
and:
When fighting with two weapons, you gain one extra attack with your off-hand weapon when you use the full attack action. If you have a high base attack bonus, you gain iterative attacks only with your primary weapon.
In 3.5 the answer to your first question is no.
The -4 apparently didn't transfer to pathfinder but having weapons in your off hand did:
One-Handed: A one-handed weapon can be used in either the primary hand or the off hand. Add the wielder's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with a one-handed weapon if it's used in the primary hand, or 1/2 his Strength bonus if it's used in the off hand.
also:
Force Athame (Sp): At 2nd level, a spellblade magus can sacrifice a prepared magus spell of 1st level or higher as a swift action to create a dagger of force in his off hand.
I would definitely apply 1/2 strength to one of your attacks each round if you are using two weapons in each hand because one of your hands has to be your off hand.
|
I'm surprised there is so much debate about this two weapon thing.
Not taking into account any feats, monk abilities, magic, prestige classes, or archetypes that allows a character to "break/bend" the rules: iterative attacks are to be used by the weapon that made the attack on the first iteration; the extra weapon only allows one extra attack. It's not a situation where your alternating attacks are done with different hands; all of your main attacks are made with one hand and the other hand allows you to get one extra attack.
Furthermore, the TWF penalties only apply when the player intends to utilize both weapons during a full attack.
If the player is making an attack as a standard action, he does so using either weapon, with no TWF penalty.
If he does a full attack but doesn't want the TWF penalty, he chooses one weapon to make all iterative attacks, and is unable to use the other weapon for that round.
If he feels he might want to use the second weapon, he must apply the TWF penalty to all attacks he makes that round with all iterative attacks being made by one weapon and the extra attack made by the second.
With regards to the original poster, if the first attack was made with an axe, the remaining two attacks (assuming a BAB of +13) must also be made with the axe, and a fourth attack may be made using the scimitar, with the scimitar using 1/2 strength to damage.
On the other hand, the player may opt for the three attacks to be made with the scimitar, and the extra attack made by the axe. In that event, the axe would use 1/2 strength to damage.
These two examples would, of course, have the attack modifiers adjusted by the appropriate TWF penalty.
TWF penalties apply to thrown weapons if the player is making an extra attack beyond his available iterations OR In a situation where the player specifically states that he is throwing a weapon from each hand. Just because he is throwing multiple projectiles doesn't automatically require him to apply the TWF penalties.
Hanger please cite rules or your just rehashing the thread.
Question: can I, without the Two Weapon Fighting feat, deliver the first attack with my axe, and the next two attacks with my scimitar (i.e. axe attack with +13, and then two scimitar attacks at +8 and +3 respectively)?Edit: also, would the attacks with the scimitar only gain half my str bonus to damage, or the full bonus?
In Skip Williams Article "Two-Handed Fighting (Part One)" he states:
Attacks with the off hand take a -4 penalty on the attack roll (see page 311 in the Player's Handbook) and only half the character’s Strength bonus (rounded down) applies to damage from the attack. Fighting with a weapon in each hand brings even bigger penalties.He also states that:
The game rules don’t really care about whether you’re right-handed or left-handed, and it’s even OK to change your off hand designation from one round to the next.and:
When fighting with two weapons, you gain one extra attack with your off-hand weapon when you use the full attack action. If you have a high base attack bonus, you gain iterative attacks only with your primary weapon.In 3.5 the answer to your first question is no.
The -4 apparently didn't transfer to pathfinder but having weapons in your off hand did:
One-Handed: A one-handed weapon can be used in either the primary hand or the off hand. Add the wielder's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with a one-handed weapon if it's used in the primary hand, or 1/2 his Strength bonus if it's used in the off hand.also:
Force Athame (Sp): At 2nd level, a spellblade magus can sacrifice a prepared magus spell of 1st level or higher as a swift action to create a dagger of force in his off hand.I would definitely apply 1/2 strength to one of your attacks each round if you are using two weapons in each hand because one of your hands has to be your off hand.
Thanks Karl, this had shed light on the 3.5 position. It remains to be seen if this rule has held over the transition to Pathfinder- they are, after all, *ahem* completely separate and distinct rule systems for similar but different games. Now let me just pull my tongue out of my cheek.
This does, however, spell some degree of doom for a character with two javelins and who wishes to throw them both with a full round action. Rather amusingly, even if we assume he has the quick draw feat, he is (at least in 3.5) considered to be dual wielding if he has both javelins in hand...but if he has one of them tucked in his quiver of Ehlo...I mean....efficient quiver, he is not dual wielding and can throw the first at his full bonus and the second at 5 less than his full bonus.
Which brings back to weilding vs held again and needing the games defination of those terms and whether or not simply wielding two weapons gives the penalty or if you have to attack with both or if you have to take the extra attack.
Which brings back to weilding vs held again and needing the games defination of those terms and whether or not simply wielding two weapons gives the penalty or if you have to attack with both or if you have to take the extra attack.
Actually, I stand corrected. By Skip's wording, the situation is even more ludicrous.
"When fighting with two weapons, you gain one extra attack with your off-hand weapon when you use the full attack action. If you have a high base attack bonus, you gain iterative attacks only with your primary weapon."
Insofar as javelins (and for that matter daggers) count as individual weapons rather than as ammunition, even if you did have the quickdraw feat, all javelins/daggers after the first one thrown count as offhand attacks, and you can only ever throw one more (unless you had a feat that gave you more offhand attacks). You ONLY get iterative attacks with the initial javelin, and even then only if you had some way of making it appear in your hand again in that same round (which the returning property does not do, I might add).
The only way to avoid this rather ludicrous conclusion would be to assume that Skip was describing the rules as they applied to the specific instance of dual wielding, in which case...we are right back to where we started on the question in the OP.
*forehead connects with keyboard at this point* I'm going to check how many people have FAQed the OP thus far, then go cook dinner.
I'm surprised there is so much debate about this two weapon thing.
Not taking into account any feats, monk abilities, magic, prestige classes, or archetypes that allows a character to "break/bend" the rules: iterative attacks are to be used by the weapon that made the attack on the first iteration; the extra weapon only allows one extra attack. It's not a situation where your alternating attacks are done with different hands; all of your main attacks are made with one hand and the other hand allows you to get one extra attack.
Furthermore, the TWF penalties only apply when the player intends to utilize both weapons during a full attack.
If the player is making an attack as a standard action, he does so using either weapon, with no TWF penalty.
If he does a full attack but doesn't want the TWF penalty, he chooses one weapon to make all iterative attacks, and is unable to use the other weapon for that round.
If he feels he might want to use the second weapon, he must apply the TWF penalty to all attacks he makes that round with all iterative attacks being made by one weapon and the extra attack made by the second.
With regards to the original poster, if the first attack was made with an axe, the remaining two attacks (assuming a BAB of +13) must also be made with the axe, and a fourth attack may be made using the scimitar, with the scimitar using 1/2 strength to damage.
On the other hand, the player may opt for the three attacks to be made with the scimitar, and the extra attack made by the axe. In that event, the axe would use 1/2 strength to damage.
These two examples would, of course, have the attack modifiers adjusted by the appropriate TWF penalty.
TWF penalties apply to thrown weapons if the player is making an extra attack beyond his available iterations OR In a situation where the player specifically states that he is throwing a weapon from each hand. Just because he is throwing multiple projectiles doesn't automatically require him to apply the TWF penalties.
There are no rules that state I can only use one weapon if I don't TWF.
Actually, I stand corrected. By Skip's wording, the situation is even more ludicrous.
"When fighting with two weapons, you gain one extra attack with your off-hand weapon when you use the full attack action. If you have a high base attack bonus, you gain iterative attacks only with your primary weapon."
I think that whatever weapon is in your primary hand is your primary weapon(even if it's a different weapon from the one that attacked last.) You could always switch the javelin to your other hand.
No where in the pathfinder CRB does it say you get the -4 for off hand.
so you could throw two javalins(one in each hand) if your BAB were +6/+1 but one of the javelins would only get 1/2 str.
It seems strange but there might be a diffrence between "off hand" and "off-hand."
Actually, I stand corrected. By Skip's wording, the situation is even more ludicrous.
"When fighting with two weapons, you gain one extra attack with your off-hand weapon when you use the full attack action. If you have a high base attack bonus, you gain iterative attacks only with your primary weapon."
I think that whatever weapon is in your primary hand is your primary weapon(even if it's a different weapon from the one that attacked last.) You could always switch the javelin to your other hand.
No where in the pathfinder CRB does it say you get the -4 for off hand.
so you could throw two javalins(one in each hand) if your BAB were +6/+1 but one of the javelins would only get 1/2 str.
It seems strange but there might be a diffrence between "off hand" and "off-hand."
Yes, but Skip Williams specifically mentions the weapons...thus if assume that his words are meant to apply to situations beyond dual-wielding, then what you think is in conflict with what he says.
Furthermore, you seem to be amalgamating the rules for dual-wielding and iterative attacks, rather than proposing which would properly apply...if you are attacking at +6/+1, you are using iterative attacks and not TWF, and would thus get your full str bonus to damage. If you apply only half your str to damage with the second attack, then you are dual-wielding and would take the appropriate penalties to hit.
And then there is what the Pathfinder game's developers would say if they would only chime in...
You do not get TWF penalties if you are not making extra attacks, if you only make one attack in a round when holding two weapons you do not get TWF penalties, making itterative attacks without additional attacks is much the same. Nothing unbalanced or illogical about it.Not by the rules, you should go back and read the thread as it deals with this and what people say. Jumping in on page three and making a declaration doesn't help anyone, it just add fire to the whole thing, especially as you did not state anything that supports your declaration.
That is just because I am usually right till proven otherwise.
Actually I concluded that by remembering a discussion about the shielded fighter ability in the APG, apparently the creator of the archetype found it was a viable thing to alternate attacks between weapon and shield hand, much like James Jacobs has stated before, the Rules section of the forum might not be the place for me to state how I would interpret the game's mechanics. I see a flavorful option to attack with extremely minor benefit, certainly not worth a trait or feat, I think the best way to deal with it is to allow it.
If you look for absolute RAW you might not find anything conclusive all too often and I default to my common sense and good judgement, take it or leave it.
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are no rules that state I can only use one weapon if I don't TWF.Sure, except the rules detail what you may do, so they generally wouldn't anyway.
You may take a full round action or a standard action and a move action.
You may take a five foot step, if you have made no movement, in a round.
When you are in a grapple you may attempt a full round escape artist to escape.
Generally speaking, you may:
a). Fight with 1h weapon. You may equip a shield if you wish and there are rules for shield usage.
b). Fight with a 2h weapon.
c). Fight with a weapon, drop it, and quickdraw it.
d). Wield two weapons - in which case you are two weapon fighting.
and accrue TWF penalties.But, here's where things get weird. Since you can draw a weapon from a sheath as a free action (with quickdraw) - how can transfering a weapon from one hand to another not be a free action?
In which case, so long as you are not gaining the TWF additional attack - rather than making the player say "I'm using a free action to switch the second weapon to my primary hand" its just easier to allow iteratives from either hand, while not getting strength penalties to the second weapon.
So technically, you're wielding one weapon at a time, with multiple weapons.
except that you are in fact wielding two weapons, whether or not you choose to attack with it, and therefore incur TWF penalties.
|
|
except that you are in fact wielding two weapons, whether or not you choose to attack with it, and therefore incur TWF penalties.There are no rules that state I can only use one weapon if I don't TWF.Sure, except the rules detail what you may do, so they generally wouldn't anyway.
You may take a full round action or a standard action and a move action.
You may take a five foot step, if you have made no movement, in a round.
When you are in a grapple you may attempt a full round escape artist to escape.
Generally speaking, you may:
a). Fight with 1h weapon. You may equip a shield if you wish and there are rules for shield usage.
b). Fight with a 2h weapon.
c). Fight with a weapon, drop it, and quickdraw it.
d). Wield two weapons - in which case you are two weapon fighting.
and accrue TWF penalties.But, here's where things get weird. Since you can draw a weapon from a sheath as a free action (with quickdraw) - how can transfering a weapon from one hand to another not be a free action?
In which case, so long as you are not gaining the TWF additional attack - rather than making the player say "I'm using a free action to switch the second weapon to my primary hand" its just easier to allow iteratives from either hand, while not getting strength penalties to the second weapon.
So technically, you're wielding one weapon at a time, with multiple weapons.
No, not true, read earlier in the thread.
If you are using two weapons to attack, than you are using TWF whether you take the feats or not, with the standard -4/-10 penalty. The purpose of the Two Weapon Fighting feats are to offset those penalties.
Well, the first TWF feat (TWF) will offset some penalties. The others grant additional attacks. (Also your first statement is false, see quickdraw thrown weapons. Perhaps you meant if you are using two -hands- to attack with more than one weapon...)
Anyway, I still vote we change the name of TWF to Florentine Style.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is a bit of a precedent for this, in double weapons. In the description of double weapons:
You can use a double weapon to fight as if fighting with two weapons, but if you do, you incur all the normal attack penalties associated with fighting with two weapons, just as if you were using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. A double weapon can be wielded as a one-handed weapon, but it cannot be used as a double weapon when wielded in this way—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.
Using this as a guide, it would stand to reason that you could hold a second weapon without penalties, but can only attack with one of the two weapons per round, not per iterative attack. Personally, if I were DM, I would allow switching back and forth, but would keep an eye out if it gets too ridiculous.
There are no rules that state I can only use one weapon if I don't TWF.Sure, except the rules detail what you may do, so they generally wouldn't anyway.......
Actually sometimes the rules say what you can do, and other times they give limitations. I do think we generally agree on this issue though.
There is a bit of a precedent for this, in double weapons. In the description of double weapons:
You can use a double weapon to fight as if fighting with two weapons, but if you do, you incur all the normal attack penalties associated with fighting with two weapons, just as if you were using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. A double weapon can be wielded as a one-handed weapon, but it cannot be used as a double weapon when wielded in this way—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.Using this as a guide, it would stand to reason that you could hold a second weapon without penalties, but can only attack with one of the two weapons per round, not per iterative attack. Personally, if I were DM, I would allow switching back and forth, but would keep an eye out if it gets too ridiculous.
That statement is there so someone does not try to use TWF with only one hand, and I am sure if that statement was not there someone would try it, and then probably try to use the other hand to get an off-hand attack to cheese their way into attacks beyond what TWF allows.
That statement is there so someone does not try to use TWF with only one hand, and I am sure if that statement was not there someone would try it, and then probably try to use the other hand to get an off-hand attack to cheese their way into attacks beyond what TWF allows.
The original intention of said ruling is a different debate. It still sets a precedent. Why would you be able to switch freely between two weapons, but not a double one? You could argue the convenience of simply switching hands, but then you have to deal with the fact that, while handedness is not an issue, TWF implies that everyone has an 'off' hand and therefore one of the weapons should only get half strength, if not face some penalty to hit. The fact of the matter is, there is no hard and fast rule on this. You are going to have to make something up. If you want to cleave to the RAW as much as possible, this is the most relevant rule in any book for this situation I could find. If you feel differently, put it in your game. It will be richer for it.
Yes, but Skip Williams specifically mentions the weapons...thus if assume that his words are meant to apply to situations beyond dual-wielding, then what you think is in conflict with what he says.
Furthermore, you seem to be amalgamating the rules for dual-wielding and iterative attacks, rather than proposing which would properly apply...if you are attacking at +6/+1, you are using iterative attacks and not TWF, and would thus get your full str bonus to damage. If you apply only half your str to damage with the second attack, then you are dual-wielding and would take the appropriate penalties to hit.
And then there is what the Pathfinder game's developers would say if they would only chime in...
Sorry for the confusion.
Your primary weapon is only the weapon you are holding in your primary hand. "Primary Hand, Primary Weapon"
Off hand weapon is the weapon you are holding in your off hand.
If you hold two javelins in each hand one had will be your primary hand and one will be your off hand. If your attacking iteratively using each separate hand for each attack then you would apply full strength to damage for whatever attack you have decided is your primary hand attack and would add 1/2 your strength to a whatever hand is your off hand attack.
That is only if you can in pathfinder use your off hand attack for iterative attacks. There isn't a clear yes or no on this matter although there is a clear no as far as 3.5 is concerned.
We should all understand how TWF works which isn't part of this conversation.
This conversation only concerns the question: "Can you attack with your off hand and your primary hand on iterative attacks?"
According to Skip for 3.5 "no."
Because 3.5 had a special rule for attacking with just your off hand: -4 to such an attack. It stems to reason that a player could attack with just his off-hand. Although this would be pointless because you could always just decide that it was your primary hand that turn.
Pathfinder isn't skips baby anymore so untill I get official word. I'm going to say "yes" It doesn't seem like it game breaking in the slightest and it even seems cinematic.
"I took out the orc and I still have two attacks left. I have quick draw so I throw two daggers at the other two orcs."
I don't think there is an answer because I don't think the rules account for it, just like when people combine certain things, and ask for a ruling not in the book. Sometimes you just have to ask the GM. That does not mean some things don't deserve a ruling though. I think this one does, but with that said I won't penalize a player for it unless he finds a way to abuse it.
I don't think there is an answer because I don't think the rules account for it, just like when people combine certain things, and ask for a ruling not in the book. Sometimes you just have to ask the GM. That does not mean some things don't deserve a ruling though. I think this one does, but with that said I won't penalize a player for it unless he finds a way to abuse it.
I believe we have here a reasoned and objective conclusion, ironically from someone whose name is that of one of the cheesiest spells in 3.5. ;)
But I do agree that the reason we are struggling so hard to find a ruling on this is because it's a scenario that the developers of 3.5 did not consider, and that the pathfinder developers only turned their minds to when making the rondelero duelist and shielded fighter archetypes. Unfortunately, this does not negate a need (or at least strong desire) for a developer's opinion on the issue since it will affect PFS organised games, especially given how it potentially impacts thrown weapons.
LOL. I still can't believe that spell was made, much less at level 2.