You do not wield a thrown weapon, you throw it.
You said fighting. Throwing a bunch of daggers at something is not fighting?
Your statement is still incorrect. Good job dodging the point, though.
I just can't see how this is still an argument. Maybe an argument for the sake of arguing? It just seems like to me people are creating problems.
It's not only rules, it is also painfully obvious that... if you are fighting with two weapons then you are two weapon fighting.Throwing two daggers with the same hand is fighting with two weapons. By your (incorrect) statement, the thrower is using TWF style and has penalties.
Following up to Mathmuse's excellent post, you clearly believe that the phrase "when you fight this way" applies to wielding a second weapon in your off hand, rather than when you choose to get an extra attack. If you can explain why you feel this way, and perhaps back it up with rules, English grammar, game balance, or anything besides an insulting blanket statement, then productive discussion can ensue.
You do not wield a thrown weapon, you throw it. Thrown weapons involvement in this thread...as taken from the questions raised by the OP.... is a red herring.
Wield: To hold and use. Throw: Propel (something) with force through the air by a movement of the arm and hand.
Except...you can dual-wield crossbows...and to the best of my knowledge the combat rules for ranged weapons are not divided into one set for thrown and another for fired missiles...
Actually, this becomes a relevant issue for some crossbow users too. If you have a loaded crossbow in each hand, is it dual-wielding? If so, what if you fire the crossbow in your right hand, drop it(free action), then switch the crossbow in your right hand to your left (also a free action, apparently)? Can you then fire it as an iterative attack since it's in the same hand used for the first attack, but a different weapon is being used?
Except...you can dual-wield crossbows...
You can shoot a light crossbow with each hand, but you take a penalty on attack rolls as if attacking with two light weapons.
Crossbows are ranged weapons, not thrown, so I don't know how that really applies.
You do not wield a thrown weapon, you throw it.You said fighting. Throwing a bunch of daggers at something is not fighting?
Your statement is still incorrect. Good job dodging the point, though.
See my edit above, thanks.
Yes, you can use two weapons iteratively without penalty.
The TWF section in the rules ONLY considers the case if you want to get the extra attack(s).
I just can't see how this is still an argument. Maybe an argument for the sake of arguing? It just seems like to me people are creating problems.
If you missed it in the thread, read Mathmuse's post, it pretty completely sums up the whole thing.
While neither side has provided conclusive evidence, and never will because it's not in the rules, people are still arguing about side points and defending their views from people who are coming across as inexplicably hostile.
If everyone just said "Well, the rules aren't clear on that point, I'll run it this way because it makes the game more fun for my players" then the thread would get FAQ'd and forgotten. But when people start in with "It's painfully obvious that [factually incorrect statement]" then people tend to keep responding and the thread grows into a monster that no-one really wants to read.
Yes, you can use two weapons iteratively without penalty.
The TWF section in the rules ONLY considers the case if you want to get the extra attack(s).
I agree with you, but blanket statements aren't helping. Instead, maybe explain why you feel the TWF style applies when you choose to get an extra attack, rather than any time you use a weapon in each hand.
Yes, you can use two weapons iteratively without penalty.
The TWF section in the rules ONLY considers the case if you want to get the extra attack(s).
In some peoples house rules, yes. In Pathfinder rules and according to this quote, attributed to James Jacobs..
James Jacobs wrote:
If you want to deliberately lower the amount of attacks you can make in a turn, I suppose you could do this. It's not very efficient, though, since you'd still suffer all the penalties for wielding two weapons at once, and once you started switching around weapons it can get overly complicated and muddled and annoying. It feels like needless and pointless complication, in other words, ultimately resulting in worse (as in fewer) attacks for the PC in question.
The fact that there are two archetypes that grant exceptions to the rule
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.
And
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.
Lead me to side with Hangerflying on this one, you can't switch hands for iterative attacks normally, otherwise, what is the point of these archetypes?
|
Seriously people we need to go back a little bit and remember why the penalities were put in there in the first place. The penalities are there to offset the fact that you are getting another attack. It has nothing to do with if you were carrying two weapons, as long as you don't try and use the second weapon to get another attack.
So as long as you don't use the free attack, there shouldn't be a penalty.
Now, as for the attack with right hand, then attack with left hand, as long as you aren't getting a bonus attack, I don't see any problem with this. You are already taking the -5 penalty for the second attack anyways.
Finally, as for Primary Hand and Off-Hand. Yea, the PF rules do not actually define this, but there has to be a little common sense. If you take a 1/2 STR penalty when you are actually using TWF, then it makes sense that all characters have a Primary Hand and Off-Hand.
Therefore, while there is no further penalty for attacking with your Primary and then Off-Hand to hit, I would impose a 1/2 STR penalty for the Off Hand, mostly because you are going outside of the spirit of the classic One Handed, Two Handed, or Sword & Shield fighting styles. Also you are not taking the extra step to get TWF Feat. Now, I don't see why there can't be an Ambidexterity Feat that would eliminate this reduction.
Seriously people we need to go back a little bit and remember why the penalities were put in there in the first place. The penalities are there to offset the fact that you are getting another attack. It has nothing to do with if you were carrying two weapons, as long as you don't try and use the second weapon to get another attack.
So as long as you don't use the free attack, there shouldn't be a penalty.
So then what is the point of the two archetypes I posted in my post above?
So then what is the point of the two archetypes I posted in my post above?Seriously people we need to go back a little bit and remember why the penalities were put in there in the first place. The penalities are there to offset the fact that you are getting another attack. It has nothing to do with if you were carrying two weapons, as long as you don't try and use the second weapon to get another attack.
So as long as you don't use the free attack, there shouldn't be a penalty.
I believe some would argue that the substantive ability gained in those paragraphs is the bonus to attack and damage rolls, whilst the line after is a reminder of an otherwise universal mechanic. There was a similar case with the polearm fighter and reach weapons before, where a reiteration of the tripping weapon's ability under the archetype's rules caused some to mistakenly believe that only polearm fighters could benefit from the tripping property possessed by some weapons. This was not the case-the reiteration was precisely that, a reiteration.
Maybe there are some who like their game overcomplicated.
For me it's simple... if you use Two Weapons one in each hand, you're now in the Two Weapon Fighting rules area. Plain and simple.
Someone has brought this up before, but it bears repeating.
Everyone is proficient in Unarmed Strike. They MAY choose to attack with the second WEAPON.
Does that mean everyone suffers TWF penalties, every time they attack?
So then what is the point of the two archetypes I posted in my post above?
Well, the Shielded Fighter gains a bonus when fighting defensively, and he can share it with friends. He also gets an attack and damage bonus when shield bashing, he can stop people from moving around with his shield, stop flanking, gain DR, evasion, and a reflex bonus.
The Rondelero Duelist can bash with a buckler, disarm things, gain a bonus on falcata and buckler attacks, and sometimes sunder as a free action.
They can both also alternate attacks in a full action. It's evidence for your argument, but not conclusive proof, as that's not the only thing those abilities do, nothing says that you can't do that normally without them, and class abilities have been changed in the past to do things that the rules were unclear about (see: trip).
It's likely that whoever wrote those archetypes was under the impression you can't alternate attacks normally, and it's also (imo) the strongest evidence yet presented for strict TWF rules.
So then what is the point of the two archetypes I posted in my post above?Well, the Shielded Fighter gains a bonus when fighting defensively, and he can share it with friends. He also gets an attack and damage bonus when shield bashing, he can stop people from moving around with his shield, stop flanking, gain DR, evasion, and a reflex bonus.
The Rondelero Duelist can bash with a buckler, disarm things, gain a bonus on falcata and buckler attacks, and sometimes sunder as a free action.
They can both also alternate attacks in a full action. It's evidence for your argument, but not conclusive proof, as that's not the only thing those abilities do, nothing says that you can't do that normally without them, and class abilities have been changed in the past to do things that the rules were unclear about (see: trip).
It's likely that whoever wrote those archetypes was under the impression you can't alternate attacks normally, and it's also (imo) the strongest evidence yet presented for strict TWF rules.
agreed, I also find that interpretation the cleanest by far.It pretty much eliminates all the issues
I agree with you, but blanket statements aren't helping. Instead, maybe explain why you feel the TWF style applies when you choose to get an extra attack, rather than any time you use a weapon in each hand.
Ok, simple:
There is no penalty for fighting with the wrong hand.
If you wield a sword & a dagger, you obviously won't get a penalty for attacking with the dagger only, or with the sword only. Also, you would get full STR to damage for either option.
I simply see no reason why you then should not be able to iterate between the weapons without penalty.
You even could make two attacks with the sword, drop it,quick draw a dagger and make another attack with it without penalty (provided you have BAB of +11 or higher).
But the same person could not do this if the dagger was already in hand??
That simply makes no sense.
Also the penalties for TWF are there to alleviate the advantages gained by an additional attack. If you don't make an additional attack there is no need for those penalties.
EDIT:
If Mr. Jacobs thinks otherwise, well good. He now makes the RAW, obviously. I however am of the opinion that the TWF rules originally were not meant to be applied if you do not gain an additional attack. Stating that this is not the case could be interpreted as another rules change from 3.5, or at least a clarification of an previously debatable rule.
|
Yes, you can use two weapons iteratively without penalty.
The TWF section in the rules ONLY considers the case if you want to get the extra attack(s).
In some peoples house rules, yes. In Pathfinder rules and according to this quote, attributed to James Jacobs..
James Jacobs wrote:
If you want to deliberately lower the amount of attacks you can make in a turn, I suppose you could do this. It's not very efficient, though, since you'd still suffer all the penalties for wielding two weapons at once, and once you started switching around weapons it can get overly complicated and muddled and annoying. It feels like needless and pointless complication, in other words, ultimately resulting in worse (as in fewer) attacks for the PC in question.
Save that this position remains inconsistent with basic logic of armaments i.e. the cases of unarmed strikes, double weapons, quickdraw and hand swaps, etc. And Mr. Jacobs has been wrong in the past. Which is to say, he has changed his position after giving input too swiftly and reconsidering the question put to him with time.
I understand that the words of the developers have value and meaning, but I will never understand the school of thought that maintains that every utterance and scribble of the developers has lasting FAQ-like significance for the way everyone should play their game.
The language is ambiguous. The least complicated solution to this ambiguity is to apply penalties only in the case of gaining the TWF benefits. The alternative opens up too many inconsistencies and special exceptions. Furthermore, archetypes are generally less reliable than the Core in terms of editing and consistency, for what I believe are obvious reasons.
To those in the "penalties always apply if something is in off-hand" camp, I pose a question: does the game -break- if those penalties are not imposed on these circumstances? Are there demonstrable gameplay advantages to this strict interpretation? At present, I am not seeing any, nor has the thread focused on such things.
agreed, I also find that interpretation the cleanest by far.It pretty much eliminates all the issuesSo then what is the point of the two archetypes I posted in my post above?Well, the Shielded Fighter gains a bonus when fighting defensively, and he can share it with friends. He also gets an attack and damage bonus when shield bashing, he can stop people from moving around with his shield, stop flanking, gain DR, evasion, and a reflex bonus.
The Rondelero Duelist can bash with a buckler, disarm things, gain a bonus on falcata and buckler attacks, and sometimes sunder as a free action.
They can both also alternate attacks in a full action. It's evidence for your argument, but not conclusive proof, as that's not the only thing those abilities do, nothing says that you can't do that normally without them, and class abilities have been changed in the past to do things that the rules were unclear about (see: trip).
It's likely that whoever wrote those archetypes was under the impression you can't alternate attacks normally, and it's also (imo) the strongest evidence yet presented for strict TWF rules.
Actually, it creates a number of odd scenarios for thrown weapons/crossbows, if you'd read some of the earlier posts.
Actually, it creates a number of odd scenarios for thrown weapons/crossbows, if you'd read some of the earlier posts.agreed, I also find that interpretation the cleanest by far.It pretty much eliminates all the issuesSo then what is the point of the two archetypes I posted in my post above?Well, the Shielded Fighter gains a bonus when fighting defensively, and he can share it with friends. He also gets an attack and damage bonus when shield bashing, he can stop people from moving around with his shield, stop flanking, gain DR, evasion, and a reflex bonus.
The Rondelero Duelist can bash with a buckler, disarm things, gain a bonus on falcata and buckler attacks, and sometimes sunder as a free action.
They can both also alternate attacks in a full action. It's evidence for your argument, but not conclusive proof, as that's not the only thing those abilities do, nothing says that you can't do that normally without them, and class abilities have been changed in the past to do things that the rules were unclear about (see: trip).
It's likely that whoever wrote those archetypes was under the impression you can't alternate attacks normally, and it's also (imo) the strongest evidence yet presented for strict TWF rules.
I have read all the posts and I don't see that it does. If you throw or shoot with one hand, you treat it the same way, all iterative attacks are from the same hand, if you throw or shoot with two, you are dual wielding and get the extra attacks. You cannot switch between throwing with primary and secondary hand with iterative attacks. You can only use the secondary hand to throw or shoot for the extra attacks granted through dual wielding.
If you throw or shoot with one hand, you treat it the same way, all iterative attacks are from the same hand, if you throw or shoot with two, you are dual wielding and get the extra attacks. You cannot switch between throwing with primary and secondary hand with iterative attacks. You can only use the secondary hand to throw or shoot for the extra attacks granted through dual wielding.
Yes, we understand the consequences of your ruling. What we don't understand is why you interpret it that way.
Why does "fighting this way" mean wielding two weapons, instead of choosing to get an extra attack?
Is it because of the name of the feat and the section in the combat chapter? If they renamed it "Florentine Style" but kept the actual rules the same, would you change your mind?
Florentine Style Fighting
If you wield a second weapon in your secondary 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 secondary hand when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in two ways. First, if your secondary weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light. Second, the Florentine Style Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6.
Table: Florentine Style Fighting Penalties summarizes the interaction of all these factors.
Is it for game balance? Do the benefits of having a different weapon available (which requires twice the enchanting, and sometimes twice the feat/class abilities) really merit such drastic penalties? Or is it more balanced that the penalties are there to balance out the benefit of making an extra attack?
Is it pure realism, in that it's harder IRL to use a weapon in your non-dominant hand and thus there should be penalties in game?
Does it really make more sense that making your second iterative attack with your other hand should be that different from dropping and free-action swapping hands on the other weapon?
Is it easier to think of 'off-hand always makes penalties' rather than 'extra attack always makes penalties'? Even when compiled with the hand-swap fidgeting?
|
|
So then what is the point of the two archetypes I posted in my post above?Seriously people we need to go back a little bit and remember why the penalities were put in there in the first place. The penalities are there to offset the fact that you are getting another attack. It has nothing to do with if you were carrying two weapons, as long as you don't try and use the second weapon to get another attack.
So as long as you don't use the free attack, there shouldn't be a penalty.
No offense, but the argument that this obscure Prestige class and/or archetype has it's text writen this way or that way holds no water to me. Now while technically all of those are 'cannon', they don't hold the same weight to me as the Core books.
I don't feel that they are play tested enough to warrent the same consideration when debating an issue like this. For all we know the author was only pointing out that they can do that and they are not contridicting what people can normally do. Especially since there is no comparison with how this changes established rules. I.E. how most Feats explain how they change the rules.
Save that this position remains inconsistent with basic logic of armaments i.e. the cases of unarmed strikes, double weapons, quickdraw and hand swaps, etc. And Mr. Jacobs has been wrong in the past. Which is to say, he has changed his position after giving input too swiftly and reconsidering the question put to him with time.
I understand that the words of the developers have value and meaning, but I will never understand the school of thought that maintains that every utterance and scribble of the developers has lasting FAQ-like significance for the way everyone should play their game.
The language is ambiguous. The least complicated solution to this ambiguity is to apply penalties only in the case of gaining the TWF benefits. The alternative opens up too many inconsistencies and special exceptions.
There has not been a valid argument that the TWF penalties are inconsistant with any other rules. In fact in the case of Double weapons, unarmed attacks and shield fighting the rules are remarkably robust. The least complicated way of adjudicating would be to apply the penalties to anyone two weapon fighting, unless they have a specific feat/skill/build which makes a special exception. All of which are clearly referenced to TWF.
Special exceptions are the the things that make the gameplaying experience unique. Wizards can cast spells, Rogues can check for magical traps, Clerics can channel positive/negative to heal and harm. Some other Feats skills and classes can do these things, but as exceptions/special cases. The whole physics of the game are based on "you generally cannot do X unless Y".
does the game -break- if those penalties are not imposed on these circumstances? Are there demonstrable gameplay advantages to this strict interpretation?
Does the game break if you ignore any penalty? Not really, it just decreases the unique flavour imparted by the current rule set. I happen to like the way that it differentiates between those player characters who have trained in the martial skills, honed themselves to become true warriors as opposed to those who have studied the arcane arts in order to bend the universe to their will. The advantage being a distincty difference between characters who have invested in different skill sets and feats, creating a broader canvas for my game world, npcs and giving the player more REAL choice as to where to invest his characters energy (feat and skill allocation).
Holy sheet, this is still being argued?
Erm....no...
Nothing to see here, move along.
|
|
There has not been a valid argument that the TWF penalties are inconsistant with any other rules. In fact in the case of Double weapons, unarmed attacks and shield fighting the rules are remarkably robust. The least complicated way of adjudicating would be to apply the penalties to anyone two weapon fighting, unless they have a specific feat/skill/build which makes a special exception. All of which are clearly referenced to TWF.
I disagree. And I do not believe that validity has been established here. The rules are not robust when special exceptions are necessary in each of these weapon cases. The solution of "apply penalties when fighting florentine" is more robust, as it handles more cases with less ambiguity and less language.
Does the game break if you ignore any penalty? Not really, it just decreases the unique flavour imparted by the current rule set.
I do not share your sense of flavor. There are many sources of flavor in gaming, and rules can be one such source, but in this case, applying TWF penalties to someone for the privilege of holding an object in the off hand and/or the privilege of changing which attack you use for each of your iterative attacks, I feel expanding the circumstances under which the penalty applies needlessly complicates things. And senselessly takes away another cool thing from fighting-types.
Not unlike over-salting and flavor, it is easier to err toward less than more.
The very idea that I must differentiate "holding an object in my off hand" from "wielding an object in my off hand" from "using my off hand as a weapon" from "doing nothing with my off hand" in every combat round under your interpretation makes it unpalatable to me.
If you throw or shoot with one hand, you treat it the same way, all iterative attacks are from the same hand, if you throw or shoot with two, you are dual wielding and get the extra attacks. You cannot switch between throwing with primary and secondary hand with iterative attacks. You can only use the secondary hand to throw or shoot for the extra attacks granted through dual wielding.Yes, we understand the consequences of your ruling. What we don't understand is why you interpret it that way.
Why does "fighting this way" mean wielding two weapons, instead of choosing to get an extra attack?
Is it because of the name of the feat and the section in the combat chapter? If they renamed it "Florentine Style" but kept the actual rules the same, would you change your mind?
** spoiler omitted **
Is it for game balance? Do the benefits of having a different weapon available (which requires twice the enchanting, and sometimes twice the feat/class abilities) really merit such drastic penalties? Or is it more balanced that the penalties are there to balance out the benefit of making an extra attack?
Is it pure realism, in that it's harder IRL to use a weapon in your non-dominant hand and thus there should be penalties in game?
Does it really make more sense that making...
I would say game simplicity not game balance, I do not see anything unbalancing about ruling the other way. I think allowing iterative attacks with offhand weapons can get extremely confusing. What if you mix your iterative attacks when you are dual wielding, I choose one main hand attack, then one offhand that I am calling main hand, then one offhand from dual wielding, ugh, its a mess. I think just saying iterative attacks have to come from the same hand simplifies things greatly without much downside. As for realism, please, this game isn't real. I do two weapon combat in the SCA and I can tell you any blow from the off hand from 90% of people would hit less hard whether you were swinging with just that hand or with both, but that is nether here nor there we are discussing rules. I personally think ruling this way is supported by the rules and is much simpler to adjudicate and I think that the number of situations were making iterative attacks with different hands is beneficial to the players are few and far enough between to disallow it it in favor of simplicity and clarity
|
|
| 7 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gentlemen (and possible Ladies),
This has been definitely an interesting debate. I've never had an issue with the interpretation you're espousing (using both weapons in the same turn without incurring TWF penalties) being used as a house rule. I just don't believe it is supported by RAW. I don't think there is anything more that needs to be said, especially considering I would be just repeating myself. Suffice it to say, I believe I have adequately stated my position throughout this thread.
I do agree that it would be nice for Paizo to address this issue in the FAQ. As such, I would like to post (repost, maybe) the question so that it can be FAQ'd:
Question: While holding a weapon in each hand, can you attack with both in the same turn without incurring the Two-Weapon Fighting penalties (-6 for Primary Hand, -10 for Off Hand, 1/2 Strength to Damange for Off Hand - these penalties not accounting for Light Weapons or the Two-Weapon Fighting feat)? Can multiple attacks provided by high BAB alternate between the weapons in each hand without incurring the Two-Weapon Fighting penalties?
There is no ambiguity.Despite everyone's valiant efforts to clarify the rules on Two-weapon Fighting, the Rules As Written are ambiguous.
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....The phrase "when you fight this way" applies to a choice. But which choice? The first sentence has two choices in it.
In one interpretation the choice is, "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand". In the other interpretation the choice is, "you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon." English grammar does not tell us which choice is linked to "when you fight this way."We can muster evidence for either choice. Strong evidence for the first choice is that the ability is called Two-Weapon Fighting and that this choice is made before penalties would be applied to the first attack. Strong evidence for the second choice is that it balances a penalty with an extra attack, is consistent with feats such as Rapid Shot and Shield Bash, and avoids awkward questions about thrown weapons, double weapons, and unarmed strike. But evidence does not matter. Evidence can only point out a misinterpretation of the rules. Ambiguity is not a misinterpretation to be corrected; rather, it is a missing piece of the rules.
Thus, I have marked this for the FAQ and I recommend that others do so too..
If that were true there would be no debate. :)
The least complicated way of adjudicating would be to apply the penalties to anyone two weapon fighting, unless they have a specific feat/skill/build which makes a special exception.
Actually, the least complicated way to rule it is that unless you can point to rules that state you suffer penalties for using an item/weapon in your left hand instead of your right (or vice versa), this all functions as perfectly normal per making attacks (which has no stipulations on main hands, primary weapons, whether or not the weapon is being wielded by a tentacle, etc.).
Saying, "If you've used your other hand this turn to make an attack, you take penalties." is ADDING complication to the situation.
If you want to gain an additional attack via fighting with two weapons, then refer to the list of exceptions and specific penalties that apply in that case.
Gentlemen (and possible Ladies),
This has been definitely an interesting debate. I've never had an issue with the interpretation you're espousing (using both weapons in the same turn without incurring TWF penalties) being used as a house rule. I just don't believe it is supported by RAW. I don't think there is anything more that needs to be said, especially considering I would be just repeating myself. Suffice it to say, I believe I have adequately stated my position throughout this thread.
I do agree that it would be nice for Paizo to address this issue in the FAQ. As such, I would like to post (repost, maybe) the question so that it can be FAQ'd:
Question: While holding a weapon in each hand, can you attack with both in the same turn without incurring the Two-Weapon Fighting penalties (-6 for Primary Hand, -10 for Off Hand, 1/2 Strength to Damange for Off Hand - these penalties not accounting for Light Weapons or the Two-Weapon Fighting feat)? Can multiple attacks provided by high BAB alternate between the weapons in each hand without incurring the Two-Weapon Fighting penalties?
You never answered my question about the disarmed axe of did I miss it. That is the only scenario left not discussed. I may have missed it.
I did repost it to make it rules legal since I goofed the first time by using the wrong feats.
Gentlemen (and possible Ladies),
This has been definitely an interesting debate. I've never had an issue with the interpretation you're espousing (using both weapons in the same turn without incurring TWF penalties) being used as a house rule. I just don't believe it is supported by RAW. I don't think there is anything more that needs to be said, especially considering I would be just repeating myself. Suffice it to say, I believe I have adequately stated my position throughout this thread.
I do agree that it would be nice for Paizo to address this issue in the FAQ. As such, I would like to post (repost, maybe) the question so that it can be FAQ'd:
Question: While holding a weapon in each hand, can you attack with both in the same turn without incurring the Two-Weapon Fighting penalties (-6 for Primary Hand, -10 for Off Hand, 1/2 Strength to Damange for Off Hand - these penalties not accounting for Light Weapons or the Two-Weapon Fighting feat)? Can multiple attacks provided by high BAB alternate between the weapons in each hand without incurring the Two-Weapon Fighting penalties?
You never answered my question about the disarmed axe of did I miss it. That is the only scenario left not discussed. I may have missed it.
I did repost it to make it rules legal since I goofed the first time by using the wrong feats.
We have always played it, if you lost your weapon, you lost your remaining attacks with that hand, though I am not sure I can support that either way by Raw
|
|
** spoiler omitted **
Krispy XIV (above): +1
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
(only skimmed the thread)
Alright, look, the rules do not explicitly state any penalties for using a second weapon *unless* you are using TWFing to gain extra attacks. Note how the two-weapon fighting section in the combat chapter explicitly uses the term "extra attacks" in relation to the use of two weapons. If you do not gain extra attacks, you are not two-weapon fighting. This is similar to why you do not take TWFing penalties when making an AoO: They only apply in the narrow case in which you utilize extra weapons to make extra attacks(above what you BAB would allow) during your full-round attack. No matter how many thousands of weapons you wield or use (or don't) during your full-round, that only applies during the full-round. And no matter whether you use 4 weapons or 1 for your 4 attacks given via BAB alone (BAB16+ or 11+ with haste), you do not take penalties because you do not gain extra.
Even if you argue against the above, the ONLY negative impact is that a badly-written archetype loses a bit of effectiveness in one ability (not the first time they screwed one up, look at Pole-arm fighter and the recent Trip FAQ update). That's it. If you try to treat ALL use of multiple weapons as two-weapon fighting you are completely screwing people who have quick draw and a backup weapon and somehow lose their primary in mid full-round*, you're completely screwing thrown weapon users, and you're completely screwing those who possess multiple weapons for the purpose of DR. All three of these are flavorful and interesting character builds or strategies that do not in any way feel "cheesy" to me.
*This could be done if they attempt to use a combat maneuver with their not-last attack and get disarmed via the AoO.
TL;DR - TWFing only applies if you gain extra attacks. Let the thrown weapon guys have their fun.
(
Even if you argue against the above, the ONLY negative impact is that a badly-written archetype loses a bit of effectiveness in one ability (not the first time they screwed one up, look at Pole-arm fighter and the recent Trip FAQ update). That's it. If you try to treat ALL use of multiple weapons as two-weapon fighting you are completely screwing people who have quick draw and a backup weapon and somehow lose their primary in mid full-round*, you're completely screwing thrown weapon users, and you're completely screwing those who possess multiple weapons for the purpose of DR. All three of these are flavorful and interesting character builds or strategies that do not in any way feel "cheesy" to me.
*
Why is it screwing quick draw and thrown weapon fighters? you loose your weapon, you draw another in the same hand and continue. You throw weapons you can throw your allotted number with your primary hand, or your allotted number with your primary hand plus your extra attacks with your secondary hand and take duel wielding penalties.I agree with the DR piece, I just think the complexity is not worth it for just that. Take this example:
I am duel wielding and I have a BAB +11 and improved two weapon fighting. If I can take iterative attacks with any hand I can make my first attack with my main hand whichever I declare, then my next attack with my offhand and declare it main to get full str bonus, then take another with my main hand and get full str, then take my first offhand attack at 1/2 str then take my second with my main hand at 1/2 str, it can get ridiculously confusing
I am duel wielding and I have a BAB +11 and improved two weapon fighting. If I can take iterative attacks with any hand I can make my first attack with my main hand whichever I declare, then my next attack with my offhand and declare it main to get full str bonus, then take another with my main hand and get full str, then take my first offhand attack at 1/2 str then take my second with my main hand at 1/2 str, it can get ridiculously confusing
Nope. This is covered by the core rules; as soon as you go to gain extra attacks from Two Weapon Fighting, refer to the set of exceptions that deals with using 'Two Weapon Fighting' to gain additional attacks. Your offhand attacks are made at a set penalty to attack and damage rolls.
Next round though, you COULD choose to wield your previous rounds' offhand weapon as your mainhand weapon and vice versa, if you like.
We have always played it, if you lost your weapon, you lost your remaining attacks with that hand, though I am not sure I can support that either way by RawGentlemen (and possible Ladies),
This has been definitely an interesting debate. I've never had an issue with the interpretation you're espousing (using both weapons in the same turn without incurring TWF penalties) being used as a house rule. I just don't believe it is supported by RAW. I don't think there is anything more that needs to be said, especially considering I would be just repeating myself. Suffice it to say, I believe I have adequately stated my position throughout this thread.
I do agree that it would be nice for Paizo to address this issue in the FAQ. As such, I would like to post (repost, maybe) the question so that it can be FAQ'd:
Question: While holding a weapon in each hand, can you attack with both in the same turn without incurring the Two-Weapon Fighting penalties (-6 for Primary Hand, -10 for Off Hand, 1/2 Strength to Damange for Off Hand - these penalties not accounting for Light Weapons or the Two-Weapon Fighting feat)? Can multiple attacks provided by high BAB alternate between the weapons in each hand without incurring the Two-Weapon Fighting penalties?
You never answered my question about the disarmed axe of did I miss it. That is the only scenario left not discussed. I may have missed it.
I did repost it to make it rules legal since I goofed the first time by using the wrong feats.
No rules to back it up means it can't be valid. I will accept that.
No rules to back it up means it can't be valid. I will accept that.We have always played it, if you lost your weapon, you lost your remaining attacks with that hand, though I am not sure I can support that either way by RawGentlemen (and possible Ladies),
This has been definitely an interesting debate. I've never had an issue with the interpretation you're espousing (using both weapons in the same turn without incurring TWF penalties) being used as a house rule. I just don't believe it is supported by RAW. I don't think there is anything more that needs to be said, especially considering I would be just repeating myself. Suffice it to say, I believe I have adequately stated my position throughout this thread.
I do agree that it would be nice for Paizo to address this issue in the FAQ. As such, I would like to post (repost, maybe) the question so that it can be FAQ'd:
Question: While holding a weapon in each hand, can you attack with both in the same turn without incurring the Two-Weapon Fighting penalties (-6 for Primary Hand, -10 for Off Hand, 1/2 Strength to Damange for Off Hand - these penalties not accounting for Light Weapons or the Two-Weapon Fighting feat)? Can multiple attacks provided by high BAB alternate between the weapons in each hand without incurring the Two-Weapon Fighting penalties?
You never answered my question about the disarmed axe of did I miss it. That is the only scenario left not discussed. I may have missed it.
I did repost it to make it rules legal since I goofed the first time by using the wrong feats.
Actually what I said is, I don't think the RAW supports or doesn't support my interpretation. I don't think by RAW, you can say definitively one way or the other. We can argue both sides of it and I think both sides will have valid arguments because the RAW is not definitive on it
I had a fighter lose three masterwork weapons to a monsters corrosive slime once. He quickdrew a new weapon and continued his attack routine when the previous one was destroyed.
Sure, none of my characters have quick draw, if they did, that would be fine with the same hand.
Actually what I said is, I don't think the RAW supports or doesn't support my interpretation. I don't think by RAW, you can say definitively one way or the other. We can argue both sides of it and I think both sides will have valid arguments because the RAW is not definitive on itNo rules to back it up means it can't be valid. I will accept that.We have always played it, if you lost your weapon, you lost your remaining attacks with that hand, though I am not sure I can support that either way by RawGentlemen (and possible Ladies),
This has been definitely an interesting debate. I've never had an issue with the interpretation you're espousing (using both weapons in the same turn without incurring TWF penalties) being used as a house rule. I just don't believe it is supported by RAW. I don't think there is anything more that needs to be said, especially considering I would be just repeating myself. Suffice it to say, I believe I have adequately stated my position throughout this thread.
I do agree that it would be nice for Paizo to address this issue in the FAQ. As such, I would like to post (repost, maybe) the question so that it can be FAQ'd:
Question: While holding a weapon in each hand, can you attack with both in the same turn without incurring the Two-Weapon Fighting penalties (-6 for Primary Hand, -10 for Off Hand, 1/2 Strength to Damange for Off Hand - these penalties not accounting for Light Weapons or the Two-Weapon Fighting feat)? Can multiple attacks provided by high BAB alternate between the weapons in each hand without incurring the Two-Weapon Fighting penalties?
You never answered my question about the disarmed axe of did I miss it. That is the only scenario left not discussed. I may have missed it.
I did repost it to make it rules legal since I goofed the first time by using the wrong feats.
My point was that you at least need something making the idea plausible, even if it is not concrete.
The rules say I get X number of attacks. There is no restriction saying that if the first weapon I use is disarmed, sundered, or made unusable by other means, that I can't use another weapon I am already holding.That is what I was saying.
|
I had a fighter lose three masterwork weapons to a monsters corrosive slime once. He quickdrew a new weapon and continued his attack routine when the previous one was destroyed.Sure, none of my characters have quick draw, if they did, that would be fine with the same hand.
What saddens me is my 6th level fighter can't throw two daggers in sequence, one from each hand, without massive penalties according to some people here.
My point was that you at...Actually what I said is, I don't think the RAW supports or doesn't support my interpretation. I don't think by RAW, you can say definitively one way or the other. We can argue both sides of it and I think both sides will have valid arguments because the RAW is not definitive on itNo rules to back it up means it can't be valid. I will accept that.We have always played it, if you lost your weapon, you lost your remaining attacks with that hand, though I am not sure I can support that either way by RawGentlemen (and possible Ladies),
This has been definitely an interesting debate. I've never had an issue with the interpretation you're espousing (using both weapons in the same turn without incurring TWF penalties) being used as a house rule. I just don't believe it is supported by RAW. I don't think there is anything more that needs to be said, especially considering I would be just repeating myself. Suffice it to say, I believe I have adequately stated my position throughout this thread.
I do agree that it would be nice for Paizo to address this issue in the FAQ. As such, I would like to post (repost, maybe) the question so that it can be FAQ'd:
Question: While holding a weapon in each hand, can you attack with both in the same turn without incurring the Two-Weapon Fighting penalties (-6 for Primary Hand, -10 for Off Hand, 1/2 Strength to Damange for Off Hand - these penalties not accounting for Light Weapons or the Two-Weapon Fighting feat)? Can multiple attacks provided by high BAB alternate between the weapons in each hand without incurring the Two-Weapon Fighting penalties?
You never answered my question about the disarmed axe of did I miss it. That is the only scenario left not discussed. I may have missed it.
I did repost it to make it rules legal since I goofed the first time by using the wrong feats.
well there is no rule that says you can switch which hand is primary mid full attack either. The feat Quick draw would let you draw another with your primary hand, I think without the feat, you loose the rest of the attacks with the primary hand, you still get the offhand attacks of course, but that is the way I read it YMMV
well there is no rule that says you can switch which hand is primary mid full attack either. The feat Quick draw would let you draw another with your primary hand, I think without the feat, you loose the rest of the attacks with the primary hand, you still get the offhand attacks of course, but that is the way I read it YMMV
You dont have a Primary Hand and an Offhand UNTIL you choose to use Two Weapon Fighting rules. At which point, when you make the first attack you have chosen that attack to be with your primary weapon.
There are no provisions for modifying this choice in the Two Weapon Fighting rules, which means that its effective until those rules stop applying, at the end of your turn.
well there is no rule that says you can switch which hand is primary mid full attack either. The feat Quick draw would let you draw another with your primary hand, I think without the feat, you loose the rest of the attacks with the primary hand, you still get the offhand attacks of course, but that is the way I read it YMMVYou dont have a Primary Hand and an Offhand UNTIL you choose to use Two Weapon Fighting rules. At which point, when you make the first attack you have chosen that attack to be with your primary weapon.
There are no provisions for modifying this choice in the Two Weapon Fighting rules, which means that its effective until those rules stop applying, at the end of your turn.
Yes but you have to decide at the beginning of the round if you are dual wielding or not, so you can apply the appropriate penalties and the way I read it and interpret it, if you are intending to attack with weapons in both hands your are dual wielding and have thereby declared a primary and secondary hand, though you get to choose at that time which is which
What saddens me is my 6th level fighter can't throw two daggers in sequence, one from each hand, without massive penalties according to some people here.
You could throw one, then as a free action put the second dagger into your other hand, then throw it.
All you lose is flavor, at the expense of some rules minutia.
That's what we're here for, right?