|
A. If you want an ability, you have to purchase it. Thats called TWF.
I already have an ability to throw 2 daggers. All I want is to flavor it as using both hands.
You're saying that I have to spend a feat and take a -2 for flavor.
Honestly, I'd probably just make the rolls and not even mention the flavor in your game..
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.A. If you want an ability, you have to purchase it. Thats called TWF.
B. If its just the ability to throw two daggers, Quickdraw gives you the ability to throw weapons at your full BAB.So, if all you are trying to do is throw 2 daggers - quickdraw is all you need.
If you want to throw three daggers at 6th level - you need TWF.
Or Rapid Shot.
Also, why would you use the Two Weapon Fighting rules for this situation? The normal rules (which allow him his full attacks with weapons he can wield, which is both of them) cover the situation fine since he's not looking an extra attack. No need to go look them up or reference them, since they dont apply.
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
I dont see any reason to even reference the Two Weapon Fighting rules unless you are trying to use them for the extra attack. The normal rules for making attacks (which dont care about such silly things as handedness) cover the situation just fine.
Its complicating things to much to worry about 'Dual Wielding' or not; thats irrelevant. Whats relevant is whether you're making a Full Attack normally (which doesn't care about where the attacks are coming from normally) or using Two Weapon Fighting for extra attacks.
|
(
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 was referring to the "must be the same weapon" interpretation. With that interpretation a BAB+16 character with haste gets only one primary attack when doing thrown attacks, forcing the others into half strength bonus territory. This is unfair, in my opinion, especially since the term "off-hand" only appears in relation to TWFing, which itself only applies when gaining extra attacks.
As for you second attack, that's not possible due to TWFing rules. At each BAB level in which you get an extra attack, that extra attack must be done with a different weapon than the base attack, and that extra attack takes a damage penalty. In extraordinary circumstances you could even do your +6/+6 BAB attacks (one from normal, one from TWFing) with the kukri in the right hand as primary and the kukri in the left as secondary, then switch for the +1/+1 attacks so that the kukri in the is primary and the kukri in the right is secondary.
The only thing that matters is that a given "extra" attack is paired with a normal attack and be done with a different weapon than that normal attack.
However, if you're not gaining extra attacks you don't have to worry about declaring a secondary/off-hand, because that concept doesn't exist when full-attacking without TWFing.
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?
And this is another reason why I support the "ignore TWFing unless you gain extra attacks" interpretation.
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.
You always have a primary hand and off hand. It just doesn't come into play unless you're using anything besides one weapon. In 3.0 Ambidexterity was one of those feats you needed to fully activate two weapon fighting because of this. Ambidexterity was later rolled into the Two Weapon Fighting feat.
As a result of this, true ambidexterity is not supported in the rules. Main Hand and Off Hand are defined, but it's assumed you're not going to try to argue that you can switch them at will.
In a normal situation your offhand is either doing nothing, wielding a shield, or supporting your primary hand in wielding a two handed (not double) weapon. When using a second weapon or one end of a double weapon, then it has to assume a directing role as well, Since it's not your primary hand it will do so at a disadvantage regardless of how many attacks you make with either hand. So TWF penalties will always apply when you are wielding an off hand weapon (including shield bash), modified by relevant feats if they are taken.
Can to find me a reference in Pathfinder to the 3.0 concept of Handedness/Ambidextry? Because as far as I know, this whole idea has been gone since 3.5; you dont have a main hand or an offhand outside of any round you TWF.
"In 3.0 you needed Ambidextry." is NOT a valid point in a Pathfinder discussion; its outdated, obsolete, and irrelevant.
|
|
A. If you want an ability, you have to purchase it. Thats called TWF.
I already have an ability to throw 2 daggers. All I want is to flavor it as using both hands.
You're saying that I have to spend a feat and take a -2 for flavor.
Honestly, I'd probably just make the rolls and not even mention the flavor in your game..
Adding a bit here since this ended up on the bottom of the last page.
Do you want your players to stop adding flavor because of the rules?
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
I dont see any reason to even reference the Two Weapon Fighting rules unless you are trying to use them for the extra attack. The normal rules for making attacks (which dont care about such silly things as handedness) cover the situation just fine.
Its complicating things to much to worry about 'Dual Wielding' or not; thats irrelevant. Whats relevant is whether you're making a Full Attack normally (which doesn't care about where the attacks are coming from normally) or using Two Weapon Fighting for extra attacks.
I get what your saying, I just disagree, the way I interpret it, if you attack with weapons in both hands, you are two weapon fighting regardless if if you take the extra attack or not. I also disagree about it being more complicated, I think its less complicated as the post I did above points out, but I guess we will just have to agree to disagree
|
|
For those just joining the conversation
A. TWF rules apply anytime a character wields two weapons.
The evidence for this is:a). James Jacobs statement that TWF rules apply whether you accept an additional attack or not.
b). Examples of the Rondelero class, (and others) which states the same: that a penalty is imposed when wielding two weapons.Please refer to those statments (and previous discussion) before making an unsupported argument saying it only applies when making an extra attack.
B. Per RAW it is not possible to switch weapons freely between the primary and offhand.
Evidence for this is
a). The wording from double weapons, which says that a double weapon weilded in 1 hand, or a double weapon wielded in both hands can only use one of the two weapons.To the above discussion I would add that so much of the discussion focuses on assigning an improper meaning to wield .
When a surgeon wields a scalpel - he is cutting.
When a woodsmen wields an ax against a tree - he is hacking the tree with the ax.When you wield a sword - you are using the sword as a tool - and in the context of combat - that means attacking with.
When you wield two weapons - means therefore when you attack with two weapons.
For the love of all that is holy, start linking your quotes! If all you do is say "James Jacobs supports me" without at least quoting him, or better yet linking to the place he said it, then you aren't really helping your case at all.
(As for double weapons: I'm pretty sure that the "you can only use one end" is meant to prevent people from trying to dual-wield with one hand while still using a shield.)
For those just joining the conversation
A. TWF rules apply anytime a character wields two weapons.
The evidence for this is:a). James Jacobs statement that TWF rules apply whether you accept an additional attack or not.
b). Examples of the Rondelero class, (and others) which states the same: that a penalty is imposed when wielding two weapons.
A. Throwing is attacking, throwing 2 quickdrawn daggers with the same hand is wielding two weapons, but is clearly not TWF.
a) James said per round, meaning if you drop your sword during your turn, you can't make an AoO with your gauntlet.
b) Those classes state you can interchange attacks, not that you can't. This implies you normally can't, but doesn't actually say so, and non-core archetypes have done the same thing before and been overturned.
How about this:
"The 'Strict-TWF' rule interpretation states that TWF rules apply any time a character wields a different weapon in each hand (or a double weapon) and attacks with both hands during the same turn."
"The 'Flexible-TWF' rule interpretation states that TWF rules only apply when using TWF to gain an extra attack during a full-attack action."
Sound good?
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 whichwell 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.
You have to decide if you are going to use TWF so that if you plan to get extra attacks the penalties will be enforced. There is no logical reason in or out of game for someone to have one weapon removed, and not be able to continue with another weapon they have access to.
If the scimitar was in a sheath when the axe was disarmed, and it had to be quick drawn(which is legal by the rules) would you also say that it still can't be used?
For those just joining the conversation
A. TWF rules apply anytime a character wields two weapons.
The evidence for this is:a). James Jacobs statement that TWF rules apply whether you accept an additional attack or not.
b). Examples of the Rondelero class, (and others) which states the same: that a penalty is imposed when wielding two weapons.Please refer to those statments (and previous discussion) before making an unsupported argument saying it only applies when making an extra attack.
B. Per RAW it is not possible to switch weapons freely between the primary and offhand.
Evidence for this is
a). The wording from double weapons, which says that a double weapon weilded in 1 hand, or a double weapon wielded in both hands can only use one of the two weapons.To the above discussion I would add that so much of the discussion focuses on assigning an improper meaning to wield .
When a surgeon wields a scalpel - he is cutting.
When a woodsmen wields an ax against a tree - he is hacking the tree with the ax.When you wield a sword - you are using the sword as a tool - and in the context of combat - that means attacking with.
When you wield two weapons - means therefore when you attack with two weapons.
Ignore what CP just said. All of this has had counter interpretations. He is not presenting unbiased points.
Can to find me a reference in Pathfinder to the 3.0 concept of Handedness/Ambidextry? Because as far as I know, this whole idea has been gone since 3.5; you dont have a main hand or an offhand outside of any round you TWF.The question is unrelated to handedness. You do not choose to be right handed or left handed.
In pathfinder, you have one primary hand. All other hands are "off".
The definitive rule source (most recent) is the bestiary.
Quoting:
Multiweapon Fighting (Combat)
This multi-armed creature is skilled at making attacks with multiple weapons.Prerequisites: Dex 13, three or more hands.
Benefit: Penalties for fighting with multiple weapons are reduced by –2 with the primary hand and by –6 with off hands.
Normal: A creature without this feat takes a –6 penalty on attacks made with its primary hand and a –10 penalty on attacks made with all of its off hands. (It has one primary hand, and all the others are off hands.) See Two-Weapon Fighting.
Special: This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms.
Your response here is once again related directly to two weapon fighting. Heck, it even refers you to two weapon fighting. There is no indication here that you have Primary or Off hands except when using these specific rules.
Ignore what CP just said. All of this has had counter interpretations. He is not presenting unbiased points.For those just joining the conversation
A. TWF rules apply anytime a character wields two weapons.
The evidence for this is:a). James Jacobs statement that TWF rules apply whether you accept an additional attack or not.
b). Examples of the Rondelero class, (and others) which states the same: that a penalty is imposed when wielding two weapons.Please refer to those statments (and previous discussion) before making an unsupported argument saying it only applies when making an extra attack.
B. Per RAW it is not possible to switch weapons freely between the primary and offhand.
Evidence for this is
a). The wording from double weapons, which says that a double weapon weilded in 1 hand, or a double weapon wielded in both hands can only use one of the two weapons.To the above discussion I would add that so much of the discussion focuses on assigning an improper meaning to wield .
When a surgeon wields a scalpel - he is cutting.
When a woodsmen wields an ax against a tree - he is hacking the tree with the ax.When you wield a sword - you are using the sword as a tool - and in the context of combat - that means attacking with.
When you wield two weapons - means therefore when you attack with two weapons.
Rather than just ignoring it - why don't you counter it with *actual rules*. Its perfectly OK to make a summation of any counterpoints.
But so far I haven't seen *any* quotes from developers, any rules from any source that says the rules only apply when extra attacks are used.
They have already been countered throughout the thread.
You should have said my side believes.... instead of stating it as fact.
Now if you would have listed both sides I would not have said anything either.
You did not state both sides. If I had not been a part of this thread I would have thought both sides had agreed to whatever you posted, nor did you say "this is how I see it.." or anything similar.
Both sides have made valid points, but nobody has brought irrefutable proof to the interpretations on what you mentioned above.
|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Attempting an abbreviated summary of both arguments, omitting quite a few ... odd points:
a. Attacking with a weapon in the 'off hand' alone should incur the penalties of 1/2 STR and -2 to hit. This is inconsistent with the concept of throwing weapons and wielding a shield. None the less, it makes sense. It is backed by a statement made by a staff member and an ability for the shield fighter, though not conclusively addressing the question at hand. The 'off hand' concept has been butchered, and bleeds the validity of this argument.
b. Not using extra attacks granted by having two weapons should avoid the penalties, suggesting that 'two weapon fighting' is merely a special attack that one does not have to apply when fighting with two weapons. This also makes sense. That one can attack with different weapons in the same round in the same hand without penalty, and that the concept of a 'main hand' applies only to 'two weapon fighting', kind of dodging the concept of two weapon fighting. That is the whole point of the question in the first place.
c. The thread in its entirety is inconclusive. FAQ'ed. The (a.) argument seems to hold more water, but I want (b.) to be right.
If the scimitar was in a sheath when the axe was disarmed, and it had to be quick drawn(which is legal by the rules) would you also say that it still can't be used?By the way - I'm not really sure what your disagreement is?
Certainly you may quick draw a weapon into your primary hand.Wielding multiple weapons in succession is not dual wielding.
I am trying to find out exactly why he thinks disarming a character shuts down a full attack if the first weapon is no longer available so I am asking certain questions under different circumstances.
CP the issue of whether or not wielding multiple weapons is or is not TWF is the heart of the issue. Some are arguing that it is automatically TWF'ing, other say it is not, with disregard for whether or not an extra attack takes place.
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.
way
1 [wey] Show IPA
noun
1. manner, mode, or fashion: a new way of looking at a matter; to reply in a polite way.
2. characteristic or habitual manner: Her way is to work quietly and never complain.
3. a method, plan, or means for attaining a goal: to find a way to reduce costs.
4. a respect or particular: The plan is defective in several ways.
5. a direction or vicinity: Look this way. We're having a drought out our way.
If you are not using Two Weapon Fighting to gain additional attacks, you are not taking penalties.
Case closed.
a). James Jacobs statement that TWF rules apply whether you accept an additional attack or not.
James Jacobs has indeed said that.
B. Per RAW it is not possible to switch weapons freely between the primary and offhand.
James Jacobs also said that switching a held object from one hand to the other doesn't require an action in this post.
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.
way
1 [wey] Show IPA
noun
1. manner, mode, or fashion: a new way of looking at a matter; to reply in a polite way.
2. characteristic or habitual manner: Her way is to work quietly and never complain.
3. a method, plan, or means for attaining a goal: to find a way to reduce costs.
4. a respect or particular: The plan is defective in several ways.
5. a direction or vicinity: Look this way. We're having a drought out our way.If you are not using Two Weapon Fighting to gain additional attacks, you are not taking penalties.
Case closed.
Oh right, reading to the end of the line that actually talks about these penalties is a good idea too.
I facepalmed; you're absolutely right. Its pretty explicit right there isn't it? I can't believe I didn't see that sooner.
Good find.
At 9th level, a two-weapon warrior may, as a standard action, make one attack with both his primary and secondary weapons. The penalties for attacking with two weapons apply normally.
Notice that the two-weapon warrior may make attack with his primary and secondary weapons.
The ability to attack with a primary and a secondary is NOT a condition of choosing to make the attack. He has primary and secondary weapons regardless of whether he chooses to make a double strike or not.
Primary and secondary is SOLELY a function of wielding two weapons.
That wording is there to indicate that the second weapon is allowed in this case, and since this is an archetype focused on TWF'ing it is only natural they give benefits with regard to the second weapon. In order to balance it out they added the TWF penalties so you can choose to attack with a higher bonus or make an extra attack at a lower bonus just like -->>>Two Weapon Fighting or shall I say in the same way.
Primary and secondary is SOLELY a function of wielding two weapons.
Only if you're wielding them together, as per Two Weapon Fighting. Otherwise terms like "Primary Hand" and "Off hand" have no rules relevance.
Which is all irrelevant, regardless; you only take penalties if you are using two weapon fighting to gain an extra attack, see Ashiel's quote. It says as much right in the combat section under two weapon fighting.
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.
way
1 [wey] Show IPA
noun
1. manner, mode, or fashion: a new way of looking at a matter; to reply in a polite way.
2. characteristic or habitual manner: Her way is to work quietly and never complain.
3. a method, plan, or means for attaining a goal: to find a way to reduce costs.
4. a respect or particular: The plan is defective in several ways.
5. a direction or vicinity: Look this way. We're having a drought out our way.If you are not using Two Weapon Fighting to gain additional attacks, you are not taking penalties.
Case closed.
Oh right, reading to the end of the line that actually talks about these penalties is a good idea too.
I facepalmed; you're absolutely right. Its pretty explicit right there isn't it? I can't believe I didn't see that sooner.
Good find.
If you want even more proof, because english is fun...
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.
way
1 [wey] Show IPA
noun
1. manner, mode, or fashion: a new way of looking at a matter; to reply in a polite way.
2. characteristic or habitual manner: Her way is to work quietly and never complain.
3. a method, plan, or means for attaining a goal: to find a way to reduce costs.
4. a respect or particular: The plan is defective in several ways.
5. a direction or vicinity: Look this way. We're having a drought out our way.
the
1 [stressed thee; unstressed before a consonant thuh; unstressed before a vowel thee] Show IPA
definite article
1. (used, especially before a noun, with a specifying or particularizing effect, as opposed to the indefinite or generalizing force of the indefinite article a or an): the book you gave me; Come into the house.
2. (used to mark a proper noun, natural phenomenon, ship, building, time, point of the compass, branch of endeavor, or field of study as something well-known or unique): the sun; the Alps; the Queen Elizabeth; the past; the West.
3. (used with or as part of a title): the Duke of Wellington; the Reverend john smith.
4. (used to mark a noun as indicating the best-known, most approved, most important, most satisfying, etc.): the skiing center of the U.S.; If you're going to work hard, now is the time.
5. (used to mark a noun as being used generically): The dog is a quadruped.
If you are not using Two Weapon Fighting to gain additional attacks, you are not taking penalties.
It specifically is in regards to the additional attack gained for doing so.
English is awesome.
Case closed.
The penalties apply from the wielding of two weapons - not from the choice of gaining extra attacks.
You have not said why you feel that "when you fight this way" applies to wielding an extra weapon, rather than getting an extra attack.
The warrior has a primary and a secondary weapon regardless of whether he chooses to make the attack or not.
Primary and secondary is a function of wielding two weapons - not whether or not you make attacks.
You're going to have to back this up. Also, you've already been proven wrong... by the english language! *rad pose*
If you want even more proof, because english is fun...
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.
way
1 [wey] Show IPA
noun
1. manner, mode, or fashion: a new way of looking at a matter; to reply in a polite way.
2. characteristic or habitual manner: Her way is to work quietly and never complain.
3. a method, plan, or means for attaining a goal: to find a way to reduce costs.
4. a respect or particular: The plan is defective in several ways.
5. a direction or vicinity: Look this way. We're having a drought out our way.the
1 [stressed thee; unstressed before a consonant thuh; unstressed before a vowel thee] Show IPA
definite article
1. (used, especially before a noun, with a specifying or particularizing effect, as opposed to the indefinite or generalizing force of the indefinite article a or an): the book you gave me; Come into the house.
2. (used to mark a proper noun, natural phenomenon, ship, building, time, point of the compass, branch of endeavor, or field of study as something well-known or unique): the sun; the Alps; the Queen Elizabeth; the past; the West.
3. (used with or as part of a title): the Duke of Wellington; the Reverend john smith.
4. (used to mark a noun as indicating the best-known, most approved, most important, most satisfying, etc.): the skiing center of the U.S.; If you're going to work hard, now is the time.
5. (used to mark a noun as being used generically): The dog is a quadruped.If you are not using Two Weapon Fighting to gain additional attacks, you are not taking penalties.
It specifically is in regards to the additional attack gained for doing so.
English is awesome.
Case closed.
|
|
Ashiel, the 'when you fight this way' may be referring to using the extra attack. One does not get this penalty merely for holding two weapons, but this argument about what the language is saying is wrong.
(Edit: Derp on my part on which side is being argued by Ash's point, but the point is the language is not specific)
Ashiel, the 'when you fight this way' may be referring to using the extra attack. One does not get this penalty merely for holding two weapons, so signs point to your argument is wrong.
That is Ashiel's argument. That you have to take the extra attack to get the penalty. What you said.
I'm afraid James Jacobs trumps your understanding of the English language.
James Jacobs is not a rules guy.
Can someone link a quote of James Jacobs saying, "I"m not a rules guy."
I know it exists.
I'm afraid James Jacobs trumps your understanding of the English language.
It wouldn't be the first time.
But anyway, four posts later in that same thread, after someone asked him if that very post could be considered an official clarification on TWF and multiple weapons, someone else said that only Jason makes things official, and thus James chose to go do real work instead.
James has been willing to chime in and give his opinion on a lot of things, but when someone calls him out on not being 'official enough', or brings up developer disagreement, he's quick to back out and stop posting, and then we all lose.
I kind of doubt there will be an official ruling unless it becomes a problem in PFS. (an actual problem, not a rules-forumite posting in the PFS section about a hypothetical or nonexistent player in an attempt to weasel out a free ruling)
Willful ignorance is still ignorance, I'm afraid.
In game terms, your off hand exists as long as you are getting extra attacks with it. See Two Weapon Fighting, Core Rulebook. There is no right or left handedness in D&D. The only time you make an off-hand attack is when you are making extra attacks as off-hand attacks.
|
|
@CP: Those are archetypes that can easily have mistakes. As I stated earlier in the thread, the polearm fighter has one such mistake in relation to the trip property. Just as we have confusion on these boards about which interpretation is correct, those authors can be confused as to which interpretation is correct. They "clarified" in their rules that the character can alternate, whichever ruling you use, when you get that ability, but this does not mean that they were not mistaken in the first place.
Either way, I agree with the interpretation that off-hand only exists when gaining extra attacks, as that's consistent with the wording surrounding the two-weapon fighting rules and feats while avoiding punishing players for what seem like sensible actions.
|
|
Ashiel - but I have shown SEVERAL examples where you are are misunderstanding. You are right that there are no left handedness or right handedness. But there is primary and off hand.
Here's another example:http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/magus/archetypes/paizo---magus -archetypes/spellblade
Spell summons a force dagger to his offhand. No reference made to extra attacks.
This ability says this because the magus traditionally is holding a weapon already when fighting, making this (in non-rules terms) the "off" hand. Just like the shield text in the core rulebook: it's the norm, not a requirement.
Ashiel - but I have shown SEVERAL examples where you are are misunderstanding. You are right that there are no left handedness or right handedness. But there is primary and off hand weapons.
Here's another example:http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/magus/archetypes/paizo---magus -archetypes/spellblade
Spell summons a force dagger to his offhand. No reference made to extra attacks.
Almost all of your examples refer back directly or indirectly to two weapon fighting.
Or are unclear, or are written making some assumptions about your character or fighting style; For instance, the Force Athame specifically reference Two Weapon Fighting, and it seems to imply that two weapon fighting with it is the intent of the ability, though it also works as a dagger.
Are you implying that since you can only summon the Force Athame to your off hand, that if I am not holding another weapon I either A: Can't summon it, or B: take TWF penalties if I attack only with it so long as I hold it in the hand I summoned it to?
Thats kindof ridiculous. More likely, the reference to your offhand there is just assuming you have a real weapon in your other hand.
That wording is there to indicate that the second weapon is allowed in this case, and since this is an archetype focused on TWF'ing it is only natural they give benefits with regard to the second weapon. In order to balance it out they added the TWF penalties so you can choose to attack with a higher bonus or make an extra attack at a lower bonus just like -->>>Two Weapon Fighting or shall I say in the same way.We agree on the mechanics - that misses the point.
The warrior has a primary and a secondary weapon regardless of whether he chooses to make the attack or not.
Primary and secondary is a function of wielding two weapons - not whether or not you make attacks.
Wielding is using not just holding so in order to wield two weapons you must use two weapons, however wielding two weapons does not constitute two weapon fighting as it is written in the combat chapter.
If wielding is just holding then a fighter holding a shield and a longsword has to take penalties since a shield is also a weapon.
Yeah this case is pretty much wrapped up, I think.
Wielding is using not just holding so in order to wield two weapons you must use two weapons, however wielding two weapons does not constitute two weapon fighting as it is written in the combat chapter.
If wielding is just holding then a fighter holding a shield and a longsword has to take penalties since a shield is also a weapon.Three rounds of combat. Fighter is TWFing, with a long sword and ax.
Next round - fighter runs at a mage.Per double strike he has the ability to attack with a primary and an offhand weapon, as part of a standard action.
Run through the qualifications to use the feat. Can he invoke a std action. Yep.
Does he have a primary and off hand weapon. ABSOLUTELY. Does he have to use them - no."At 9th level, a two-weapon warrior may, as a standard action, make one attack with both his primary and secondary weapons". The GM is therefor obliged to allow him to use the feat.
The designation of primary and secondary occurs before any attacks are made.
Suppose the fighter has a silver short sword and an iron dagger, as well as the power attack feat, and the mage has DR10/silver.
The designation of the primary weapon before any attacks are rolled - and its critical. It affects strength bonus and DR penetration. Even if the blade is melted or sundered (remoraz) the TWF penalties apply for the duration of the turn, regardless of the number of attacks.
He has a primary and offhand weapon in your example because of an ability that provides an exception to the normal rules; IE, the one that replicates Two Weapon Fighting on a standard action by allowing him to make two attacks. He has to declare it before making his attacks, but he can change his mind the next time he spends a standard action to make those attacks.
Outside the context of this ability though, terms like primary and off hands hold no meaning.
Wielding is using not just holding so in order to wield two weapons you must use two weapons, however wielding two weapons does not constitute two weapon fighting as it is written in the combat chapter.
If wielding is just holding then a fighter holding a shield and a longsword has to take penalties since a shield is also a weapon.Three rounds of combat. Fighter is TWFing, with a long sword and ax.
Next round - fighter runs at a mage.Per double strike he has the ability to attack with a primary and an offhand weapon, as part of a standard action.
Run through the qualifications to use the feat. Can he invoke a std action. Yep.
Does he have a primary and off hand weapon. ABSOLUTELY. Does he have to use them - no."At 9th level, a two-weapon warrior may, as a standard action, make one attack with both his primary and secondary weapons". The GM is therefor obliged to allow him to use the feat.
The designation of primary and secondary occurs before any attacks are made.
Suppose the fighter has a silver short sword and an iron dagger, as well as the power attack feat, and the mage has DR10/silver.
The designation of the primary weapon before any attacks are rolled - and its critical. It affects strength bonus and DR penetration. Even if the blade is melted or sundered (remoraz) the TWF penalties apply for the duration of the turn, regardless of the number of attacks.
The off-hand has to be accounted for in case the extra attack is made, which brings the special ability into play and therefore has to account for the off-hand, only because the special ability calls it out. That also goes into what I said about weild means use which is what the ability allows, a use of the other weapon. If the extra attack is not made then that just means the special ability did not come into play.
I agree that if TWF is engaged the destruction of the first weapon does not negate the penalties because you must commit to the extra action and penalties if you decide to TWF before you even roll the dice.
Now going back to the special ability allowing two attacks as a standard action, the player must state before he rolls the dice that he is taking two attacks because otherwise there is no way to account for the penalties on the first attack.
What I am saying is that if you do not agree to using weapons in a TWF style that gives the extra attack and the penalties then you are denied them, but that also means there is no off-hand weapon to be wielded/use.
Proof that weilded is used.
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.
Defending: A defending weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the weapon's enhancement bonus to his AC as a bonus that stacks with all others. As a free action, the wielder chooses how to allocate the weapon's enhancement bonus at the start of his turn before using the weapon, and the bonus to AC lasts until his next turn.
Summary: To wield the weapon is to use the weapon.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
New Idea: The axe wielder provokes by trying a combat maneuver he does not have the feat for. In response he is disarmed. <---For HangarFlying
Just to make sure we're on the same page: the character is equipped with both a Battleaxe and a Scimitar, has a +13/+8/+3 BAB, and is attempting to use the Disarm Combat Maneuver with his first attack (using the Battleaxe), thus dropping it, and is now equipped with an unarmed strike and a scimitar.
Ok, first let's pretend that the character declared at the beginning of his turn that he was going to be attacking with both the Battleaxe and the Scimitar. Because he attacked with his Battleaxe first, he has established the Battleaxe attack as his Primary Hand, and his Scimitar becomes his Off Hand. He makes his First Primary Attack (with associated TWF penalties) to try and Disarm his opponent, failing, and drops his Battleaxe. Because we can't retroactively undo the decision to also use the Scimitar this turn, the character can't change the Scimitar from an Off Hand to a Primary Hand attack.The character would "draw" the Scimitar from his Off Hand to his Primary Hand, and as long as he had the Quick Draw feat, he could do it as a free action and could finish his Primary Hand attacks with the Scimitar, with his Off Hand attack as an unarmed strike. If he did not have Quick Draw, he could "draw" the Scimitar to his Primary Hand as a move action, but would not be able to make any further attacks. (Rules: Quick Draw feat, Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack)
Second, let's pretend that the character declared at the beginning of his turn that he was going to attack with only the Battleaxe this turn. Because he is not wielding the Scimitar this turn, he is not applying the Two-Weapon Fighting rules. Once he drops the Battleaxe, he is able to "draw" his Scimitar as stated above, except in this case he isn't getting the extra attack for wielding two weapons.