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.
Let's not assume he declared the scimitar attack up front because you get the option to decide to continue to attack by attack roll. You don't have to declare up front.
Full Attack
If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.
The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step. You may take the step before, after, or between your attacks.
If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first.
I just noticed that last bold. It does not say when TWF'ing, which is called out in the first paragraph separately with regard to extra attacks, but for now we will just handle the axe issue. I just wanted that to be noted that they are separate in the full attack section.
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.
Once again lets not because attacks can be declared independently.
Now using the independent options given to me can I use my 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.
Let's not assume he declared the scimitar attack up front because you get the option to decide to continue to attack by attack roll. You don't have to declare up front.
Full Attack
If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.
The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step. You may take the step before, after, or between your attacks.
If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first.
I just noticed that last bold. It does not say when TWF'ing, which is called out in the first paragraph separately with regard to extra attacks, but for now we will just handle the axe issue. I just wanted that to be noted that they are separate in the full attack section.
Once again lets not because attacks can be declared independently....
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.
If you don't declare it up front then how do you apply the two weapon fighting penalty, once you decide to use the scimitar retroactively?
...
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.
Let's not assume he declared the scimitar attack up front because you get the option to decide to continue to attack by attack roll. You don't have to declare up front.
Full Attack
If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.
The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step. You may take the step before, after, or between your attacks.
If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first.
I just noticed that last bold. It does not say when TWF'ing, which is called out in the first paragraph separately with regard to extra attacks, but for now we will just handle the axe issue. I just wanted that to be noted that they are separate in the full attack section.
Once again lets not because attacks can be
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.
It is not TWF'ing unless you take the extra attack. I am only taking the 3 attacks I am allowed anyway. I just happen to be using a 2nd weapon to do so.
edit:TWF'ing in game terms includes the extra attacks.
|
Look, let's boil down how I see it:
For both, assume that the character has a bandoleer of daggers, an axe (one-handed) and a kukri. They also possess quick draw and a BAB of +6.
Scenario A) Character declares they are using two-weapon fighting and attacks. Whether they utilize their extra attacks or not is up to them, but they take the penalties (keep in mind that ALL characters are wielding at least two weapons since Unarmed Strike can count as two even if no other weapons are wielded). The only restriction is that each pairing of "primary" and "off" consists of different limbs and weapons. Left-kick/Right-kick is just as valid as Right Axe/Left Kukri, but Right Axe/Switch-that-axe-to-left/Left Axe is not.
The character could also, having declared two-weapon fighting, do a progression where they throw several daggers, getting some as "main" and some as "off" based on whether that attack is considered "extra", but must use one arm as main and one as off since they cannot use the same limb for both "main" and "off". If they had 3 or more arms they could use arm A for a main, arm B for an off, arm C for a main, then arm B for an off again.
Scenario B) Character declares that they are NOT two-weapon fighting, but they do have haste going (so they get +6/+6/+1). They can choose to perform all attacks with one weapon (say, the axe) or they can choose to use one +6 for the axe, another for the kukri, then drop the axe, draw a dagger and use that for the third. Because they did not gain extra attacks, they do not take two-weapon fighting or off-handedness penalties.
The key thing here is that the penalties and number of attacks were determined by their declaration of intent. If you did not declare two-weapon fighting, you get no penalties but neither do you get extra attacks. If you declare two-weapon fighting, you get the extra attacks and the penalties, even if you find yourself incapable of taking your remaining attacks.
TL;DR - The off-hand stuff may only exist for two-weapon fighting, but there is no inconsistency as the player must declare two-weapon fighting before attacking. Whether they utilize it or not is inconsequential.
Yeah this case is pretty much wrapped up, I think.Yay, you quoted the dictionary! If you had only applied the information you quoted correctly, you would have had something to gloat about.
You got something to say?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's not assume he declared the scimitar attack up front because you get the option to decide to continue to attack by attack roll. You don't have to declare up front.
I just noticed that last bold. It does not say when TWF'ing, which is called out in the first paragraph separately with regard to extra attacks, but for now we will just handle the axe issue. I just wanted that to be noted that they are separate in the full attack section.
It is not TWF'ing unless you take the extra attack. I am only taking the 3 attacks I am allowed anyway. I just happen to be using a 2nd weapon to do so.
*headdesk* *headdesk* *headdesk* *headdesk* *headdesk*
There are so many problems with your last few posts I don't know where to start.
Listen, I've already posted on this thread why I believe you are interpreting the rules incorrectly. Until we come to a consensus on the fact that the rules do NOT allow you to alternate attacks with weapons held in each hand, or that if you attack with both of those weapons, you are considered to be TWF and the penalties apply, your question will never get answered.
For all of you "use two weapons, but it isn't two weapon fighting" types, please post the rules that you are using as evidence that allows you to use both weapons in the same round and not call it two-weapon fighting. How do you justify the ability to fight with two weapons, but not use two-weapon fighting?
Anyways, I'm done posting unless I have something different to post. I can only quote the same rules so many times before I go insane.
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.
Agreed, there is no "See: Two Weapon Fighting" so the rules in the Full Attack section are independent from the TWF entry.
I don't view the Two Weapon Fighting rule as the only way a character can attack with two weapons.
Another agreement.
For all of you "use two weapons, but it isn't two weapon fighting" types, please post the rules that you are using as evidence that allows you to use both weapons in the same round and not call it two-weapon fighting. How do you justify the ability to fight with two weapons, but not use two-weapon fighting?
Hmm.. perhaps because a character's base attack bonus is high enough to grant multiple attacks? There is no rule that states all your attacks must be attributed to the same weapon.
In fact this is what the rules say: If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first.
Nothing about off handed weapons, nothing about penalties, no See: Two Weapon Fighting, nothing about an extra attack, nothing, nothing, nothing.
Regarding the Archetypes: Holding them up as a standard is not really appropriate. The polearm fighter and tripping were recently revised, what makes you certain that other Archetypes won't endure the same fate?
How do you justify the ability to fight with two weapons, but not use two-weapon fighting?Mostly because I don't view the Two Weapon Fighting rule as the only way a character can attack with two weapons.
Kind of like how fireball isn't the only way to deal Fire damage, and raise dead isn't the only spell to bring you back to life. A standard action isn't the only way to attack, and a move action isn't the only way to move.
One side is sourcing a lot of supplemental rules which exist in their own little microcosm, rather than actually accepting how the core rules work. The core rules are pretty clear. I quoted it earlier, and even showed the definition of the words and the pattern of the grammar, to avoid confusion.
Core rules say that you take penalties when you're gaining additional attacks that way. If you're not gaining additional attacks. People keep pointing out the logical errors or expanding upon the arguments of the TW-Haters to show why their premises are flawed, and all they do is drone on and on about separate rules that work similar to TWF, but aren't TWF.
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.
I feel sorry for the PF devs. That is all.
I quoted it earlier, and even showed the definition of the words and the pattern of the grammar, to avoid confusion.
Sorry, but your grammatical analysis was patently flawed.
Two-Weapon Fighting
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way.
You presume that "when you fight this way" refers to gaining an extra attack because
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.
In essence, your argument boils down to, "'Way' means the manner in which you carry out an action. The manner a person 'Two Weapon Fighting' fights is to get an extra attack." QED.
The problem is that makes no logical or linguistic sense. Getting "an extra attack" is not a "way" or "manner" or "method" of fighting. Your plan of attack on that orc standing over there is not "to make an extra one". You can attack with magic; you can attack with a ranged weapon; you can attack with a two-handed weapon; you can attack with two weapons. You cannot attack "with an extra attack".
Seriously, I've read this thread and it's a little frustrating. There is nothing wrong with houseruling the interpretation many of you want. But arguing that the rules are too ambiguous and it therefore justifies the tortured interpretation defies logic, to be frank. What it boils down to is you want to gain the benefits of fighting with two weapons without applying the penalties of fighting with two weapons. I'm not understanding this proposition that "fighting with two weapons" is not "two weapon fighting".
Reading the TWF description to apply the conditional phrase ("when you fight this way") to the extra attack ignores the necessary condition of gaining that extra attack. That you get an extra attack is irrelevant, what matters is the condition that causes the extra attack.
How you get the penalty is the same way you get the extra attack, by "wielding two weapons". Gaining an extra attack is not a "way" of fighting, no matter what tortured logic or interpretation you attempt to apply to the phrase.
Honestly, I can't understand how you came to that conclusion just from quoting the definition of the word "way".
I'm not understanding this proposition that "fighting with two weapons" is not "two weapon fighting".
Fighting with two weapons is a concept, however, Two Weapon Fighting is a very specific game term defined in Pathfinder, it has its own paragraph in the rules section.
Confusion arises because Two Weapon Fighting has specific penalties and benefits associated with it. One could fight with two weapons and not be enacting the game term "two weapon fighting".
I'm not understanding this proposition that "fighting with two weapons" is not "two weapon fighting".
Fighting with two weapons is a concept, however, Two Weapon Fighting is a very specific game term defined in Pathfinder, it has its own paragraph in the rules section.
Confusion arises because Two Weapon Fighting has specific penalties and benefits associated with it. One could fight with two weapons and not be enacting the game term "two weapon fighting".
I disagree that you can do that. If you're fighting with a weapon in each hand, and use both weapons, you are definitively two weapon fighting. The rules allow you to fight with two weapons, via the two weapon fighting mechanic.
But whenever you are using two weapons, TWO WEAPON FIGHTING APPLIES, by definition. In which case main and off hand do certainly apply.
Actually, as per RAW, it only applies when you are using a second weapon in your offhand (which exists only when a specific rule makes it relevant) to gain an additional attack as per the Two Weapon Fighting rules.
Which. Is. Explicit.
If you aren't taking advantage of those rules, you use the standard Full Attack rules (or standard attack rules, as the case may be)... which have been quoted. Did you see anything there about only being able to use one weapon? Anything about only being able to use the first weapon you swing with? Only having access to a single limb for combat? In fact, it notes the opposite. If you want to make your Full BAB attack with one weapon, where does it say you are not allowed to use a different one for the second?
I'll tell you where; nowhere. It doesn't say that.
I disagree that you can do that. If you're fighting with a weapon in each hand, and use both weapons, you are definitively two weapon fighting. The rules allow you to fight with two weapons, via the two weapon fighting mechanic.
This is not the only way to use multiple weapons. A character receives another attack at BAB +6. As I stated above, in the full attack section there is text regarding iterative attacks, double weapons and multiple weapons. There is no direct link to the Two Weapon Fighting mechanic, no mention of penalties associated with multiple weapons, etc.
Krispy's post (above) does a good job of expanding on my thought.
I disagree that you can do that. If you're fighting with a weapon in each hand, and use both weapons, you are definitively two weapon fighting. The rules allow you to fight with two weapons, via the two weapon fighting mechanic.
I can fight in a defensive manner without Fighting Defensively. I can cast in a defensive way without Casting Defensively. I can charge in to combat without Charging.
All of these things describe methods or ways of fighting or acting; Half of them describe game terms with specific rules implications, but the other half do not.
You can fight with two weapons without Two Weapon Fighting. Claiming otherwise is silly.
In essence, your argument boils down to, "'Way' means the manner in which you carry out an action. The manner a person 'Two Weapon Fighting' fights is to get an extra attack." QED.The problem is that makes no logical or linguistic sense. Getting "an extra attack" is not a "way" or "manner" or "method" of fighting. Your plan of attack on that orc standing over there is not "to make an extra one". You can attack with magic; you can attack with a ranged weapon; you can attack with a two-handed weapon; you can attack with two weapons. You cannot attack "with an extra attack".
'Two Weapon Fighting' and its associated penalties refers to a mechanical option in the game rules, not to a more general description of the manner in which you're fighting. It's true that if you attack the orc "with your two weapons" then you are "fighting with two weapons", but you are not Two Weapon Fighting as defined in the rules. You could say "the standard action when entering the guild is to open the door", but that doesn't mean that opening the door to the guild is a Standard Action as defined in the rules.
By RAW it applies when you are using a second weapon. Period. Here's another example creatures like Mariliths use 8 hands to wield weapons. All but 1 of them are treated as off hand.
Your standard BAB iterative attacks are based on using ONE primary weapon. You can not use an off hand weapon as part of the standard iterative. it is always a secondary additional attack. I'm not going to repeat this any more, I've stated my position and I'm done. You can run whatever you like, but that's how I'm judging.
The creature in your example, the Marilith, uses a special feature which replicates Two Weapon Fighting with additional weapons.
My point is, if she lacked the multiweapon fighting feat, she could make her normal iterative attacks with whichever combination of her swords she liked... she would get a number of attacks based on her BAB, and thats it, but they wouldn't be at any additional penalties because she can simply choose to use a standard Full Attack action and not use the Two Weapon Fighting Rules (modified by Multiweapon fighting).
This is not the only way to use multiple weapons. A character receives another attack at BAB +6. As I stated above, in the full attack section there is text regarding iterative attacks, double weapons and multiple weapons. There is no direct link to the Two Weapon Fighting mechanic, no mention of penalties associated with multiple weapons, etc.
Krispy's post (above) does a good job of expanding on my thought.
I can fight in a defensive manner without Fighting Defensively. I can cast in a defensive way without Casting Defensively. I can charge in to combat without Charging.
All of these things describe methods or ways of fighting or acting; Half of them describe game terms with specific rules implications, but the other half do not.
You can fight with two weapons without Two Weapon Fighting. Claiming otherwise is silly.
Except the rules are clear that when wielding two weapons, you are two weapon fighting. Reading the rules to require you to make an extra attack before the penalty applies is tortured semantics. The plain meaning of the rule is that "fighting in this way" means "wielding two weapons".
And you can charge in a generic sense, but gamewise it is no different than simply moving. Ergo, you're not really charging. And I question whether you can actually "fight in a defensive manner" without fighting defensively, unless you're referring to tactics rather than actual game impact. If that's the case, it's an irrelevant distinction. The same goes for casting in a defensive manner. If that means just planning circumstance so you're not getting attacked, it's a rather weak analogy.
'Two Weapon Fighting' and its associated penalties refers to a mechanical option in the game rules, not to a more general description of the manner in which you're fighting. It's true that if you attack the orc "with your two weapons" then you are "fighting with two weapons", but you are not Two Weapon Fighting as defined in the rules. You could say "the standard action when entering the guild is to open the door", but that doesn't mean that opening the door to the guild is a Standard Action as defined in the rules.
In essence, your argument boils down to, "'Way' means the manner in which you carry out an action. The manner a person 'Two Weapon Fighting' fights is to get an extra attack." QED.The problem is that makes no logical or linguistic sense. Getting "an extra attack" is not a "way" or "manner" or "method" of fighting. Your plan of attack on that orc standing over there is not "to make an extra one". You can attack with magic; you can attack with a ranged weapon; you can attack with a two-handed weapon; you can attack with two weapons. You cannot attack "with an extra attack".
Except Two Weapon Fighting is defined as wielding two weapons. The mechanical option is present in the event that you choose to wield two weapons, not in the event that you wield two weapons and choose to make an extra attack. Opening a door is not defined as a standard action. There is no alternate definition to "fighting with two weapons" as there is with "standard" to lead to distinct connotations.
|
|
But whenever you are using two weapons, TWO WEAPON FIGHTING APPLIES, by definition. In which case main and off hand do certainly apply.Actually, as per RAW, it only applies when you are using a second weapon in your offhand (which exists only when a specific rule makes it relevant) to gain an additional attack as per the Two Weapon Fighting rules.
Which. Is. Explicit.
If you aren't taking advantage of those rules, you use the standard Full Attack rules (or standard attack rules, as the case may be)... which have been quoted. Did you see anything there about only being able to use one weapon? Anything about only being able to use the first weapon you swing with? Only having access to a single limb for combat? In fact, it notes the opposite. If you want to make your Full BAB attack with one weapon, where does it say you are not allowed to use a different one for the second?
I'll tell you where; nowhere. It doesn't say that.
Do you actually read anything you write? RAW states that if you are using a second weapon in your offhand you are TWF. This argument that the TWF penalties only apply when you use the extra attack granted by fighting with two weapons is completely stupid. As Fretgod99 so astutely pointed out, you cannot attack an enemy with "an extra attack". You attack the enemy with two weapons, or one weapon, or spells, or tree limbs, and then when you do make that attack, you have an option of making said extra attack.
The act of wielding two weapons requires you to take the penalties for wielding two weapons. It doesn't matter if you ultimately decide to make the extra attack for TWF or not. If you declare at the beginning of your round that you are going to wield both weapons, you must apply the TWF penalties before you make any attack, even if you decide after your first attack that you are not going to use your extra attack provided by TWF. You CAN'T retroactively apply or retract any penalties/bonuses later in a round.
If you want to make your Full BAB attack with two weapons, where does it say that you are allowed to use a different one for the second?
Again, I asked for rules that support your house rules. I have yet to see anything other than opinion.
Except Two Weapon Fighting is defined as wielding two weapons. The mechanical option is present in the event that you choose to wield two weapons, not in the event that you wield two weapons and choose to make an extra attack. Opening a door is not defined as a standard action. There is no alternate definition to "fighting with two weapons" as there is with "standard" to lead to distinct connotations.
By your definition, I would take penalties to attacks with my main hand simply for holding a weapon in my other hand. That includes a shield, for the record. Or wearing a gauntlet. Or... being capable of an unarmed attack. I'm clearly 'wielding' all of these items; I'm gaining AC from the shield, threatening with the gauntlet, etc, but they dont force massive penalties on me (or any npc I've read in the bestiary for that matter, or in a AP).
You definition is clearly and obviously wrong. None of the above items are Two Weapon Fighting. Its only Two Weapon Fighting if I use the Two Weapon Fighting rules, which is not required if I have a weapon in each hand.
After making my first attack, the rules clearly allow me to then decide to make a second attack. I am not restricted in any way by the Full Attack rules in which weapon I may use for this. If you can point out something in the Full Attack rules that disagrees, or possibly some errata I've missed, I'd be very appreciative.
Hangar, the rules I'm reading from are strait off the PRD. If you want to requote them and show me where I'm wrong, I'd appreciate it.
Except the rules are clear that when wielding two weapons, you are two weapon fighting. Reading the rules to require you to make an extra attack before the penalty applies is tortured semantics. The plain meaning of the rule is that "fighting in this way" means "wielding two weapons".
Actually it's quite clear that "when fighting this way" refers to "you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon". Otherwise the extra attack clause would belong in a separate sentence (and as has been pointed out previously you would ALWAYS take the 2WF penalties because a fist, gauntlet, and shield are all "a second weapon in your off hand). The rules simply do not state whether you can switch between weapons on normal attacks at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the last 12 hours this thread has gotten 5 more FAQ tags and OVER A HUNDRED NEW POSTS... We are now sitting at over 300 posts and 29 FAQ tags... Is it time to page Mr Jacobs to tell him we have a genuine dispute here (notwithstanding how either side claims to be unequivocally right)?
For the record, I posted the OP and have read all the 300+ posts to date and I still don't believe either side to be INDISPUTABLY correct despite the many assertions by either side to the contrary. Ok now both sides are going to flame me. *casts resist energy:fire and protection from energy: fire*
No, because this argument is immaterial, and Paizo has better things to do than settle some playground dispute.Is it time to page Mr Jacobs to tell him we have a genuine dispute here?
=( It's material to my current character. And potentially some throwing builds.
And settling playground disputes can actually be a very material consideration, but that's a parenting issue. ;)
It includes a shield IF YOU ARE USING IT TO ATTACK as opposed to simply using it as a shield, it includes a gauntlet IF YOU ARE USING IT TO ATTACK, as some folks will as an offhand. (of course if you don't have the feat it also provokes an AOO)
Shield use is designed with the off hand in mind.
No, you can't just dismiss and ignore your own argument when it hurts you guys. Here's the rules. Again.
"If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. "
If you are using a shield, you are wielding it. If it is in your offhand (which you all insist exists outside of TWF), by your reasoning, you take TWF penalties because all of the conditions you have set are fulfilled. A shield is always a weapon.
It does not say attack there. It says 'wield'.
It DOES say that you only take the penalties when you fight in the preceedingly mentioned manner (gaining an additional attack) though, which makes more sense then always having you take TWF penalties because you are nearly always wielding something usable as a weapon in your offhand.
|
|
Except Two Weapon Fighting is defined as wielding two weapons. The mechanical option is present in the event that you choose to wield two weapons, not in the event that you wield two weapons and choose to make an extra attack. Opening a door is not defined as a standard action. There is no alternate definition to "fighting with two weapons" as there is with "standard" to lead to distinct connotations.By your definition, I would take penalties to attacks with my main hand simply for holding a weapon in my other hand. That includes a shield, for the record. Or wearing a gauntlet. Or... being capable of an unarmed attack. I'm clearly 'wielding' all of these items; I'm gaining AC from the shield, threatening with the gauntlet, etc, but they dont force massive penalties on me (or any npc I've read in the bestiary for that matter, or in a AP).
This horse has been beat into a bloody pulp. Holding != Wielding. You are wielding a weapon when you attack with it. You do not wield an unarmed strike just because you have a hand. You wield an unarmed strike the moment you announce you are attacking with it.
You definition is clearly and obviously wrong. None of the above items are Two Weapon Fighting. Its only Two Weapon Fighting if I use the Two Weapon Fighting rules, which is not required if I have a weapon in each hand.
If you are wielding each weapon, then yes, you are Two Weapon Fighting and the penalties apply. If you are only wielding with one of the weapons, then no, Two-Weapon Fighting does not apply.
After making my first attack, the rules clearly allow me to then decide to make a second attack. I am not restricted in any way by the Full Attack rules in which weapon I may use for this. If you can point out something in the Full Attack rules that disagrees, or possibly some errata I've missed, I'd be very appreciative.
You are interpreting rules that do not exist. The rules say the character has the ability to choose the first attack. It doesn't say that after you make the first attack you can attack with the other weapon without incurring a penalty.
Hangar, the rules I'm reading from are strait off the PRD. If you want to requote them and show me where I'm wrong, I'd appreciate it.
I've already quoted them. You'll need to go back a few pages because I'm finished repeating myself. If you think that what I am saying is wrong, quote me the rules as to why I am wrong. Until such time, your argument is nothing more than a house rule.
STUFF
Thats funny. You glossed over the part about a shield. Not that you aren't wielding a gauntlet (unless you choose not to threaten with it, I guess... but I dont think you can RAW), but lets look at the shield thing a second.
You're clearly wielding it if you are benefitting from it (and gaining AC), and its clearly a weapon (its right there in the weapon tables).
So if you are using a shield, by your logic, you are two weapon fighting. Period.
No way around it unless you make a arbitrary and completely non-substantiated exception for it just to make your position not instantly look silly.
|
|
If you are using a shield, you are wielding it. If it is in your offhand (which you all insist exists outside of TWF), by your reasoning, you take TWF penalties because all of the conditions you have set are fulfilled. A shield is always a weapon.
A shield is only a weapon if you declare it to be a weapon.
|
|
STUFFThats funny. You glossed over the part about a shield. Not that you aren't wielding a gauntlet (unless you choose not to threaten with it, I guess... but I dont think you can RAW), but lets look at the shield thing a second.
You're clearly wielding it if you are benefitting from it (and gaining AC), and its clearly a weapon (its right there in the weapon tables).
So if you are using a shield, by your logic, you are two weapon fighting. Period.
No way around it unless you make a arbitrary and completely non-substantiated exception for it just to make your position not instantly look silly.
And if you need a quote from the rules:
Shield Bash Attacks: You can bash an opponent with a heavy shield, using it as an off-hand weapon. See “shield, heavy” on Table: Weapons for the damage dealt by a shield bash. Used this way, a heavy shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon. For the purpose of penalties on attack rolls, treat a heavy shield as a one-handed weapon. If you use your shield as a weapon, you lose its AC bonus until your next turn. An enhancement bonus on a shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but the shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right.
And if you need a quote from the rules:
Shields are on the weapons table. They are always weapons.
Oh, hey, your quote is misleading and out of date btw. Here's the relevant bit from the FAQ:
"If I make a shield bash (page 152), does it always have to be an off-hand attack?
The text for a shield bash assumes you're making a bash as an off-hand attack, but you don't have to. You can, for example, just make a shield bash attack (at your normal, main-hand attack bonus) or shield bash with your main hand and attack with a sword in your off-hand.
Update: Page 152—In the Shield Bash Attacks section, in the first sentence, delete “using it as an off-hand weapon.”
—Sean K Reynolds, 08/30/11"
Oh HEY! This FAQ also notes you can choose which weapon is your main hand. How about that. Thats a lot of implied choice in there.
|
|
Oh my God, you are deliberately ignoring the rules to try to justify your argument. I wasn't arguing if your shield was an off hand or primary attack. I was aware of the FAQ and it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH MY QUOTING THE PRD.
You said: "A shield is always a weapon."
The rules regarding using shields states that this is not the case. If you use the shield as a weapon, it does not count as armor. If you use your shield as armor, it does not count as a weapon. Just because shields are "listed in the weapons table" does not mean anything. You need to read the rules regarding shields, which I quoted for you.
So, back to your assumption that if you are holding a shield you must take the TWF penalties: if you are not using your shield as a weapon, you do not take the TWF penalties, because you are not wielding it as a weapon.
Oh my God, you are deliberately ignoring the rules to try to justify your argument. I wasn't arguing if your shield was an off hand or primary attack. I was aware of the FAQ and it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH MY QUOTING THE PRD.
You said: "A shield is always a weapon."
The rules regarding using shields states that this is not the case. If you use the shield as a weapon, it does not count as armor. If you use your shield as armor, it does not count as a weapon. Just because shields are "listed in the weapons table" does not mean anything. You need to read the rules regarding shields, which I quoted for you.
So, back to your assumption that if you are holding a shield you must take the TWF penalties: if you are not using your shield as a weapon, you do not take the TWF penalties, because you are not wielding it as a weapon.
Oh, you're referring to this line? Or one of the similar ones regarding 'using' a shield?
"If you use your shield as a weapon, you lose its AC bonus until your next turn."
I did read that. It does imply that you aren't always using a shield as a weapon. Which is true. I can also use a sword as a cool pointer for a presentation... which isn't using it as a weapon.
Neither of these things change the fact that both of the items in question are weapons. The fact that you dont always use them as such is irrelevant.
And if you need a quote from the rules:
Shields are on the weapons table. They are always weapons.
Oh, hey, your quote is misleading and out of date btw. Here's the relevant bit from the FAQ:
"If I make a shield bash (page 152), does it always have to be an off-hand attack?
The text for a shield bash assumes you're making a bash as an off-hand attack, but you don't have to. You can, for example, just make a shield bash attack (at your normal, main-hand attack bonus) or shield bash with your main hand and attack with a sword in your off-hand.Update: Page 152—In the Shield Bash Attacks section, in the first sentence, delete “using it as an off-hand weapon.”
—Sean K Reynolds, 08/30/11"
Oh HEY! This FAQ also notes you can choose which weapon is your main hand. How about that. Thats a lot of implied choice in there.
How is that relevant or, for that matter, different than what hangar was saying? A shield is treated as a weapon if you choose to attack with it; otherwise it is not. Additionally, you may treat it as your main weapon, just as you can do with any other two weapon fighting scenario (you can always choose which weapon is your primary weapon). Just like a gauntlet is a weapon if you're going to attack with it.
Tortured semantics. That's the only justification you can use at this point. The plainest, most logical linguistic interpretation of the TWF rule is that "fighting in this way" refers to wielding two weapons. Making an extra attack is, simply put, not a method of attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh my God, you are deliberately ignoring the rules to try to justify your argument. I wasn't arguing if your shield was an off hand or primary attack. I was aware of the FAQ and it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH MY QUOTING THE PRD.
You said: "A shield is always a weapon."
The rules regarding using shields states that this is not the case. If you use the shield as a weapon, it does not count as armor. If you use your shield as armor, it does not count as a weapon. Just because shields are "listed in the weapons table" does not mean anything. You need to read the rules regarding shields, which I quoted for you.
So, back to your assumption that if you are holding a shield you must take the TWF penalties: if you are not using your shield as a weapon, you do not take the TWF penalties, because you are not wielding it as a weapon.
Oh, you're referring to this line? Or one of the similar ones regarding 'using' a shield?
"If you use your shield as a weapon, you lose its AC bonus until your next turn."
I did read that. It does imply that you aren't always using a shield as a weapon. Which is true. I can also use a sword as a cool pointer for a presentation... which isn't using it as a weapon.
Neither of these things change the fact that both of the items in question are weapons. The fact that you dont always use them as such is irrelevant.
You know what's crazy, if you're using your sword as a cool pointer for a presentation, you're not using it as weapon. Ergo, it's not being wielding for TWF purposes and the penalties don't apply. Thanks for making our point.
If you are wielding each weapon, then yes, you are Two Weapon Fighting and the penalties apply. If you are only wielding with one of the weapons, then no, Two-Weapon Fighting does not apply.
You're wrong about this. The two weapon fighting rules clearly indicate TWO clauses: 1) Wield a weapon in your off hand AND 2) Get one extra attack with said weapon. It goes on to state that you take X penalties "when you fight this way". This can only mean that the entire set of clauses must be in play for the penalty to be applied. Since the iterative attacks with the second weapon are not 'extra' the penalty is never triggered.
You are interpreting rules that do not exist. The rules say the character has the ability to choose the first attack. It doesn't say that after you make the first attack you can attack with the other weapon without incurring a penalty.
But you're right about this. There's nothing that says you CAN switch weapons during a full attack, whether by wielding two weapons at once, dropping one weapon and quick drawing another, or any other means.
You know what's crazy, if you're using your sword as a cool pointer for a presentation, you're not using it as weapon. Ergo, it's not being wielding for TWF purposes and the penalties don't apply. Thanks for making our point.
Which is irrelevant. It is a weapon and you are wielding it. By your definition, that's plenty for you to take attack penalties.
You cannot make it not a weapon simply by not wanting it to be so.
But you're right about this. There's nothing that says you CAN switch weapons during a full attack, whether by wielding two weapons at once, dropping one weapon and quick drawing another, or any other means.
Waring: Sarcasm for the opposition to follow.
Agreed. Disarm now becomes the most powerful maneuver as once your intended weapon of your Full Attack routine is removed, all your remaining attacks are forfeit.
Which is irrelevant. It is a weapon and you are wielding it. By your definition, that's plenty for you to take attack penalties.
You cannot make it not a weapon simply by not wanting it to be so.
Krispy, these guys use the term wield to mean "attack with" and not the "other" definition which means "to have at the ready (in PF that would be equipped and available to make an attack with)". I'm glad there are others sticking up for what's right in the face of this selective use of English.
But you're right about this. There's nothing that says you CAN switch weapons during a full attack, whether by wielding two weapons at once, dropping one weapon and quick drawing another, or any other means.
At no point that I can find does it anywhere restrict you on which weapons you may use to make 'attacks' in general. Nor do all attacks in a Full Attack have to be the same; there is definite precedent in being able to choose how you use your attacks in that you can replace any attack with a Trip/Disarm/Sunder attempt.