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.
Trip etc are all explicitly given permission to do so. I'm not saying it doesn't make sense; I'm saying that it isn't addressed in the rules.
Then you're always will have TWF penalties. ==> Unarmed strike is a weapon and you wield it always.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.
That is the issue with the position that simply wielding a second weapon is two weapon fighting, yes. Its not a solid position exactly because of this.
Much more reasonable is the position that you only take TWF penalties when using the Two Weapon Fighting rules, as stipulated in those very rules.
EDIT: Moglun, my point is that the opposite is not covered either; there is no guidance at all on what you may make attacks with (beyond range) in a normal situation. The assumption seems to be you can attack with any weapon you currently have available and are able to wield or any valid alternative such as an unarmed attack or natural weapon. As well, its not even implied anywhere that you are required to maintain the similar attack form for any arbitrary amount of time.
|
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.
Actually, you are misreading the rule. Getting "one extra attack with said weapon" is not a condition for TWF, it is a benefit of using that weapon. This is basic English Grammar. People who are saying otherwise are making excuses to justify wanting to do cool things with their characters without paying the price of doing said cool things.
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 two weapon fighting.
What benefits of two weapon fighting? They're not making extra attacks. Using multiple weapons in one sequence is not a benefit; without extra attacks, it's a downright liability. Whatever situational benefits there might be to switching your weapon in the middle of a sequence is more than outweighed by the cost of maintaining two separate weapons over an adventuring career. What it in fact boils down to, is that we don't think the penalties for two weapon fighting should apply when we're not getting the central benefits of two-weapon fighting.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Much more reasonable is the position that you only take TWF penalties when using the Two Weapon Fighting rules, as stipulated in those very rules.
EDIT: Moglun, my point is that the opposite is not covered either; there is no guidance at all on what you may make attacks with (beyond range) in a normal situation. The assumption seems to be you can attack with any weapon you currently have available and are able to wield or any valid alternative such as an unarmed attack or natural weapon. As well, its not even implied anywhere that you are required to maintain the similar attack form for any arbitrary amount of time.
And the Two-Weapon Fighting rules stipulate that you are Two-Weapon Fighting when you wield a weapon in each hand. And because you are wielding a weapon in each hand, you are allowed to make one extra attack with your off hand weapon. Making an extra off hand weapon is not a condition for TWF, it is a benefit from wielding a second weapon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Except the sword thing is a specious, terrible analogy. A sword's only real in-game purpose is to make some sort of attack. A shield has at least two potential in-game purposes: to defend and to attack. Until you declare which it is doing, you can't assume it is being treated primarily as a weapon (it's secondary purpose).
The same is true for an empty hand/knee/elbow/whatever other body part one would use to make an unarmed strike. Until you declare that you're going to be using it as a weapon, it shouldn't be treated as such.
TWF isn't defined as wielding two weapons and making an extra attack, otherwise it would state that in the rule. It is defined as wielding two weapons, which lets you make an extra attack. Any other reader is not a genuine interpretation of the rule. It's not good construction to read into the definition anything other than the clearest meaning.
What it in fact boils down to, is that we don't think the penalties for two weapon fighting should apply when we're not getting the central benefits of two-weapon fighting.But you meet the conditions - you wield two weapons.
But not fighting in the described way, which is using the second weapon to gain an extra attack. Which by the way, is the actual condition for receiving the penalties, not wielding two weapons.
Fret, you're still ignoring a critical fact there btw; a shield does not cease to be a weapon simply because you aren't using it as one. Nor does it cease to be armor because you used it as a weapon, though it doesn't contribute as armor.
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 two weapon fighting.What benefits of two weapon fighting? They're not making extra attacks. Using multiple weapons in one sequence is not a benefit; without extra attacks, it's a downright liability. Whatever situational benefits there might be to switching your weapon in the middle of a sequence is more than outweighed by the cost of maintaining two separate weapons over an adventuring career. What it in fact boils down to, is that we don't think the penalties for two weapon fighting should apply when we're not getting the central benefits of two-weapon fighting.
Which is a perfectly fine way to houserule it. I have no issues with that. Mostly, I took exception to simply egregious errors in interpretation of the English language made by another poster.
What it in fact boils down to, is that we don't think the penalties for two weapon fighting should apply when we're not getting the central benefits of two-weapon fighting.But you meet the conditions - you wield two weapons.But not fighting in the described way, which is using the second weapon to gain an extra attack. Which by the way, is the actual condition for receiving the penalties, not wielding two weapons.
Fret, you're still ignoring a critical fact there btw; a shield does not cease to be a weapon simply because you aren't using it as one. Nor does it cease to be armor because you used it as a weapon, though it doesn't contribute as armor.
Irrelevant. You're not wielding it as a weapon unless you use it to shield bash. Ergo, it's not being wielding for the purposes of TWF.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, you are misreading the rule. Getting "one extra attack with said weapon" is not a condition for TWF, it is a benefit of using that weapon. This is basic English Grammar.
That's incorrect. Try it out: "If you wield a 2nd weapon in your off hand. You suffer X penalties when you fight this way." The "extra attack" clause is a necessary part of the sentence and they cannot be separated from each other, nor can the penalties sentence afterward be made to apply to only parts of it rather than the whole.
If it were phrased differently you would be correct: "You may wield a second weapon. When you fight this way you take X penalties, and can get one extra attack", or "If you wield a second weapon you take X penalties. You can get one extra attack when you fight this way". But as it is written now, if you aren't taking the extra attack you can't take the penalties.
|
|
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 two weapon fighting.What benefits of two weapon fighting? They're not making extra attacks. Using multiple weapons in one sequence is not a benefit; without extra attacks, it's a downright liability. Whatever situational benefits there might be to switching your weapon in the middle of a sequence is more than outweighed by the cost of maintaining two separate weapons over an adventuring career. What it in fact boils down to, is that we don't think the penalties for two weapon fighting should apply when we're not getting the central benefits of two-weapon fighting.
That is an interesting point. Why wouldn't you make all of your allowed attacks considering you should be taking the penalties for attacking with two weapons. The problem that we are having on this thread is that people are thinking they can fight with two weapons without taking the penalties for fighting with two weapons.
If you attack with two weapons in a round, and your BAB is +13/+8/+3, it is not first primary/second primary with the other hand/third primary with the other hand; your available iterations are first primary/off hand/second primary/third primary. The off hand attack is not a condition to get that off hand attack, it is a benefit of having a weapon in the second hand and announcing you are going to attack with it.
If you make a full attack, using only one weapon, no one has yet posted a rule that proves to me that you can alternate that weapon with the second weapon between iterative attacks.
Irrelevant. You're not wielding it as a weapon unless you use it to shield bash. Ergo, it's not being wielding for the purposes of TWF.
It is a weapon and you are wielding it. Intent to use it as a weapon is irrelevant.
You can't simply declare it invalid because it hurts your argument otherwise; a sword and board fighter, by your reading of the TWF rules, is always wielding a pair of weapons. He cannot make this untrue by wishing it not to be so.
Lets make it more clear; its a spiked shield. Spiked shieldss are always a weapon, period end of story (EDIT: Well, they're listed as weapons) . They are on a shield, and are being wielded, regardless of whether or not they are used. You're seriously going to tell me that attacking with the sword, he is two weapon fighting?
Or are you going to simply declare that shield spikes aren't weapons yet because he hasn't made an attack with them yet?
EDIT: Actually, you know what? Its late and its not really important. Play it how you will. Have fun.
The points on both sides of this argument have been repeated quite a few times now. Does anybody think a consensus is going to be reached by repeating them a few more times? No offense intended to anybody; I just don't think we're getting anywhere.
Irrelevant. You're not wielding it as a weapon unless you use it to shield bash. Ergo, it's not being wielding for the purposes of TWF.It is a weapon and you are wielding it. Intent to use it as a weapon is irrelevant.
You can't simply declare it invalid because it hurts your argument otherwise; a sword and board fighter, by your reading of the TWF rules, is always wielding a pair of weapons. He cannot make this untrue by wishing it not to be so.
Lets make it more clear; its a spiked shield. Shield spikes are always a weapon, period end of story. They are on a shield, and are being wielded, regardless of whether or not they are used. You're seriously going to tell me that attacking with the sword, he is two weapon fighting?
Or are you going to simply declare that shield spikes aren't weapons yet because he hasn't made an attack with them yet?
Hint: You can't do that. They are 100% always weapons. By any reading.
This argument would be valid if standing there with an extra item in your hand constituted TWF. It does not. You can have another implement in your offhand all day long and suffer no consequences. As soon as you make an attack with it, any attack, you are now TWF. It has thus been "wielded". You can have two weapons and choose to attack with only one. There is nothing saying that you have to use all weapons at your disposal at all times. But if you choose to use a second weapon within the same round, you are now TWF. Seems pretty clear from both connotation and denotation of the rule.
|
|
If it were phrased differently you would be correct: "You may wield a second weapon. When you fight this way you take X penalties, and can get one extra attack", or "If you wield a second weapon you take X penalties. You can get one extra attack when you fight this way". But as it is written now, if you aren't taking the extra attack you can't take the penalties.
Riiiight. You can't fight an Orc with "an extra attack". You can fight an orc with two weapons and get an extra attack for fighting that way.
When you wield the second weapon, you have the option of taking the off hand attack. You are not required to take that attack.
When you wield two weapons, your attack iteration becomes (assuming BAB +13/+8/+3) First Primary/Off Hand/Second Primary/Third Primary. You can choose to skip your Off Hand attack. Why? I don't know why you would want to do that, but you can. The only caveat being that if you do skip it, you can't get it back. But more importantly, after you make your first primary attack, you can decide to make a move action or no more actions. Does that mean that once you make that choice you can retroactively revoke the penalty you had to your first attack for wielding two weapons? No.
If you declare at the beginning of your turn that you are going to attack with both your weapons, your attack iteration becomes what I stated and you are imposed the TWF penalties. Whether you make all of your available attacks is up to you.
If, instead, you declare that you are only going to attack with weapon A (thus only using the attack iteration based on your BAB), you may only attack with that weapon. You cannot decide to wield weapon B in your other hand, because if you do, you would have to retroactively apply the TWF penalties to the earlier attacks...which you cannot do.
This argument would be valid if standing there with an extra item in your hand constituted TWF. It does not. You can have another implement in your offhand all day long and suffer no consequences. As soon as you make an attack with it, any attack, you are now TWF. It has thus been "wielded". You can have two weapons and choose to attack with only one. There is nothing saying that you have to use all weapons at your disposal at all times. But if you choose to use a second weapon within the same round, you are now TWF. Seems pretty clear from both connotation and denotation of the rule.
Final comment for the evening; wielding an item and using it to make an attack are not equivalent. The part of the TWF rules you claim is most important and relevant to the penalties is the part which mentions wielding, and makes no reference to using a weapon to make an attack.
Its a heck of an leap to just make the assumption these things are equivalent in this case, as its not substantiated there in the rules.
|
|
It is a weapon and you are wielding it. Intent to use it as a weapon is irrelevant.You can't simply declare it invalid because it hurts your argument otherwise; a sword and board fighter, by your reading of the TWF rules, is always wielding a pair of weapons. He cannot make this untrue by wishing it not to be so.
Lets make it more clear; its a spiked shield. Spiked shieldss are always a weapon, period end of story (EDIT: Well, they're listed as weapons) . They are on a shield, and are being wielded, regardless of whether or not they are used. You're seriously going to tell me that attacking with the sword, he is two weapon fighting?
Or are you going to simply declare that shield spikes aren't weapons yet because he hasn't made an attack with them yet?
Again, you are deliberately ignoring rules to justify your position.
EDIT: Actually, you know what? Its late and its not really important. Play it how you will. Have fun.
This is the first thing you have said during this entire thread that makes any sense. Have a good night!
Actually, you are misreading the rule. Getting "one extra attack with said weapon" is not a condition for TWF, it is a benefit of using that weapon. This is basic English Grammar.That's incorrect. Try it out: "If you wield a 2nd weapon in your off hand. You suffer X penalties when you fight this way." The "extra attack" clause is a necessary part of the sentence and they cannot be separated from each other, nor can the penalties sentence afterward be made to apply to only parts of it rather than the whole.
If it were phrased differently you would be correct: "You may wield a second weapon. When you fight this way you take X penalties, and can get one extra attack", or "If you wield a second weapon you take X penalties. You can get one extra attack when you fight this way". But as it is written now, if you aren't taking the extra attack you can't take the penalties.
That's not a fair reading. It would have been more clear had they simply thrown in an "additionally", but alas they didn't.
The clearest understanding that doesn't lead to odd results is that the rule reads: "If you wield a second weapon, you may make an extra attack. Additionally, you take the following penalties when doing so: _____."
The the "extra" cannot be separated does not mean the second condition is predicated on it. I do not believe a natural reading makes the extra attack a necessary condition of TWF, though it clearly is a sufficient one.
|
|
The points on both sides of this argument have been repeated quite a few times now. Does anybody think a consensus is going to be reached by repeating them a few more times? No offense intended to anybody; I just don't think we're getting anywhere.
+1. I thought I was done, and then I get sucked back in! It's a black hole. STAY AWAY! STAY AWAY! IT WILL SUCK OUT YOUR SOUL!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This argument would be valid if standing there with an extra item in your hand constituted TWF. It does not. You can have another implement in your offhand all day long and suffer no consequences. As soon as you make an attack with it, any attack, you are now TWF. It has thus been "wielded". You can have two weapons and choose to attack with only one. There is nothing saying that you have to use all weapons at your disposal at all times. But if you choose to use a second weapon within the same round, you are now TWF. Seems pretty clear from both connotation and denotation of the rule.Final comment for the evening; wielding an item and using it to make an attack are not equivalent. The part of the TWF rules you claim is most important and relevant to the penalties is the part which mentions wielding, and makes no reference to using a weapon to make an attack.
Its a heck of an leap to just make the assumption these things are equivalent in this case, as its not substantiated there in the rules.
Actually, the rules regarding natural weapons actual counsel quite the opposite.
You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used for each attack. For example, you cannot make a claw attack and also use that hand to make attacks with a longsword. When you make additional attacks in this way, all of your natural attacks are treated as secondary natural attacks, using your base attack bonus minus 5 and adding only 1/2 of your Strength modifier on damage rolls. In addition, all of your attacks made with melee weapons and unarmed strikes are made as if you were two-weapon fighting. Your natural attacks are treated as light, off-hand weapons for determining the penalty to your other attacks. Feats such as Two-Weapon Fighting and Multiattack can reduce these penalties.
So, you can make additional attacks with natural weapons if you have them. If you do so, all attacks are treated as TWF/MA. However, because you can use a natural attack, does not mean you have to count it as a weapon for the purposes of TWF. It does not say that having a natural weapon means you always must use TWF.
Completely analogous case. Precisely what I am talking about.
Additionally,
Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced.
Note, it does not say "when making an extra attack". It says whenever you make attack rolls with two weapons. It then references primary and offhands, which could be relevant to other questions like the quickdraw issue mentioned earlier that, frankly, I'm not presently concerned with.
Two weapons used, TWF feat applies to reduce penalties.
Finally, the second part of the description for TWF does state that the penalty occurs to attack rolls. Ergo, if you're not using the shield to make an attack, there is nothing to penalize because you're not wielding it like a weapon. It's a rather natural interpretation the language of the rule.
Riiiight. You can't fight an Orc with "an extra attack". You can fight an orc with two weapons and get an extra attack for fighting that way.
You can't fight an orc "with a full attack". You can fight an orc with all your attention instead of moving around or doing other things, and get additional attacks for fighting that way.
The point being, you're mixing mechanical terms with descriptions of in universe actions. Sure, if you attack with two different weapons then you're "fighting with two weapons". But you are not necessarily "Two Weapon FIghting" as described by the rules. For example, a monster might attack with claws and a bite, "two weapons" but not Two Weapon Fighting, or stabbing someone with a poisoned dagger could be considered "two weapons" (the dagger and the poison). That is to say, just because you can describe a style of attack as "fighting with two weapons" does not mean that the rules for 2WF apply to it.
When you wield the second weapon, you have the option of taking the off hand attack. You are not required to take that attack.
Agreed, "can" denotes choice.
When you wield two weapons, your attack iteration becomes (assuming BAB +13/+8/+3) First Primary/Off Hand/Second Primary/Third Primary. You can choose to skip your Off Hand attack. Why? I don't know why you would want to do that, but you can.
...
You cannot decide to wield weapon B in your other hand, because if you do, you would have to retroactively apply the TWF penalties to the earlier attacks...which you cannot do.
Again, for the penalties to apply you must both wield a weapon and choose to make an extra attack with it. If you don't take the penalties on the first attack you would not be allowed to make the extra attack because you would not be two weapon fighting. But likewise, if you did not want the extra attack you would not need to take the penalties on the regular attacks. This is because the rules describe 2WF as having the additional weapon AND using it to gain an extra attack. The choice means that you do not always have to 2WF just because you have two weapons in hand (or a free hand in the case of unarmed strike), not that you are always 2WF but can choose not to take the extra attack while keeping the penalties.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, for the penalties to apply you must both wield a weapon and choose to make an extra attack with it. If you don't take the penalties on the first attack you would not be allowed to make the extra attack because you would not be two weapon fighting. But likewise, if you did not want the extra attack you would not need to take the penalties on the regular attacks. This is because the rules describe 2WF as having the additional weapon AND using it to gain an extra attack. The choice means that you do not always have to 2WF just because you have two weapons in hand (or a free hand in the case of unarmed strike), not that you are always 2WF but can choose not to take the extra attack while keeping the penalties.
I agree with the first half of your first sentence. I agree with your second sentence. I agree with your third sentence insofar as you are not able to swap between weapon A and weapon B on iterative attacks.
You are hung up on the second half of the first sentence of the Two-Weapon Fighting rule, and base your assumption that the extra attack is a condition rather than a benefit, which English Grammar does not support.
That's not a fair reading. It would have been more clear had they simply thrown in an "additionally", but alas they didn't.
The clearest understanding that doesn't lead to odd results is that the rule reads: "If you wield a second weapon, you may make an extra attack. Additionally, you take the following penalties when doing so: _____."
That's not an understanding, that's a rephrasing which changes the meaning. As written there is no "additionally", and "this way" refers to using two weapons to gain an extra attack.
Short of repeating "when you make an extra attack" in the penalty sentence, how would you write the rule differently to indicate the extra attack as a necessary condition?
The the "extra" cannot be separated does not mean the second condition is predicated on it. I do not believe a natural reading makes the extra attack a necessary condition of TWF, though it clearly is a sufficient one.
Wielding two weapons is the necessary and sufficient condition for the extra attack, together they are necessary and sufficient for the penalties. That the second sentence refers to the first as a general case (way of fighting) instead of specifying one or either indicates that both are required.
Having said all that, at this point I don't think you can switch between weapons at all. The way the 2WF rules (particularly the feats) are phrased implies that you choose a 'primary' and a 'secondary' weapon, and that all normal attacks are made with the primary and all extra attacks with the secondary. If you can't mix and match them when 2WF, I don't see why you could mix them when fighting normally.
EDIT: Imperator and Hanger:
You can't simply ignore the extra attack clause. The fact is that they are not separate, they are two parts of one whole rule. The penalties don't apply to one or the other, they apply to both together.
"If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon."
Bolded part is the condition, the rest is the benefit.
Actually making an extra attack is also a condition, and "when you fight this way" is a general statement which applies to both those conditions together (as opposed to "when you fight either of these ways" or any of the other examples I or Fret mentioned earlier which would apply to either separately). So while "wielding" is the condition of the effect "extra attack", "wielding" and "extra attack" are the conditions of "penalties".
That's actually wrong. You're citing rules that don't exist.
I don't follow. Which rules don't exist?
to wield is to useWe quite agree. Wielding the weapon is independent of whether extra attacks are made - it is merely defined by whether or not the weapons are used.
So, here's comes along the ability:
Equal Opportunity (Ex)
At 13th level, when a two-weapon warrior makes an attack of opportunity, he may attack once with both his primary and secondary weapons. The penalties for attacking with two weapons apply normally.Its not the character's turn. He is wielding a sword and dagger because last turn he attacked a mage with both sword and dagger.
So, a rogue provokes an AoO.
Now, on his last turn (by some interpretations) he is NOT TWFing because he didn't use extra attacks on his last attack.
But... he is wielding two weapons. Strange.
So, even though he *isn't* TWFing - he has a primary and a secondary weapon. How strange. Especially since the rules fairly plain say he may attack with primary and secondary weapons.
If he chooses to use the second attack he is wielding the weapon because he used it. If he chooses not to use the second attack and make a normal AoO he is not.
By your logic a sorcerer is casting a spell just because the option is there whether he really cast the spell or not.
I don't follow. Which rules don't exist?That you have to both wield two weapons and make an extra attack to get penalties from TWFing. Extra attack is a benefit, not a condition.
Benefit (or effect) and condition are not exclusive terms. The effect of one cause can be the cause of another effect.
That's not an understanding, that's a rephrasing which changes the meaning. As written there is no "additionally", and "this way" refers to using two weapons to gain an extra attack.That's not a fair reading. It would have been more clear had they simply thrown in an "additionally", but alas they didn't.
The clearest understanding that doesn't lead to odd results is that the rule reads: "If you wield a second weapon, you may make an extra attack. Additionally, you take the following penalties when doing so: _____."
It's a rephrasing with the same natural meaning. You're presuming that "this way" refers to both. However, "you may make an extra attack" (or whatever preferred verbiage) is not phrased as a condition. It is phrased as the result of a stated condition (wielding two weapons).
Short of repeating "when you make an extra attack" in the penalty sentence, how would you write the rule differently to indicate the extra attack as a necessary condition?
The clearest way to make that statement would be to simply state, "If you choose to make the extra attack, you suffer the following penalties: _____." That such simple phrasing was not used implies it is likely not the intended meaning. Since the second sentence refers to a manner of fighting, not the number of attacks or additional attacks made, it follows that it is the manner of fighting that matters.
Wielding two weapons is the necessary and sufficient condition for the extra attack, together they are necessary and sufficient for the penalties. That the second sentence refers to the first as a general case (way of fighting) instead of specifying one or either indicates that both are required.
The the "extra" cannot be separated does not mean the second condition is predicated on it. I do not believe a natural reading makes the extra attack a necessary condition of TWF, though it clearly is a sufficient one.
It does no such thing. Making an extra attack is not a manner of fighting. Additionally, using two weapons to make an extra attack is also not a manner of fighting. The focus of both statements is the number of attacks being made. The clear intent of a phrase like "fight in this way" is that the method of attack is what matters, not the number of attacks used.
The rule could clearly have been worded better. However, the far less tortured reading is that "fight in this way" is synonymous with "when you wield two weapons" (or whatever it is that I don't have the patience to go back and actually copy). It's a general rule of statutory construction - whenever any semblance of ambiguity strikes (and I honestly don't think this is really even ambiguous), you err towards the plainest meaning, the one arrived at most easily. "Fight in this way" most obviously means "when wielding two weapons". Is it possible they could have meant what you read it as? Sure. But it's far less obvious and, when read in conjunction with other rules, is a far more complicated and nuanced interpretation. The plain meaning is: "You may wield two weapons. If you do so, the two following results occur: [benefit], [penalty]."
Please, find me an official PF monster or NPC that uses two weapons interchangeably without a TWF penalty. While you're searching, note how the full attack routines look like. I'll give you a hint:
Melee +1 vorpal unholy longsword +31/+26/+21/+16 (2d6+13), +1 vorpal flaming whip +30/+25/+20 (1d4+7 plus 1d6 fire and entangle) or 2 slams +31 (1d10+12)The 4 attacks from BaB are made with the primary weapon/hand (longsword, with which the balor strikes first), then the 3 secondary attacks from TWF,ITWF and GTWF.
It does not say "You have 7 attacks that you can do with either the longsword or whip". It says "You do 4 normal attacks from BaB with one weapon, and then the bonus attacks with the other".
If changing weapons mid-attack without penalties would be allowed, the statblocks wouldn't bother with assigning the attacks to specific weapons and hands.
So I repeat: Please, find me an official PF monster or NPC that uses two weapons interchangeably without a TWF penalty. Or heck, even hints at such a possibility.
Until you do, you are clearly wrong.
I answered this one a long time ago. The designers dont think of every possible situation. This idea is not something someone would normally do. It is more efficient to put your money into mostly one weapon if you are not going to TWF. For someone to use two weapons without using the TWF feat tree is inefficient.
Example:The GM can have monsters intentionally fail saves, but you won't have any rules/advice for adjusting the CR for such encounters because the devs assume the monsters will try to win.In short no rules/advice for suboptimal or edge-case ideas does not make them illegal.
|
|
The points on both sides of this argument have been repeated quite a few times now. Does anybody think a consensus is going to be reached by repeating them a few more times? No offense intended to anybody; I just don't think we're getting anywhere.
Agreed. It's pretty obvious. If two weapon fighting only required wielding, you'd always take the penalties thanks to unarmed strike. Unarmed strike is always wielded (and no, you don't have to attack with it to be wielding it).
Oh well. Let the dense ones bang their chests and call themselves awesome while ignoring core rules, basic logic and fairness.
I will take one more stab at this.
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.
If you get more than one attack because your base attack bonus is high enough means that you have a BAB of +6 or better.
The next part entails getting an extra attack because you have two weapons or a double weapon.In this case you can have a BAB of +5 or less, but you decided to use TWF'ing to get an extra attack. Now you are not pointed to the two weapon rules, but that is the only section entailing more precise rules on using two weapons to get an extra attack. <---That means this has been covered.
Now lets go to the last paragraph. This one only discusses making attacks because your BAB is high enough. It then goes on to stipulate that a restrition is that the attack must be made in order of highest bonus to lowest. It then says that if you or using two weapons or a double weapon you may strike with either weapon or side first with no mention of extra attacks. Extra in this case meaning above and beyond what you normally allow.
The only place mentioning "extra" attacks is the TWF section which mentions "extra" attacks and using two weapons, and fighting in that way. Fighting in that way would have to include both options to be valid not just one or the other, and there are no rules that if you must use two weapons and take the extra attack.
The rules do state that in order to get an extra attack you must use TWF which involves using two weapons or a double weapon.
With that said I hope the devs answer this soon.
Benefit (or effect) and condition are not exclusive terms.Where did I say otherwise? Wielding two weapons is still the only condition that matters.
@ Wraithstrike
So you have nothing to proof that your interpretation is correct. Gotcha.
That is not what I was saying. What I am saying is that every situation can't be covered. Now if you can prove every possible combination is covered then I will admit I just can't find your combination. :)
You ever try to throw a shoe at a president with your left hand? It's hard. (Assuming you are right handed)
It's a rephrasing with the same natural meaning.
You're presuming that "this way" refers to both. However, "you may make an extra attack" (or whatever preferred verbiage) is not phrased as a condition. It is phrased as the result of a stated condition (wielding two weapons).
No it isn't, and yes I am. "Extra attack" is a condition because "fight this way" makes it one. It refers to the previous sentence, and the preceding sentence describes two actions. Without specifying otherwise it refers to the preceding clause in whole, not in "either or" parts.
The clearest way to make that statement would be to simply state, "If you choose to make the extra attack, you suffer the following penalties: _____." That such simple phrasing was not used implies it is likely not the intended meaning.Since the second sentence refers to a manner of fighting, not the number of attacks or additional attacks made, it follows that it is the manner of fighting that matters.
That would be repetitive and as such unlikely to be done, which was why I asked you not to do it. Likewise, the clearest way to make the statement you're arguing would be (insert any of the examples we've already made). But they didn't use those either.
"Way of fighting" refers to wielding two weapons AND making an extra attack, because that is what was described immediately before. That's how the general case works. "If you wield a lit sparkler in each hand, you can pretend to be an air traffic controller. You look like a goof when you do this".
It does no such thing. Making an extra attack is not a manner of fighting. Additionally, using two weapons to make an extra attack is also not a manner of fighting. The focus of both statements is the number of attacks being made. The clear intent of a phrase like "fight in this way" is that the method of attack is what matters, not the number of attacks used.
Within the context of Pathfinder, it certainly is a manner of fighting. Using two weapons to make a higher number of attacks than normal is the entire premise of 2WF. If you aren't making those extra attacks then you aren't 2WF at all, you're fighting one-handed and holding a weapon in your other hand. You're just muddying the waters with this idea that "you're fighting and you have two weapons so you must be Two Weapon Fighting". The specifics of the how the rules work are separate from the concept of what's going on in the game world.
Where did I say otherwise? Wielding two weapons is still the only condition that matters.
When you said "Extra attack is a benefit, not a condition."
Can you explain why wielding is the only condition that matters? What specific part of "you get these penalties when you fight this way" implies that the extra attack is NOT part of "fighting this way"?EDIT:
If you're wielding it, you're using it. Which means that you do attack with it.
No, simply holding something in your hands is sufficient for wielding. Check a dictionary if you don't believe me.
The points on both sides of this argument have been repeated quite a few times now. Does anybody think a consensus is going to be reached by repeating them a few more times? No offense intended to anybody; I just don't think we're getting anywhere.Agreed. It's pretty obvious. If two weapon fighting only required wielding, you'd always take the penalties thanks to unarmed strike. Unarmed strike is always wielded (and no, you don't have to attack with it to be wielding it).
Oh well. Let the dense ones bang their chests and call themselves awesome while ignoring core rules, basic logic and fairness.
That's adorable! You go right ahead and keep thinking that if it makes you feel better.
*pats on head*
You ever try to throw a shoe at a president with your left hand? It's hard. (Assuming you are right handed)
We've already had a rule quoted several posts before that there is no right-handed or left-handed in pathfinder. You can even throw a dagger/shoe with your right hand in one round and your left hand the next, and the mechanics will be exactly identical.
Besides, if your target is Bush, you automatically get a +40 morale bonus to hit, so the penalties won't matter.
You ever try to throw a shoe at a president with your left hand? It's hard. (Assuming you are right handed)We've already had a rule quoted several posts before that there is no right-handed or left-handed in pathfinder. You can even throw a dagger/shoe with your right hand in one round and your left hand the next, and the mechanics will be exactly identical.
Besides, if your target is Bush, you automatically get a +40 morale bonus to hit, so the penalties won't matter.
But a bush is an inanimate object and probably has hardness, making a shoe a poor weapon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Within the context of Pathfinder, it certainly is a manner of fighting. Using two weapons to make a higher number of attacks than normal is the entire premise of 2WF. If you aren't making those extra attacks then you aren't 2WF at all, you're fighting one-handed and holding a weapon in your other hand. You're just muddying the waters with this idea that "you're fighting and you have two weapons so you must be Two Weapon Fighting". The specifics of the how the rules work are separate from the concept of what's going on in the game world.
I've never said "you're fighting and you have two weapons so you must be TWF". I've said, and still do say, that if you're holding two weapons and you attack with both of them you are TWF.
You do not need to make any extra attacks to be TWF. You simply must attack with both weapons, or intend to attack with both weapons, in order to be TWF. If the extra attack was a necessary condition to be TWF, the penalties would be dependent upon you actually making that extra attack. It is not. The penalty occurs whether an extra attack is made or not.
Are you the god of fretting or merely a god that frets?