I don't have time to read over 150 posts, so I make it quick.
Here is what we all missed an what is very important:
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.
You see the bolded part? It's rules. You know what that means? Don't bother thinking, you won't get it. It means that when you attack you MUST, by RAW, make your attacks in certain order. What is the order when you wield (and use, not just hold) two weapons? Primary, off-hand, primary, primary. In a TWF your off-hand attack has a bonus equal to your full bonus, which means that it MUST come after the first (primary attack). so if you attack with your second weapon, you MUST either make the extra attack (because RAW states that the extra attack MUST be made right after the first attack), or you don't make extra attacks and CAN'T, by RAW, use the other weapon. And when you start your attack, you MUST decide if you wll make an attack with your second weapon or not, because you MUST add the penalties before you roll the dice.
I think I'm done here. Thank you for participating, but you where wrong all the time. Sorry.
You have yet to show that there is an off-hand if there is no TWF, and you also have yet to show that you can't TWF in the way the opposition says you can.
You can say you are right, but it looks like forfeit to me.If they ever make a ruling for this because right now there is no official stance either way to be honest I will let you know if your exit was premature or not. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
16 pages!!!
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.
Yes you must make those attacks in that order. Which attacks exactly? Well it tells us "attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough."
Which means this has nothing to do with the extra attacks you get from TWF.
Nor does it have anything to do with any other attacks gained that aren't due to a high BAB.
It also says:
If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first.
Perhaps I'm too stupid to understand what your trying to say here. Please go over this again slower. For me. I want to learn.
41 FAQ's. I am mostly here for the entertainment value now. There is no RAW on the situation since it is one of those "what it's" in my opinion.
With that aside I see no benefit to allowing 2 weapons without an extra attack, and nobody has mentioned one so I would allow it until an advantage was brought to my attention.
41 FAQ's. I am mostly here for the entertainment value now. There is no RAW on the situation since it is one of those "what it's" in my opinion.
With that aside I see no benefit to allowing 2 weapons without an extra attack, and nobody has mentioned one so I would allow it until an advantage was brought to my attention.
It's like that XKCD.
I gave and example of fighting fey and werewolves.
Or taking down an orc and using your last two attacks to throw daggers.
But your right its a corner case. Not going to come up often and not going to hurt the game one bit if it does.
However if I was given a convincing example of it's abuse. I would change sides. Although I would admit to not having RAW justification.
You have yet to show that there is an off-hand if there is no TWF, and you also have yet to show that you can't TWF in the way the opposition says you can.I knew you wouldn't understand it. It's so sad that I have to explain it to you. :(
Lookie here:
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.This is in the "Full Attack" section. That means that it concerns ALL attacks, not only BaB attacks. If your BaB isn't high enough, you get only one attack, so there's no sense in mentioning order.
Furthermore, you are using two weapons. If you're using the second weapon, you can make an extra attack, right? Right.
Now, what attack bonus does the extra attack have? It doesn't say (which is weird). In that case we can assume that it's equal to your normal attack (because it doesn't say that it's lower or higher).Now, your normal full attack routine (without TWFing) will look like that:
First BaB attack => Second BaB attack => Third BaB attack => Fourth BaB attack.When you use two weapons you can make an extra attack, right? In that case your full attack routine will look like that:
First BaB attack => Off-hand attack => Second BaB attack => Third BaB attack => Fourth BaB attack.But you don't have to make an extra attack, right? Right, but it's irrelevant. You did decide to use your second weapon, so you could make the extra attack, so you incur the penalties.
What does the "If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first." mean? Simple. You have to choose which of your two weapons is the primary weapon. They can't both be primary. That's nonsensical.
We're back to this Imperator?
If I'm wielding two weapons, I MUST take the penalties because I 'could' take the extra attack?
Or I take the penalties when I say I'm taking the extra attack BEFORE beginning to resolve my attacks? (this is my position, if it was unclear)
The first, once again, brings us back to the issue of always wielding two weapons or at the very least being capable of making a TWF attack.
A sword and board guy is wielding (and using) his shield, which is a weapon because its listed in the list of weapons (a real, honest to goodness thing in the rulebook that I am not making up), and clearly should not take a penalty to his attacks rolls with his sword unless he uses the Two Weapon Fighting Rules to gain an extra attack with and offhand weapon.
You have yet to show that there is an off-hand if there is no TWF, and you also have yet to show that you can't TWF in the way the opposition says you can.I knew you wouldn't understand it. It's so sad that I have to explain it to you. :(
Lookie here:
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.This is in the "Full Attack" section. That means that it concerns ALL attacks, not only BaB attacks. If your BaB isn't high enough, you get only one attack, so there's no sense in mentioning order.
Furthermore, you are using two weapons. If you're using the second weapon, you can make an extra attack, right? Right.
Now, what attack bonus does the extra attack have? It doesn't say (which is weird). In that case we can assume that it's equal to your normal attack (because it doesn't say that it's lower or higher).Now, your normal full attack routine (without TWFing) will look like that:
First BaB attack => Second BaB attack => Third BaB attack => Fourth BaB attack.When you use two weapons you can make an extra attack, right? In that case your full attack routine will look like that:
First BaB attack => Off-hand attack => Second BaB attack => Third BaB attack => Fourth BaB attack.But you don't have to make an extra attack, right? Right, but it's irrelevant. You did decide to use your second weapon, so you could make the extra attack, so you incur the penalties.
What does the "If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first." mean? Simple. You have to choose which of your two weapons is the primary weapon. They can't both be primary. That's nonsensical.
I already saw that citation. Myself and other have posted why we disagree with it. I don't think anyone is budging here though so all we will end up doing is copying and pasting the same text over and over again.
Anyway my position has been posted. This issue was actually never thought of, and it is a corner case. If the devs ever rule on this and it happens to go against allowing it without a penalty that is fine, but I will just houserule it.I know if I did this, which I doubt I ever would, and I got penalized for it I would just stick to power attacking with one weapon. If I have to take a penalty then I may as well get something out of it.
Did you miss the part about attacking order?
Forgive me. I must have missed it again. Why is the attacking order of the additional attacks because of high BAB relevant?
I don't see how that has anything to do with TWF.
You disagree with the rules. Sweet. But what has it to do with a rule discussion?
And you saw the citation. Sweet. Did you miss the part about attacking order?
I don't disagree with the rules. I disagree with your interpretation of them. As another poster pointed out attacking order has nothing to do with the point you are trying to prove.
Remember nothing says an off-hand has to be accounted for except TWF, and the opposing side which includes me does not beleive TWF comes into effect unless you decide up front that you want to use a 2nd weapon and get an extra attack.
That has been the central point of the whole debate. If you could prove that using two weapons, and the extra attack were not a combo needed to unlock TWF this would have been over long ago. By your reading only the extra weapon is needed to bring about TWF penalties.
You and others have been quoting the same passages just like we have. It looks like a stalemate to me.
Things I find fascinating about this discussion:
- Although it's managed to go 750 posts without a hint of consensus, thus suggesting that the rules are inherently unclear, some people seem totally convinced that their interpretation of the rules is the only reasonable interpretation.
- Some of them even have the effrontery to pretend that they're arguing RAW instead of RAIITAYCPMW (Rules As I Interpret Them And You Can't Prove Me Wrong).
- Most interestingly, some people seem to believe that the best way to argue for their interpretation of holy writ is to be an ass about it, and these people tend to be arguing the same side. I have no idea why this would be the case, but personally, it induces me to favor the other perspective.
Just an observation. Carry on!
That's three observations! Why I oughta!! *pulls up sleeve as if to unleash RAIITAYCPMW smackery*
Two Weapon Fighting is a Special Attack. It is listed under Special Attacks, and as with all special attacks, you must declare that you are invoking it for its benefits and drawbacks to come into play.
If you are armed with 2+ weapons, you could declare that you are going to use Two Weapon Fighting as part of a Full-Attack action. You must declare it because it is a special attack and does not occur automatically. If you do not invoke Two Weapon Fighting to gain the extra attack, you do not suffer the drawbacks or declare any hand an off-hand attack.
If you take a Full-Attack but do not declare Two Weapon Fighting, you may make one attack, plus additional attacks for a high BAB if applicable. It notes using two weapons as part of a full-attack, and merely notes that you have the option of which to attack with first.
If Two Weapon Fighting was noted under a Full-Attack, I would believe that those suggesting you always take the penalties had some credibility. However, the Two Weapon Fighting special attack is just that, a special attack to gain a specific option.
Example
A 6th level Fighter is carrying a longsword and a club with continual flame cast on it at the same time. He does not possess two-weapon fighting. He only has a +6/+1 BAB.
While exploring the dungeon, he is ambushed by an orc and some skeletons. The orc and the undead rush into melee with him. He sees the orc is wearing padded armor, and the skeleton probably has a higher AC. He decides his first attack will be with his club against the skeleton, so he rolls his attack with a +6 vs the skeleton. He then takes a swing at the orc with his longsword at +1, but is relying on his weapon training and specialization to hit the orc.
Alternatively, he could have decided to take a Two Weapon Fighting action as part of his full-attack. In doing so, he will roll at +0/-4/-5, possibly choosing to swing at the skeleton, then if he didn't drop him attack again, or drop the extra attacks on the orc if the skeleton falls.
Why is the attacking order of the additional attacks because of high BAB relevant?Because when you make a full attack and decide to use your second weapon, you include the extra attack in the attacking order?
I actually read this:
PRD:
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.
As having nothing to do with TWF and only with iterative attacks...
Why is the attacking order of the additional attacks because of high BAB relevant?Because when you make a full attack and decide to use your second weapon, you include the extra attack in the attacking order?
I actually read this:
PRD:
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.
As having nothing to do with TWF and only with iterative attacks...
That is strange. I posted that like 3 times already.
Maybe we have the wrong version of the book. :)
As having nothing to do with TWF and only with iterative attacks...Read the section title. It says "Full Attack". It includes all attacks...
Perhaps you should read the beginning of the PARAGRAPH and SENTENCE which says:
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.
Pretty explicit.
P.S. to Wraithstrike
I think you're getting ignored Wraith and please quote my beautiful and italicized edit :)
I already addressed what that sentence means.
So now you're willfully misunderstanding, got it.
So you're ignoring my arguments. Gotcha.
I'm still waiting for a response that deals with the question.
What question?
Why you think 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.
applies to TWF when TWF has nothing to do with BAB based iterative attacks. In fact, its attacks are based on the TWF rules and feats which are entirely separate from BAB based iterative attacks and the Full Attack section.
Shield Fighter (Ex): At 5th level, a shielded fighter gains a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls when making a shield bash. These bonuses increase by +1 every four levels beyond 5th. With a full attack action, a shielded fighter may alternate between using his weapon or his shield for each attack. This action does not grant additional attacks or incur penalties as two-weapon fighting does. This ability replaces weapon training 1.
I think someone probably posted this already and I skipped it. Sorry.
This is an example of using two weapons out of TWF special attack. but because it's mentioned here it seems that it might not be possible to use the off hand weapon for iterative attacks. That is Not possible without this ability.
This is the type of evidence that I was talking about.
Because when you make a full attack and use a second weapon you gain the benefit of an extra attack that you can make. Therefore it is added to your full attack routine and you take TWF penalties.
Round and round we go... You don't gain any benefits unless you choose to use a Full Attack with the Two Weapon Fighting style. If you don't choose to activate TWF, then you can't be TWF.
@karlgamer
We've been around the archetype tree a lot, you could look back in the history of this thread if you want.
Main points:
1. Archetypes are not a product solely from the development staff at Paizo, they had help from others.
2. This means the quality control is not as tight as it was in the Core book.
3. This also means the others writing the archetypes may or may not have the same grasp of the rules as the rules team at Paizo which could lead to errors.
Example 1:
Polearm Fighter - this archetype was errata'd recently because of the way trip works. The person that wrote it was not aware of this.
Example 2:
Prone Shooter (feat) - this feat references ranged attack penalties from firing from prone. There are none.
The point is a lot of the stuff that's added to the core is not always going to help because there happen to be a lot of technical errors.
4. Thanks for giving him wings... *shakes head*
Holy crap. If I could afford to send you all to Disney World for a few days I would just so this thread could have a chance to breath.
/pets thread
It's going to be ok thread. They'll leave you alone soon. Shh...shh. Stop crying. It'll be alright. It's not your fault, thread. It's not your fault!
Lol, you're right. This is an absolute evidence that you can't alternate your weapons without incuring TWF penalties. Thanks.
This is evidence that you probably can't normally attack with two weapons without using TWF.
This is also evidence that you can attack with two weapons without incurring penalties. Which is what you were arguing against.
I have said from the beginning that you might not be able to fight with your off hand weapon during a normal full attack action. My argument was that if you could you wouldn't receive TWF penalties.
You can be a sour winner if you like and ignore how we are both possibly wrong.
Shield Fighter (Ex): At 5th level, a shielded fighter gains a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls when making a shield bash. These bonuses increase by +1 every four levels beyond 5th. With a full attack action, a shielded fighter may alternate between using his weapon or his shield for each attack. This action does not grant additional attacks or incur penalties as two-weapon fighting does. This ability replaces weapon training 1.
Lol, you're right. This is an absolute evidence that you can't alternate your weapons without incuring TWF penalties. Thanks.Shield Fighter (Ex): At 5th level, a shielded fighter gains a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls when making a shield bash. These bonuses increase by +1 every four levels beyond 5th. With a full attack action, a shielded fighter may alternate between using his weapon or his shield for each attack. This action does not grant additional attacks or incur penalties as two-weapon fighting does. This ability replaces weapon training 1.I think someone probably posted this already and I skipped it. Sorry.
This is an example of using two weapons out of TWF special attack. but because it's mentioned here it seems that it might not be possible to use the off hand weapon for iterative attacks. That is Not possible without this ability.
This is the type of evidence that I was talking about.
Actually, its most likely a brief restatement of the normal rules as per Animal Fury and other cases where specific abilities will restate a brief (and sometimes, incorrect) version of rules referenced elsewhere for ease of use.
But I can't prove that, so I wont use that as absolute proof.
We've been around the archetype tree a lot, you could look back in the history of this thread if you want.
Main points:
Points taken. If I'm going to fight. I'm going to fight fair. And this is also a great example of NOT taking the penalties.
Points taken. If I'm going to fight. I'm going to fight fair. And this is also a great example of NOT taking the penalties.
I agree, but the counter argument for class abilities is: class abiliies can break the rules at will. They have the potential to be their own entirely new rule or exception.
. You used two weapons, gained the benefit and take the penalties.
What benefit? Not using a shield? Not getting 150% STR bonus to dmg? Those aren't benefits, those are disadvantages.
For references sake, I just compared a bunch of fighter archetypes to see how their version of Weapon Training/Shielded Fighter works...
"Shield Fighter (Ex)
At 5th level, a shielded fighter gains a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls when making a shield bash. These bonuses increase by +1 every four levels beyond 5th."
They all do this part. Grant a scaling bonus based on a condition (generally weapon type used), and that is it. None of them I found (in similar weapon focused archetypes) grant new abilities.
That is strong evidence that the following part of the ability,
"With a full-attack action, a shielded fighter may alternate between using his weapon or his shield for each attack. This action does not grant additional attacks or incur penalties as two-weapon fighting does."
Is reminder text for the players reference to let them know it is a valid option for resolving their attacks, as per similar abilities which describe unusual situations in the ability text for ease of use.
It is highly unlikely this weapon training swap grants a new ability in addition to its attack and damage bonuses, when we have precedent for abilities to include similar reminder text elsewhere (see Animal Fury).
It is highly unlikely this weapon training swap grants a new ability in addition to its attack and damage bonuses, when we have precedent for abilities to include similar reminder text elsewhere (see Animal Fury).So your argument is that it's just a reminder and not an exception? Weak.
Actually, I noted why my position is strong; I actually compared the ability to similar abilities. As well, its clearly an unusual situation, as this thread illustrates. Reminder text is obviously appropriate.
Also, I cited similar abilities *where reminder text was used.
Points taken. If I'm going to fight. I'm going to fight fair. And this is also a great example of NOT taking the penalties.We've been around the archetype tree a lot, you could look back in the history of this thread if you want.
Main points:
It's actually a pretty prime example of the doctrine of "The Exception that Proves the Rule." The example you cite explicitly states that it operates differently than how TWF ordinarily does. Not only does it allow you to make iterative attacks with alternating weapons, you do not suffer the ordinary penalty for it. If the underlying Rule did not operate in the manner I'm describing, it would be unnecessary and superfluous to describe the exception.
However, if, as you say, this only implies that you cannot make alternating iterative attacks, in what other context could you TWF without making the extra attack? You can't. There are two options - you TWF because doing so allows for an extra attack or you TWF because you can alternate iterative attacks. If the latter is disallowed (by strong implication here, as elsewhere), the only remaining option is the former. That means that if you use the second weapon, it must be done per the TWF rules.
It is highly unlikely this weapon training swap grants a new ability in addition to its attack and damage bonuses, when we have precedent for abilities to include similar reminder text elsewhere (see Animal Fury).
Which means it's an example of it working.
Sorry. I didn't hear the rest of this argument. Now that I have I'm still at the same place I was before.
I am sure that you don't get the penalty unless you are using the TWF special Attack.
I am not sure you if you can attack with your Off hand for iterative attacks. But I would allow it as GM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is highly unlikely this weapon training swap grants a new ability in addition to its attack and damage bonuses, when we have precedent for abilities to include similar reminder text elsewhere (see Animal Fury).Which means it's an example of it working.
Darn strait it is. However, as I said before, I can't prove it, because I can't speak for designer intent.
All I can do is point out that if it does grant a new ability, its one heck of an exception to a whole list of examples of abilities that only grant attack and damage bonuses; it seems much more likely its reminder text.
Exception to WHAT exactly? A pattern that you imagined yourself?
Ok, if you're going to be insulting.
"Expert Archer (Ex)
At 5th level, an archer gains a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls with bows. This bonus increases by +1 for every four levels beyond 5th."
"Payback (Ex)
At 5th level, a cad gains a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls against any creature that has attacked the cad since the beginning of his last turn. This bonus increases by +1 for every four levels beyond 5th (to a maximum of +4 at 17th level)."
"Crossbow Expert (Ex)
At 5th level, a crossbowman gains a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls with crossbows. This bonus increases by +1 per four levels after 5th."
"Polearm Training (Ex)
At 5th level a polearm master gains a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls with spears and polearms. The bonus increases by +1 for every four levels beyond 5th.
"Weapon Training (Ex)
As the fighter class feature, but the bonuses only apply when wielding two-handed melee weapons." -Note: Functionally identical.
"Twin Blades (Ex)
At 5th level, a two-weapon warrior gains a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls when making a full-attack with two weapons or a double weapon. This bonus increases by +1 for every four levels after 5th."
What pattern am I 'imagining' here exactly?
Note: There are exceptions. Generally, however, they do not even resemble the above abilities, or involve shifting theses bonuses onto a different ability instead.
What pattern am I 'imagining' here exactly?The pattern of only fighter archetypes? Compare it to ALL archetypes, not just fighter archetypes.
What.
Those are not relevant to the fact that this particular fighter ability generally functions in a given way, and that Shield Fighter is either a significant deviation from that pattern or, more likley, contains reminder text so players know that alternating weapons is a legal option.