|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hanger please cite rules or your just rehashing the thread.
Absolutely, and to be honest, I had every intent to do so when I made my original post except that it was something like 2:30 a.m.
Two-Weapon Fighting (CRB, pg 202, 2nd Printing): "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon." (emphasis mine)
Which brings back to weilding vs held again and needing the games defination of those terms and whether or not simply wielding two weapons gives the penalty or if you have to attack with both or if you have to take the extra attack.
The game, itself does not need to provide it's own definition of what "wield" means, as a definition is provided in the English dictionary:
Wield: "2: to handle (as a tool) especially effectively <wield a broom>"
Ergo, if Paizo felt that the accepted definition of "wield" was insufficient, they would have provided their own.
So, the fact that the character is merely holding a weapon in the second hand does not mean that he is penalized with the TWF penalty. If he decides to USE the second weapon while he's using the first weapon, then the TWF penalty applies.
To take the discussion further, looking at the second half of the rules quote I posted, the use of the second weapon only offers ONE additional attack for that round. It doesn't matter how many attacks you are capable of making during a full attack, you would only be able to make one attack with the second weapon.
That is only if you can in pathfinder use your off hand attack for iterative attacks. There isn't a clear yes or no on this matter although there is a clear no as far as 3.5 is concerned.
Full-Round Actions: Full Attack (CRB, pg 187, 3rd Paragraph, 2nd Printing): "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 double weapon first."
This rule gives the player the option to use either weapon held as the primary weapon, while the second weapon used would be the off-hand weapon. This rule does NOT imply that if you get multiple attacks due to a high BAB, that your alternating attacks are used with the second weapon. If you are holding one weapon in each hand, and you wield (use) them both in the same round, the TWF rules apply. The first weapon used would be the primary weapon and would use all of the multiple attacks for high BAB, while the second weapon would get one attack as an off-hand wielded weapon.
So, regarding the original poster, if you assume that the character is wielding a Battleaxe (first attack) and Scimitar, has the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, and a BAB of +13, his attacks would be:
+9 (Battleaxe)/ +9 (Scimitar: 1/2 strength dmg)/ +4 (Battleaxe)/ -1 (Battleaxe)
If instead he had a Throwing Axe and did not have the feat, his attacks would be:
+7 (Throwing Axe)/ +3 (Scimitar: 1/2 strength dmg)/ +2 (Battleaxe)/ -3 (Battleaxe)
But, the attack of +13 (axe)/ +8 (Scimitar)/ +3 (Scimitar) is not allowed.
The Most Important Rule (CRB, pg 9, 2nd Printing): "Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of "house rules" that they use in their games."
If your group has decided to house-rule this issue and allow different weapons on iterative attacks, that is your game to play. But as far as the original poster is concerned, I believe he was asking his question in regards to whether or not it is allowed in the rules. The answer to his first question would be "No", and the answer to his second question is N/A due to the fact that the first question is not valid.
Everyone is always TWF, because unarmed strikes and shields are weapons, thus everyone takes a -2 to all attacks.
I detect the sarcasm in this comment, but just to clarify for those who think you are serious: While yes, each character can be considered to be carrying two weapons if the second hand is empty or holding a shield, TWF does not apply because the second hand is not being wielded as a weapon in the same round that the other hand (which is assumed to be carrying a weapon) is being used. If the player declares that he is going to attack with the second hand in the same round he is attacking with the first hand, then yes, TWF would apply.
Ergo, if Paizo felt that the accepted definition of "wield" was insufficient, they would have provided their own.
They had to define ally in an FAQ, just saying.
So, regarding the original poster, if you assume that the character is wielding a Battleaxe (first attack) and Scimitar, has the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, and a BAB of +13, his attacks would be:
+9 (Battleaxe)/ +9 (Scimitar: 1/2 strength dmg)/ +4 (Battleaxe)/ -1 (Battleaxe)
The issue is he only wants the regular attacks, not the extra attack. He just wants to use two weapons to do it. The ordinary use of TWF is already clear.
How about this:
If you X, you can Y. You Z when you Y.
Logical conclusion: if you do not Y, then you do not Z, even if you X.
X="wield a second weapon in your off hand"
Y="get one extra attack per round with that weapon"
Z="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"
|
|
They had to define ally in an FAQ, just saying.
Under what context was the original poster inquiring as to whether the individual player counts as his own ally? Until such a time that Paizo makes an official ruling stating that "wield" merely implies just holding the weapon, you have to use the weapon to be considered wielding it. Which I doubt will happen considering, as TOZ sarcasticly pointed out, everyone would always take the TWF penalties for every attack for carrying a shield or counting their empty hand (unarmed strike).
The issue is he only wants the regular attacks, not the extra attack. He just wants to use two weapons to do it. The ordinary use of TWF is already clear.
Which he cannot do. If he holds a weapon in each hand and wants to use both of them during the same round, TWF applies. This of course, doesn't preclude a house rule allowing it to be done.
They had to define ally in an FAQ, just saying.Under what context was the original poster inquiring as to whether the individual player counts as his own ally? Until such a time that Paizo makes an official ruling stating that "wield" merely implies just holding the weapon, you have to use the weapon to be considered wielding it. Which I doubt will happen considering, as TOZ sarcasticly pointed out, everyone would always take the TWF penalties for every attack for carrying a shield or counting their empty hand (unarmed strike).
The issue is he only wants the regular attacks, not the extra attack. He just wants to use two weapons to do it. The ordinary use of TWF is already clear.Which he cannot do. If he holds a weapon in each hand and wants to use both of them during the same round, TWF applies. This of course, doesn't preclude a house rule allowing it to be done.
Some affects state that they only affect your allies. Some obviously include the caster, while others do not. The question was do you count as your own ally.
I disagree. What rule says his other arm just stops working for the purpose of an attack because he did not use it first?
Example:Axe in one hand, scimitar in the other
Attack 1: axe
Attack 2: axe
Attack 3: scimitar<----You saying this arm just turned off because it did not move first or is it because the axe in one hand turns the other arm off?
I ask because if an enemy someone disarms the axe after it has made 2 attacks does that mean the player can not switch over to using the scimitar?
The panther style feats from UC would make that possible.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The two weapon fighting section talks about using 2 weapons and getting and extra attack, not just one or the other.
BAB prevents an extra attack with one weapon. Nothing prevents 2 weapons without as long as you don't pass you limited number of attacks.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree. What rule says his other arm just stops working for the purpose of an attack because he did not use it first?
If the player chooses to make a full attack by only using one weapon, the other arm doesn't quit working, he just chooses to not utilize it. Just in the same regard that if a player is only able to take a standard action, and he makes an attack, he doesn't apply the TWF penalty to that attack even though he is holding a weapon in each hand.
The two weapon fighting section talks about using 2 weapons and getting and extra attack, not just one or the other.
The Two-Weapon Fighting section on Pg 202 of the CRB (2nd Printing) says that the weapon you are holding in your other hand allows you to make one extra attack. It does not say that you can alternate your attacks with your different weapons for free.
Example:Axe in one hand, scimitar in the other
Attack 1: axe
Attack 2: axe
Attack 3: scimitar<----You saying this arm just turned off because it did not move first or is it because the axe in one hand turns the other arm off?
You are basing your example off the false assumption that a player can switch primary hands during a round. The moment a player decides to wield both weapons in a round, TWF applies, regardless of how many actual attacks the player intends to make, and the second weapon is considered the off-hand weapon. If you look at the second sentence of the Two-Weapon Fighting rule: "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." (CRB, pg. 202, 2nd Printing) (emphasis mine) This further establishes that all of your attacks based on BAB (iterative attacks) are made with the primary hand, and the one extra attack is made with the second weapon.
I ask because if an enemy someone disarms the axe after it has made 2 attacks does that mean the player can not switch over to using the scimitar?
The panther style feats from UC would make that possible.
No, the player would not be able to switch over to the scimitar unless he has the Quick Draw feat. Note that this would not prevent the player from making a now unarmed strike with his primary hand (assuming the situation warrants it).
The fact that you point out a feat that provides an exception to the rule further cements my argument.
BAB prevents an extra attack with one weapon. Nothing prevents 2 weapons without as long as you don't pass you limited number of attacks.
You're right, nothing prevents you from using two weapons. You can use two weapons all day long. But if you do, you have to apply the two-weapon fighting penalties, regardless of if you only intend to make three attacks in around because that's how many you get based on BAB and not make an extra attack granted by TWF. All you are doing is shorting yourself your last iterative attack. All of your iterative attacks are made using the axe (in this case), while you would get one attack with the scimitar (which being off-hand, would have 1/2 Str to damage).
If the player chooses to make a full attack by only using one weapon, the other arm doesn't quit working, he just chooses to not utilize it. Just in the same regard that if a player is only able to take a standard action, and he makes an attack, he doesn't apply the TWF penalty to that attack even though he is holding a weapon in each hand.
The rules state you don't have to specify all your actions up front so he does not have to decide until after the first attack.
He could go axe, scimitar, axe.The Two-Weapon Fighting section on Pg 202 of the CRB (2nd Printing) says that the weapon you are holding in your other hand allows you to make one extra attack. It does not say that you can alternate your attacks with your different weapons for free.
My point was that if you dont get the extra attack in also that you are not TWF'ing.
Example:Axe in one hand, scimitar in the other
Attack 1: axe
Attack 2: axe
Attack 3: scimitar<----You saying this arm just turned off because it did not move first or is it because the axe in one hand turns the other arm off?
You are basing your example off the false assumption that a player can switch primary hands during a round. The moment a player decides to wield both weapons in a round, TWF applies, regardless of how many actual attacks the player intends to make, and the second weapon is considered the off-hand weapon.
So do we now retroactively apply penalties?
No, the player would not be able to switch over to the scimitar unless he has the Quick Draw feat. Note that this would not prevent the player from making a now unarmed strike with his primary hand (assuming the situation warrants it).
The fact that you point out a feat that provides an exception to the rule further cements my argument.
The feat chain I mentioned would allows the axe to be disarmed by the opponent, leaving the scimitar as the only weapon available. With that said if the axe is taken away, and the scimitar is all that is left does not scimitar arm just cease to function?
Two-Weapon Fighting (CRB, pg 202, 2nd Printing): "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon." (emphasis mine)
So, the fact that the character is merely holding a weapon in the second hand does not mean that he is penalized with the TWF penalty. If he decides to USE the second weapon while he's using the first weapon, then the TWF penalty applies.
Even taking into consideration what you have posted. You have't justified this clam. The attacks gained through high BAB aren't extra attacks.
That is only if you can in pathfinder use your off hand attack for iterative attacks. There isn't a clear yes or no on this matter although there is a clear no as far as 3.5 is concerned.Full-Round Actions: Full Attack (CRB, pg 187, 3rd Paragraph, 2nd Printing): "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 weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the double weapon first."
This rule gives the player the option to use either weapon held as the primary weapon, while the second weapon used would be the off-hand weapon. This rule does NOT imply that if you get multiple attacks due to a high BAB, that your alternating attacks are used with the second weapon. If you are holding one weapon in each hand, and you wield (use) them both in the same round, the TWF rules apply. The first weapon used would be the primary weapon and would use all of the multiple attacks for high BAB, while the second weapon would get one attack as an off-hand wielded weapon.
Once again your post doesn't justify your clam. In fact it leaves open the possibility.
If you can strike with either weapon first.
It only logically follows that you can strike with either weapon second.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How about this:
If you X, you can Y. You Z when you Y.
Logical conclusion: if you do not Y, then you do not Z, even if you X.
X="wield a second weapon in your off hand"
Y="get one extra attack per round with that weapon"
Z="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"
However the rules suggest, and Jason seems to suggest that
If you X then you can Y. If you choose to X then you Z. Even if you decline to Y.
Edit for clarity: It's not only rules, it is also painfully obvious that... if you are fighting with two weapons then you are two weapon fighting. However you wish to fight with two weapons then you should take the penalties instituted in the rules OR house rule your own game.
Honestly, the fact of the matter is that we all love this game to some degree, and as such there are certain things we aspire to it.
To that end, we want official clarification, not just for us, but also for PFS. What something 'seems to suggest' isn't good enough.
OK I will rephrase. "seems like" should actually read "states clearly". As in the rules state clearly that if you are fighting with two weapons then you take the penalty for fighting with two weapons. Glad we cleared that up.
|
OK I will rephrase. "seems like" should actually read "states clearly". As in the rules state clearly that if you are fighting with two weapons then you take the penalty for fighting with two weapons. Glad we cleared that up.Honestly, the fact of the matter is that we all love this game to some degree, and as such there are certain things we aspire to it.
To that end, we want official clarification, not just for us, but also for PFS. What something 'seems to suggest' isn't good enough.
If it was clear, it would not need 161 posts to discuss it.
(but then again, I thought that the trip attack was also clear before it was altered.)
BTW, dot.
It could be interpreted either way my friend. The wording could be saying 'any time you hold two weapons' or it could be saying 'any time you attack with both weapons, even if just using normally allowed itteratives' OR it could be saying 'you take penalties if you take an extra attack beyond those normally allotted to you with an additional weapon.'
If the rules meant holds a weapon then it would have said that instead of wield . If you were only to take the penalty if you attack then it would say "If you attack ".
We agree, I hope, what "wield" means.
Google will tell you...(first hit)
1.Hold and use (a weapon or tool).
"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."
It cannot, except by willful misinterpretation, be read any other way.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rules state you don't have to specify all your actions up front so he does not have to decide until after the first attack. He could go axe, scimitar, axe.
You have apparently misunderstood the rules.
Full Attack (CRB, Pg 187, 2nd Printing): "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 later ones."
Full Attack, Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack (CRB, Pg 187, 2nd Printing): "After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round. If you've already taken a 5-foot step, you can't use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action."
This, in no way, implies that you can reassign your primary hand between different weapons for different attacks. It just states that you do not have to determine your targets until you roll the die for that attack. Additionally, if your first attack is totally awesome, you can chose to cease your remaining attacks and instead make a move action.
My point was that if you dont get the extra attack in also that you are not TWF'ing.
The fact that you may or may not use the extra attack is irrelevant. If you use both weapons in the same round, you must abide by the TWF penalties.
So do we now retroactively apply penalties?
No, and I never meant to imply that was the case. I should further clarify my comment to read that before the player makes any attacks and he decides he will be attacking with both weapons, at that point the TWF penalties will apply. And, as previously pointed out, the player cannot decide to switch between the weapons during that round.
The feat chain I mentioned would allows the axe to be disarmed by the opponent, leaving the scimitar as the only weapon available. With that...
I'm not familiar with the feat chain, so I can't comment on that. That being said, the only situation that I can think of off the top of my head where this would be applicable to this conversation would be if the opponent had readied a disarm action against the player. In this case, my previous answer still stands. If the player had stated prior to his attack that he intends to attack with both the axe and scimitar, he would have his scimitar available as an off-hand attack. If the player stated he was attacking with his axe only, he would have to have the quick draw feat to be able to use his scimitar since he has already established his "axe" hand as his primary hand. If he does not have the quick draw feat, then the scimitar hand would be unable to act, but he would still be able to make unarmed attacks with his "axe" hand.
|
|
Even taking into consideration what you have posted. You have't justified this clam. The attacks gained through high BAB aren't extra attacks.
Your point is irrelevant. It doesn't matter how many attacks you make in a round, if you attack with both weapons, you have to apply the TWF penalties to all attacks. If you read my most recent post (hopefully immediately above this one, if I finish this quick enough), I quote the second sentence of the Two-Weapon Fighting rule which clearly states that all iterative attacks (attacks based on the BAB) are made with the primary weapon, and the extra attack is made with the second weapon.
Once again your post doesn't justify your clam. In fact it leaves open the possibility.
If you can strike with either weapon first.
It only logically follows that you can strike with either weapon second.
No, it does not logically follow. Stop interpreting rules that are not there.
Ah, but that's where you're wrong. It most certainly is not clear.
It could be interpreted either way my friend. The wording could be saying 'any time you hold two weapons' or it could be saying 'any time you attack with both weapons, even if just using normally allowed itteratives' OR it could be saying 'you take penalties if you take an extra attack beyond those normally allotted to you with an additional weapon.'
No, the rules regarding Two-Weapon Fighting are pretty black and white (or black and tan if you're looking at the book). The problem is that people are either deliberately misinterpreting the rules to meet their own ends, making assumptions based off of memory, not reading the rules thoroughly, or not having a good grasp of the English language. Either way, it boils down to one fact, and one fact alone: if you are holding a weapon in each hand and you use both to attack in the same round, the TWF rules apply. Period. There is no rule that states you can alternate iterative attacks with each weapon. There isn't even an omission or loop-hole in the rules that allows that interpretation. To think otherwise is a house rule for your game.
If it was clear, it would not need 161 posts to discuss it.
See above.
EDIT: After reading this post, I realized it might sound a bit snarky. No snarkyness is intended.
YesI disagree. If you use two weapons, even though you are not taking the extra attack, I feel you are still two-weapon fighting.
And this would totally gimp shields. Yay you have a shield in your off hand, and not even using it as a weapon, take a -8 to hit.
So, how would you treat throwing more than one Javelin (with the same hand) using iterative attacks & quickdraw?
Would you force TWF on the thrower? If yes, why? They are not gaining any extra attack. If not, then why are you forcing TWF on other attack forms?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, how would you treat throwing more than one Javelin (with the same hand) using iterative attacks & quickdraw?
The same way I would treat making iterative attacks with a long sword except that in this case a ranged attack is being made instead of a melee attack.
Would you force TWF on the thrower? If yes, why? They are not gaining any extra attack. If not, then why are you forcing TWF on other attack forms?
No, I wouldn't need to force anything on the thrower. The rules clearly state (pg. 202, CRB, 2nd Printing) that Two-Weapon Fighting only applies to thrown weapons when they are thrown from each hand. Since you specifically stated that the Javelins are being thrown with the same hand, Two-Weapon Fighting does not apply.
Why does TWF NOT apply to two javelins being thrown with the same hand when TWF DOES apply to combat in which an axe is in one hand and a scimitar is in the other and BOTH are used in the same round of combat? Because the rules state that TWF DOES NOT apply to the javelin, and the rules state that TWF DOES apply to the axe/scimitar. It's actually an apples and oranges argument: they're both fruit, but they're different. Thrown weapons and melee both have TWF applications, but they're different.
But if you need an answer better than that, it ultimately comes down to the number of hands used, not the number of javelins thrown.
Your point is irrelevant. It doesn't matter how many attacks you make in a round, if you attack with both weapons, you have to apply the TWF penalties to all attacks. If you read my most recent post (hopefully immediately above this one, if I finish this quick enough), I quote the second sentence of the Two-Weapon Fighting rule which clearly states that all iterative attacks (attacks based on the BAB) are made with the primary weapon, and the extra attack is made with the second weapon.
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. When fighting in this way 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. If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light.
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 can reduce these penalties in two ways. First, if your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light. Second, the Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6.
These are the two section of the rules regarding two-weapon fighting that I would regard as having relevance to the discussion. If you feel that I have left something out please quote the section you feel is important that I have left out.
Neither of these paragraphs support either of the clams you are making. If I am missing something kindly point out where. I want to figure this out the same as everyone else but I'm not going to take your word on it. I'm looking at the same rules you are and I don't understand how you've come to your conclusion.
If you aren't taking extra attacks then you don't take the penalties associated with two weapon fighting. The crunchy sections of the rules support this conclusion. In other words it's RAW.
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.
And what way is that?
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.
It's a simple question for this part. If you aren't taking your "extra attack" are you still fighting "this way?"
logically no.
With that out of the way the next question is can I use two different weapons for each additional attack I receive for having a High BAB?
For 3.5 we know that the answer is "No" at least as far as Skip Williams is concerned in his Two-Handed Fighting (Part One).
It is unclear whether or not Skip's ruling in this case was just to illustrate a point or was to be taken as gospel. Either way the 3.5 PHB doesn't make a point of mentioning it... at least as far as I have read.
If it does mention it that would be a good indication that the rule had changed in pathfinder.
I think that this probably isn't something that either Skip or the people at Paizo thought much about. It's really a corner case that hasn't much value to the majority of players.
As a GM I feel that it is fine using two weapons for each additional attack received because of a high BAB but I'm not making that decision without careful vetting of the rules. It's RAW until I get an official ruling from Paizo.
One of those attacks will have to be off hand and receive 1/2 str to damage.
|
|
Neither of these paragraphs support either of the clams you are making. If I am missing something kindly point out where. I want to figure this out the same as everyone else but I'm not going to take your word on it. I'm looking at the same rules you are and I don't understand how you've come to your conclusion.
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 said you were quoting two, but it appeared you did the same one twice. I don't know if that was accidental or not...just FYI.
Anyways, I bolded the important issues regarding this rule as it applies to my point. The italicized portion is a benefit of wielding the extra weapon, not a mandatory condition to make the TWF penalties apply.
If you aren't taking extra attacks then you don't take the penalties associated with two weapon fighting. The crunchy sections of the rules support this conclusion. In other words it's RAW.
Please provide documentation to support this. I don't see any rules that support your claim. In fact, all the rules I read indicate that the number of attacks is irrelevant to the application of the TWF penalties, rather it is the fact that you attack with two different weapons wielded in two hands that causes the penalties to be applied.
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.And what way is that?
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.It's a simple question for this part. If you aren't taking your "extra attack" are you still fighting "this way?"
logically no.
You are misconstruing the grammar. Fighting "this way" refers to wielding two weapons, not taking an extra attack granted by the second weapon.
With that out of the way the next question is can I use two different weapons for each additional attack I receive for having a High BAB?
For 3.5 we know that the answer is "No" at least as far as Skip Williams is concerned in his Two-Handed Fighting (Part One).
It is unclear whether or not Skip's ruling in this case was just to illustrate a point or was to be taken as gospel. Either way the 3.5 PHB doesn't make a point of mentioning it... at least as far as I have read.
If it does mention it that would be a good indication that the rule had changed in pathfinder.
I think that this probably isn't something that either Skip or the people at Paizo thought much about. It's really a corner case that hasn't much value to the majority of players.
Since the wording between 3.5 and PF hasn't changed regarding Two-Weapon Fighting, precedence supports my argument in that you cannot alternate weapons for each additional attack provided for high BAB.
As a GM I feel that it is fine using two weapons for each additional attack received because of a high BAB but I'm not making that decision without careful vetting of the rules. It's RAW until I get an official ruling from Paizo.
One of those attacks will have to be off hand and receive 1/2 str to damage.
Taking the OP's example of a +13/+8/+3 BAB, with a Battleaxe (assumed) and Scimitar, and the Two-Weapon Fighting feat (assumed).
By your interpretation of the rules, you can make the +13 attack with the Battleaxe, the +8 attack with the Scimitar, and then the +3 attack with the Scimitar. Which attack receives the "off hand 1/2 damage"? What happens if you then decide you want to make the extra attack provided by TWF? Do you retroactively apply the TWF penalties to the previous attacks? Also, because you have to use your BAB from highest to lowest, do you retroactively change the order of your attacks to follow TWF? Conversely, if you decide to use the extra attack granted by TWF, but your enemy dies after three attacks, do you retroactively revoke the TWF penalties? Please provide references to the rules that support your reasoning so I can better understand.
But if you need an answer better than that, it ultimately comes down to the number of hands used, not the number of javelins thrown.
So throwing a javelin from each hand constitutes TWF, but from the same hand does not. Interesting.
So throwing a javelin from each hand *with iterative attacks* and not from anything else would constitute TWF?
So what about this case:
A character with two attacks uses a Scimitar to Attack, drops the scimitar, draws another Scimitar and uses the same hand to attack?
Would this constitute TWF? I'm guessing that it would not in your opinion.
My question is this: what does the other hand have to do with anything? If you're not using TWF to gain an extra attack which is the point of TWF, then what is the point exacting the TWF penalties?
Two Weapon Fighting is different than a Full Attack action..
Two-Weapon Fighting
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.
If it were not, any character with more than one weapon (ALL of them BTW) would take TWF penalties. Why? Because everyone is wielding an Unarmed Strike at all times.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
.
...
.....
I just read all of that. I am, quite frankly, shocked that this actually went on for 170 posts, and in that space no one once asked why the TWF penalties to attack existed in the first place. I.e. to prevent TWF from becoming objectively superior to other options while still providing some sort of TWF benefit. The case of the axe and scimitar does not unbalance anything. I would feel, as a GM, quite the burro should I insist on applying TWF penalties to someone only taking their iterative attacks and no further benefit. Switching weapons, I'm afraid, only rarely provides any mechanical benefit.
My ruling: penalty only applies when getting additional benefits of TWF, such as extra attack, TW Defense, TW Rend, etc.
All other solutions are needlessly complicated and introduce too many exceptions. As evidenced by this thread. I cannot stand by the decisions of a DM that goes out of his/her way 1) to prevent people from acting like Conan with a sword and axe in hand, 2) to prevent the swashbuckler from kicking someone as part of their iterative attack just because they want to, 3) to prevent people from making any sort of thrown weapon build whatsoever.
DONE.
Which attack receives the "off hand 1/2 damage"? What happens if you then decide you want to make the extra attack provided by TWF? Do you retroactively apply the TWF penalties to the previous attacks? Also, because you have to use your BAB from highest to lowest, do you retroactively change the order of your attacks to follow TWF? Conversely, if you decide to use the extra attack granted by TWF, but your enemy dies after three attacks, do you retroactively revoke the TWF penalties? Please provide references to the rules that support your reasoning so I can better understand.
1. The attack you declare the off-hand at the time of your full attack.
2a-c. What happens if you then decide you want to make the extra attack provided by TWF?
You must declare TWF at the beginning of your full attack, there is no retroactive penalties or changing.
If you want the option to use the extra attack you must declare a Full Attack with TWF penalties & designations first.
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.
Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack: After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round. If you've already taken a 5-foot step, you can't use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.
Note that you must use a full attack *first*. You can't make a standard attack and then change it to a full attack. You have to perform a full attack then decide otherwise.
2d. Conversely, if you decide to use the extra attack granted by TWF, but your enemy dies after three attacks, do you retroactively revoke the TWF penalties?
If you use 3 attacks, you're in the middle of your full attack and you're stuck with the TWF penalties til your turn is over - even if you didn't use those extra attacks.
I'm not familiar with the feat chain, so I can't comment on that. That being said, the only situation that I can think of off the top of my head where this would be applicable to this conversation would be if the opponent had readied a disarm action against the player. In this case, my previous answer still stands. If the player had stated prior to his attack that he intends to attack with both the axe and scimitar, he would have his scimitar available as an off-hand attack.[b/] If the player stated he was attacking with his axe only, he would have to have the quick draw feat to be able to use his scimitar since he has already established his "axe" hand as his primary hand. If he does not have the quick draw feat, then the scimitar hand would be unable to act, but he would still be able to make unarmed attacks with his "axe" hand.
The feat chain is in the UC. It allows you to make attacks of opportunity against anyone that attacks you.
The Disarm Combat Manuever can be use in place of an attack. That is how the axe gets disarmed.The player does not have to state his second attack by the rules.
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. [b]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.
Panther Claw (Combat)You unleash a rapid series of blows on foes that attempt to attack you when you move.
Prerequisites: Wis 15, Combat Reflexes, Improved Unarmed Strike, Panther Style.
Benefit: While using Panther Style, you can spend a free action, instead of spending a swift action, to make a retaliatory unarmed strike. You can make a number of retaliatory unarmed strikes on your turn equal to your Wisdom modifier.
Panther Parry (Combat)Your vicious strikes impair your foe's ability to attack you when you move.
Prerequisites: Wis 15, Combat Reflexes, Improved Unarmed Strike, Panther Claw, Panther Style.
Benefit: While using Panther Style, your retaliatory unarmed strikes are resolved before the triggering attacks. If your retaliatory unarmed strike deals damage to an opponent, that opponent takes a –2 penalty on attack and damage rolls with the triggering attack of opportunity.
Panther Style (Combat, Style)You can strike back at enemies who attack you when you move.
Prerequisites: Wis 13, Combat Reflexes, Improved Unarmed Strike.
Benefit: While using this style, when an opponent makes an attack of opportunity against you for moving through a threatened square, you can spend a swift action to make a retaliatory unarmed strike attack against that opponent. Your attack is resolved after the triggering attack of opportunity.
Now that you have text showing how the axe can be disarmed, and text showing attacks don't have to be specified ahead of time what is your answer about the axe arm turning the scimitar arm off?
Just to be clear I guess I better handle disarm also.
Disarm
You can attempt to disarm your opponent in place of a melee attack. If you do not have the Improved Disarm feat, or a similar ability, attempting to disarm a foe provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver. Attempting to disarm a foe while unarmed imposes a –4 penalty on the attack.
If your attack is successful, your target drops one item it is carrying of your choice (even if the item is wielded with two hands). If your attack exceeds the CMD of the target by 10 or more, the target drops the items it is carrying in both hands (maximum two items if the target has more than two hands). If your attack fails by 10 or more, you drop the weapon that you were using to attempt the disarm. If you successfully disarm your opponent without using a weapon, you may automatically pick up the item dropped.
But if you need an answer better than that, it ultimately comes down to the number of hands used, not the number of javelins thrown.So throwing a javelin from each hand constitutes TWF, but from the same hand does not. Interesting.
So throwing a javelin from each hand *with iterative attacks* and not from anything else would constitute TWF?
So what about this case:
A character with two attacks uses a Scimitar to Attack, drops the scimitar, draws another Scimitar and uses the same hand to attack?
Would this constitute TWF? I'm guessing that it would not in your opinion.
My question is this: what does the other hand have to do with anything? If you're not using TWF to gain an extra attack which is the point of TWF, then what is the point exacting the TWF penalties?
Two Weapon Fighting is different than a Full Attack action..
Two-Weapon Fighting
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.If it were not, any character with more than one weapon (ALL of them BTW) would take TWF penalties. Why? Because everyone is wielding an Unarmed Strike at all times.
Not to take one side over the other (I already gave my opinion several pages ago, but this argument is just splitting hairs. You are claiming false ignorance of the difference between game-defined 'Two-Weapon Fighting' (fighting with a weapon in each hand simultaneously) and simply using two weapons in sequence. Next thing, you'll be arguing that only PC's born to unwed mothers can use Bastard swords.
TWF is a modification of an attack action. That debate comes down to whether the penalties are for having the second weapon, or making the extra attacks. Data seems nebulous, so it's best left to the GM.
The unarmed strike rule has been discounted before as there is a distinct difference between wielding a weapon and simply holding one. Otherwise, why have the TWF feat chain? We're all double-fisting, so get rid of the penalties. Just keep attacking at a compounding -5 penalty until you get bored.
I love discussions like these on the boards. It really helps me cement my grasp of the rules. But, far too often they devolve into nonsensical arguments about the specific definition of words. I'm quite certain the writers at Paizo do not lie awake at night agonizing over whether they should have called the spell 'Preposterous Lust' rather than 'Unnatural Lust' because people may argue you can't use it to attract a human male to a human female because that would be natural lust. We're all going to end up having to buy the Pathfinder Dictionary, where every word is specifically defined.
Baah. I'm old and tired. Work sucked today. I'll see you crazy kids in the morning.
Just wanted to point out that the Panther Style feats do NOT let you make a retaliatory attack when someone attacks you.
What it does it let you retaliate when you provoke FOR MOVEMENT. It's not ANY attack.
Just wanted to be clear, and to avoid any misunderstanding.
Why don't you just hold the other weapon in your offhand?
Swapping hands is a free action and as long as you're not wielding the offhand weapon you don't get the penalty.
+8,000,000,000
Not to take one side over the other (I already gave my opinion several pages ago, but this argument is just splitting hairs. You are claiming false ignorance of the difference between game-defined 'Two-Weapon Fighting' (fighting with a weapon in each hand simultaneously) and simply using two weapons in sequence.
The exercise was to get to the root of his interpretation. (He's attached to the number of hands involved). The game actually does not differentiate between drawing weapons in a sequence or using two hands simultaneously, you must simply declare your intentions before hand in a Full Attack.
A Full Attack is not the same as a Full Attack that invokes Two Weapon Fighting (as there are different penalties and modifiers that must be accounted for).
That debate comes down to whether the penalties are for having the second weapon, or making the extra attacks. Data seems nebulous, so it's best left to the GM.
My point about unarmed strikes/armor spikes (and other weapons that don't need to be in hand to wield) is to show that TWF must involve the extra attack. If it was only using two weapons simultaneously then all characters would be wielding more than one weapon at a time (thus taking -6 on their primary attack).
Otherwise, why have the TWF feat chain?
Uh.. the TWF feat chain allows more attacks when TWF and reduces the penalties for TWF (from -6/-8 to -2/-2). So other than those immense benefits, there's no reason for the feat chain to exist.
In a different thread on the same topic, I stated that it was my opinion that you could use weapons from either hand as part of your iterative attacks without suffering two weapon penalties. I am restating it here to support that side of the argument.
|
|
So throwing a javelin from each hand constitutes TWF, but from the same hand does not. Interesting.
Yup, it is. I didn't write the rules. I'm just reposting them for you.
So throwing a javelin from each hand *with iterative attacks* and not from anything else would constitute TWF?
Yes, but not in the way you imply. The first hand throws the iterative attacks. The second hand throws the extra attack. Again, I didn't write the rules, I'm just reposting them for you.
So what about this case:
A character with two attacks uses a Scimitar to Attack, drops the scimitar, draws another Scimitar and uses the same hand to attack?
Would this constitute TWF? I'm guessing that it would not in your opinion.
Assuming you have the quick draw feat, then no, TWF wouldn't apply, as you are not using your off hand to make the next attack. Your attitude seems to show that you feel TWF should apply, why should it apply?
My question is this: what does the other hand have to do with anything? If you're not using TWF to gain an extra attack which is the point of TWF, then what is the point exacting the TWF penalties?
The TWF penalties are exacted because the rules say the penalties are exacted. The question is, why wouldn't you take all of your available attacks since you are already taking the TWF penalties? Your question implies that you are not applying the TWF rule correctly.
Two Weapon Fighting is different than a Full Attack action..[/b]
Two-Weapon Fighting is not different than a Full Attack Action, Two-Weapon Fighting is a Full Attack Action. According to the PRD: 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.
Two-Weapon Fighting
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.If it were not, any character with more than one weapon (ALL of them BTW) would take TWF penalties. Why? Because everyone is wielding an Unarmed Strike at all times.
Apparently you haven't read all of my posts to this thread, as I have already covered this point. The act of holding a weapon in each hand (or a shield, or a gauntleted hand) does not incur the TWF penalty. Wielding (i.e. attacking) with both weapons (or shield as a weapon, or unarmed strike) is what incurs the TWF penalty.
1. The attack you declare the off-hand at the time of your full attack.
No, because iterative attacks with multiple weapons are not allowed. Your first attack is the primary attack, the second attack is the off-hand attack.
2a-c. What happens if you then decide you want to make the extra attack provided by TWF?
You must declare TWF at the beginning of your full attack, there is no retroactive penalties or changing.If you want the option to use the extra attack you must declare a Full Attack with TWF penalties & designations first.
Yes, I agree with this.
Note that you must use a full attack *first*. You can't make a standard attack and then change it to a full attack. You have to perform a full attack then decide otherwise.
I agree.
2d. Conversely, if you decide to use the extra attack granted by TWF, but your enemy dies after three attacks, do you retroactively revoke the TWF penalties?
If you use 3 attacks, you're in the middle of your full attack and you're stuck with the TWF penalties til your turn is over - even if you didn't use those extra attacks.
I agree.
Those questions I posted were hypothetical questions to point out the fallacies of his argument that you can alternate weapons between multiple attacks granted by high BAB.
|
|
Now that you have text showing how the axe can be disarmed, and text showing attacks don't have to be specified ahead of time what is your answer about the axe arm turning the scimitar arm off?
Just to be clear I guess I better handle disarm also.
I'm confused. I don't see how the feats you listed apply to the scenario you described. From what I read, the feats allow you to react with an unarmed strike against opponents who make an AoO against you when you move through a threatened square.
With that in mind, I will defer to my previously stated position.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Apparently you haven't read all of my posts to this thread, as I have already covered this point. The act of holding a weapon in each hand (or a shield, or a gauntleted hand) does not incur the TWF penalty. Wielding (i.e. attacking) with both weapons (or shield as a weapon, or unarmed strike) is what incurs the TWF penalty.
Lol, after all of that we're a lot closer than I thought. I blame my own failing logic!
However, let's move this discussion forward...
1. I suggest you can use any wielded (equipped and ready to attack) weapon for your iteratives.
2. I suggest that when you do this you will not invoke TWF.
Rules support:
Perhaps you haven't read this portion of the text?
From Full Attack...
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.
Keep in mind this is listed way before the rules paragraph on TWF. Notice it makes no mention about the deliniation of an offhanded weapon or attack penalties, but mentions utilizing two weapons with iteratives in the same paragraph and logically connecting them.
Then further in the Combat Chapter it lists Two Weapon fighting, an optional fighting style one can invoke. From TWF:
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.
Thus implying that if you choose to use this rules text *to generate an extra attack* then there are associated penalties. Again note, that there is no direct link from the iteratives part of the Full Attack paragraph to the Two Weapon fighting section.
Your responses indicate that you're improperly interpreting the Full Attack Action in regards to iteratives.
I believe that you are having trouble with the fact that Two Weapon Fighting is not the only way to fight with two weapons.
Just wanted to point out that the Panther Style feats do NOT let you make a retaliatory attack when someone attacks you.
What it does it let you retaliate when you provoke FOR MOVEMENT. It's not ANY attack.
Just wanted to be clear, and to avoid any misunderstanding.
Darn it.
New Idea: The axe wielder provokes by trying a combat maneuver he does not have the feat for. In response he is disarmed. <---For HangarFlying
.
My ruling: penalty only applies when getting additional benefits of TWF, such as extra attack, TW Defense, TW Rend, etc.
All other solutions are needlessly complicated and introduce too many exceptions. As evidenced by this thread. I cannot stand by the decisions of a DM that goes out of his/her way 1) to prevent people from acting like Conan with a sword and axe in hand, 2) to prevent the swashbuckler from kicking someone as part of their iterative attack just because they want to, 3) to prevent people from making any sort of thrown weapon build whatsoever.
DONE.
Thank you for sharing your house rule.
Can I just address your points though.
1) People can "act like Conan". All they have to do is train with the weapons they use (buy the TWF feat) or suffer the larger penalties. That's why we make decisions at character creation. You may as well argue that the GM is being unfair in saying that the Fighter cannot suddenly decide to cast spells, after all that would 'prevent people from acting like Gandalf'
2) Unarmed strikes are, to me, the only area of this thread up for debate. Without Improved unarmed strike you aren't considered armed. With it you can be considered armed (but that is different from wielding). However an unarmed attack is counted as a light weapon, so reduces the penalty anyway.
3) Your point is just random, I guess you think some of the rules here effect something you want to do and this upsets you.
The bottom line is, all the things that people want to do in this thread are covered by the rules. The OP appears to have chosen not to buy TWF feat, presumably to get other abilities which make his character cool. Those are the choices we make.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For all of you stating that just wielding two weapons triggers the TWF penalties...
Lets change the OPs' situation around a little, without changing how it plays with the rules. Instead of an axe and a scimitar, lets give him a quarterstaff.
How does this change things?
Does he now have to either always attack with the staff as a two handed weapon or take the penalties for it as if two weapon fighting?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For all of you stating that just wielding two weapons triggers the TWF penalties...
Lets change the OPs' situation around a little, without changing how it plays with the rules. Instead of an axe and a scimitar, lets give him a quarterstaff.
How does this change things?
Does he now have to either always attack with the staff as a two handed weapon or take the penalties for it as if two weapon fighting?
A quarterstaff is, if you bother to look it up, a double weapon.
"Double Weapons: You can use a double weapon to make an extra attack with the off-hand end of the weapon as if you were fighting with two weapons. The penalties apply as if the off-hand end of the weapon was a light weapon." PRD
Simple, easy to understand, and a specific weapon type. So the OP would be using iterative attacks with one type of weapon, using both hands and not taking any penalty.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Despite everyone's valiant efforts to clarify the rules on Two-weapon Fighting, the Rules As Written are ambiguous.
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way....
The phrase "when you fight this way" applies to a choice. But which choice? The first sentence has two choices in it.
In one interpretation the choice is, "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand". In the other interpretation the choice is, "you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon." English grammar does not tell us which choice is linked to "when you fight this way."We can muster evidence for either choice. Strong evidence for the first choice is that the ability is called Two-Weapon Fighting and that this choice is made before penalties would be applied to the first attack. Strong evidence for the second choice is that it balances a penalty with an extra attack, is consistent with feats such as Rapid Shot and Shield Bash, and avoids awkward questions about thrown weapons, double weapons, and unarmed strike. But evidence does not matter. Evidence can only point out a misinterpretation of the rules. Ambiguity is not a misinterpretation to be corrected; rather, it is a missing piece of the rules.
Thus, I have marked this for the FAQ and I recommend that others do so too..
Despite everyone's valiant efforts to clarify the rules on Two-weapon Fighting, the Rules As Written are ambiguous.
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way....The phrase "when you fight this way" applies to a choice. But which choice? The first sentence has two choices in it.
In one interpretation the choice is, "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand". In the other interpretation the choice is, "you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon." English grammar does not tell us which choice is linked to "when you fight this way."We can muster evidence for either choice. Strong evidence for the first choice is that the ability is called Two-Weapon Fighting and that this choice is made before penalties would be applied to the first attack. Strong evidence for the second choice is that it balances a penalty with an extra attack, is consistent with feats such as Rapid Shot and Shield Bash, and avoids awkward questions about thrown weapons, double weapons, and unarmed strike. But evidence does not matter. Evidence can only point out a misinterpretation of the rules. Ambiguity is not a misinterpretation to be corrected; rather, it is a missing piece of the rules.
Thus, I have marked this for the FAQ and I recommend that others do so too..
There is no ambiguity.
|
|
For all of you stating that just wielding two weapons triggers the TWF penalties...
Lets change the OPs' situation around a little, without changing how it plays with the rules. Instead of an axe and a scimitar, lets give him a quarterstaff.
How does this change things?
Does he now have to either always attack with the staff as a two handed weapon or take the penalties for it as if two weapon fighting?
A quarterstaff is, if you bother to look it up, a double weapon.
"Double Weapons: You can use a double weapon to make an extra attack with the off-hand end of the weapon as if you were fighting with two weapons. The penalties apply as if the off-hand end of the weapon was a light weapon." PRD
Simple, easy to understand, and a specific weapon type. So the OP would be using iterative attacks with one type of weapon, using both hands and not taking any penalty.
I did "bother to look it up" but thanks for also looking it up. Not sure why you are being rude on this...
But to continue, you quoted the part that is important anyway:
"Double Weapons: You can use a double weapon to make an extra attack with the off-hand end of the weapon as if you were fighting with two weapons. The penalties apply as if the off-hand end of the weapon was a light weapon." PRD
So, with a quarterstaff, you only take the penalties if you are making an extra attack with it.
It does not need to be a quarter staff, it could also have been a gnome hooked hammer. The OP could swap between hitting them with the pick end and the hammer end, and as long as they did not make more attacks than their standard BAB allows, they would not take the penalties.
|
|
That's misleadingly incomplete. The quarterstaff can be USED as a double weapon or as it's more commonly used particularly by mages who don't invest in combat feats, a two-handed weapon. The Quarterstaff Mastery Feat opens up one handed use for it.For all of you stating that just wielding two weapons triggers the TWF penalties...
Lets change the OPs' situation around a little, without changing how it plays with the rules. Instead of an axe and a scimitar, lets give him a quarterstaff.
How does this change things?
Does he now have to either always attack with the staff as a two handed weapon or take the penalties for it as if two weapon fighting?
A quarterstaff is, if you bother to look it up, a double weapon.
The quarterstaff master feat does allow you to use it one handed, and leaves the other hand free for something like a shield.
Of course there is another issue, with the latest changes to the trip CM, they invalidated some of that feat chain, but that is a new thread all together.
It does not need to be a quarter staff, it could also have been a gnome hooked hammer. The OP could swap between hitting them with the pick end and the hammer end, and as long as they did not make more attacks than their standard BAB allows, they would not take the penalties.
I take it you had the Gnome Hook Hammer in mind when you wrote the previous post on Quarter Staff. Now that you have asked the question you wanted to...
The Gnome Hook Hammer is an exotic weapon which has it's own specific rules. It can do two types of damage, it also has the Double and Trip properties. You get penalties for using it without training, and penalties for using it as a Double weapon if you choose to do so. You can make iterative attacks with this type weapon and do the different types of damage without recourse to the Double or TWF rules
A weapon with two types (of damage) is both types if the entry specifies “and,” or either type (wielder's choice) if the entry specifies “or.” - PRD
It's not only rules, it is also painfully obvious that... if you are fighting with two weapons then you are two weapon fighting.
Throwing two daggers with the same hand is fighting with two weapons. By your (incorrect) statement, the thrower is using TWF style and has penalties.
Following up to Mathmuse's excellent post, you clearly believe that the phrase "when you fight this way" applies to wielding a second weapon in your off hand, rather than when you choose to get an extra attack. If you can explain why you feel this way, and perhaps back it up with rules, English grammar, game balance, or anything besides an insulting blanket statement, then productive discussion can ensue.
It's not only rules, it is also painfully obvious that... if you are fighting with two weapons then you are two weapon fighting.Throwing two daggers with the same hand is fighting with two weapons. By your (incorrect) statement, the thrower is using TWF style and has penalties.
Following up to Mathmuse's excellent post, you clearly believe that the phrase "when you fight this way" applies to wielding a second weapon in your off hand, rather than when you choose to get an extra attack. If you can explain why you feel this way, and perhaps back it up with rules, English grammar, game balance, or anything besides an insulting blanket statement, then productive discussion can ensue.
You do not wield a thrown weapon, you throw it. Thrown weapons involvement in this thread...as taken from the questions raised by the OP.... is a red herring.
Wield: To hold and use. Throw: Propel (something) with force through the air by a movement of the arm and hand.
Edit to be clear: My (correct) statement that "if you are fighting with two weapons then you are two weapon fighting." was specifically in context of the OP which discussed melee combat. Out of context may would have to write "If you are fighting/wielding two melee weapons, one in each hand, then you are subject to the penalties inherent in two weapon fighting (because you are two weapon fighting) and any penalties inherrent in using your off hand because one of them HAS to be an off hand BECAUSE you are using BOTH hands AND not swapping any weapon to your ON hand." but it doesn't have the same flow, and was never supposed to be read out of context.