Weapons in both hands and iterative attacks, without two weapon fighting


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 931 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

51 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 7 people marked this as a favorite.

Ok so here's the situation.

Say I have a scimitar in my left hand, and an axe in my right. I have a BAB of 13, so I have 3 iterative attacks at +13, 8 and +3 respectively (not counting other bonuses).

Question: can I, without the Two Weapon Fighting feat, deliver the first attack with my axe, and the next two attacks with my scimitar (i.e. axe attack with +13, and then two scimitar attacks at +8 and +3 respectively)?

Edit: also, would the attacks with the scimitar only gain half my str bonus to damage, or the full bonus?


Yes

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

TWF only comes into play when a player wants to make extra attacks beyond his iterative attacks. So yes.


Awesome. But do the attacks with my scimitar also only get 1/2 my STR bonus for bonus damage?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

...interesting. I would say no, you get your full Str bonus to damage, because none of them are off-hand attacks.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Off-hand only really comes into play with two weapon fighting

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Yes

I disagree. If you use two weapons, even though you are not taking the extra attack, I feel you are still two-weapon fighting.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

A player need not limit his iterative attacks to a single weapon. The penalties are there for the extra attack provided by two weapon fighting. As long he is wielding or can quick draw a weapon, he can attack with it, as long as he has the attacks available. This is how one can make multiple attacks with thrown weapons, if his attack bonus is high enough.

Shadow Lodge

noretoc wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Yes
I disagree. If you use two weapons, even though you are not taking the extra attack, I feel you are still two-weapon fighting.

So I can attack with a sword, drop it, quickdraw a dagger and attack with it, and not take two weapon fighting penalties, but I can't hold a sword and a dagger at the same time and make two separate attacks without TWF penalties? (Provided I have a +6 BAB.)

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
blackbloodtroll wrote:
A player need not limit his iterative attacks to a single weapon. The penalties are there for the extra attack provided by two weapon fighting. As long he is wielding or can quick draw a weapon, he can attack with it, as long as he has the attacks available. This is how one can make multiple attacks with thrown weapons, if his attack bonus is high enough.

I want to agree with this, as I love the idea of a fighter, taking two swings with a sword, they pulling out a knife and tossing it but this is what gets me. Light weapons. A fighter NOT taking the extra attacks holds a bastard sword in each of his hands. First attack at full BAB. Second at -5. Now with a bastard sword and knife. same bonuses.

Two weapon fighting, two bastards swords, the attacks get an extra -2 to each attack. (Note this minus two is not for the extra attack, as that is already figured in, it is for one weapon not being light).

If he is getting an EXTRA -2 for both weapons being one handed, when two weapon fighting, why not when attacking with two one-handed weapons, and not taking the extra attacks.

I think anytime you are using both weapons to attack, whether you are taking the extra attack or not, you get penalized.

Note: this is my opinion on the way the rules are. In my home game, I think I would allow it, but give the player a minus two to the attacks if one weapon was not light, rather than the full penalty.


noretoc wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Yes
I disagree. If you use two weapons, even though you are not taking the extra attack, I feel you are still two-weapon fighting.

The rules don't count it as TWF(which is a special attack with conditions that have to be met such as getting an extra attack) unless you are using extra attacks, and that is really the only advantage to it anyway. Otherwise you are enchanting two weapons during your career without getting much out of it. It is cheaper and more powerful to focus on one weapon in this case.

Now to the rules:

prd wrote:

Two-Weapon Fighting

If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.....

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
noretoc wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Yes
I disagree. If you use two weapons, even though you are not taking the extra attack, I feel you are still two-weapon fighting.

The rules don't count it as TWF(which is a special attack with conditions that have to be met such as getting an extra attack) unless you are using extra attacks, and that is really the only advantage to it anyway. Otherwise you are enchanting two weapons during your career without getting much out of it. It is cheaper and more powerful to focus on one weapon in this case.

Now to the rules:

prd wrote:

Two-Weapon Fighting

If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.....

The rules say if you are fighting with two weapons you CAN get an extra attack. They do not say say two weapon fighting only applies when you get an extra attack.


noretoc wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
noretoc wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Yes
I disagree. If you use two weapons, even though you are not taking the extra attack, I feel you are still two-weapon fighting.

The rules don't count it as TWF(which is a special attack with conditions that have to be met such as getting an extra attack) unless you are using extra attacks, and that is really the only advantage to it anyway. Otherwise you are enchanting two weapons during your career without getting much out of it. It is cheaper and more powerful to focus on one weapon in this case.

Now to the rules:

prd wrote:

Two-Weapon Fighting

If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.....

The rules say if you are fighting with two weapons you CAN get an extra attack. They do not say say two weapon fighting only applies when you get an extra attack.

Actually that is not what they say. They say if you are fighting with a weapon in your off-hand you get an extra attack.

Once again I quote:
Quote:


If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon

The off-hand attacks come into place because they are extra attacks above and beyond what your BAB allows for primary attacks.

As an example if you BAB is +6/+1 you get two primary attacks.
If you decide to TWF then you get an extra attack, but penalties ensue.
The rules only limit your attacks per round with concern to your primary, not number of weapons that can be used.

PRD wrote:

Base Attack Bonus (BAB)

Each creature has a base attack bonus and it represents its skill in combat. As a character gains levels or Hit Dice, his base attack bonus improves. When a creature's base attack bonus reaches +6, +11, or +16, he receives an additional attack in combat when he takes a full-attack action (which is one type of full-round action—see Combat).

Note the limit is on attacks not weapons usable.

Shadow Lodge

TWF is essentially the melee version of Rapidshot.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

With two weapons you can always choose which order they are applied. However even if you are not using the extra attack the penalties for TWF would always be in effect of wielding two weapons.

Shadow Lodge

Why?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
noretoc wrote:


The rules say if you are fighting with two weapons you CAN get an extra attack. They do not say say two weapon fighting only applies when you get an extra attack.

Actually that is not what they say. They say if you are fighting with a weapon in your off-hand you get an extra attack.

Once again I quote:
Quote:


If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon

The off-hand attacks come into place because they are extra attacks above and beyond what your BAB allows for primary attacks.

Actually that is what they say, you quoted them in your earlier post. The heading says there in bold. TWO WEAPON FIGHTING. Since there is no handedness in Pathfinder, you are only wielding a weapon in your off hand, when you are wielding TWO weapons. Therefore, the relevant rules refer to fighting with TWO weapons, not the number of attacks you are making, or what hand you have the weapon in. Note: when using two weapons you can determine which is your off hand weapon and change it from round to round.

Now go check those rules you quoted again. there are six sentences. They all refer to the heading. The first explains that you can (CAN, not must) get an extra attack when using two weapons. (Before you start on the wording of off hand, read what I said a moment ago, off-hand only comes into play when you have a weapon in each hand, therefore making that off hand reference another way of saying "using two weapons".) The rest of the sentences explains the penalties when you use two weapons.

Also, take note again what I said in my post regarding light weapons.

oh, and here is the rules passage as you left our the heeding in the piece you quoted above and the other sentences regarding the penalties.

SRD wrote:


Two-Weapon Fighting

If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. You 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.


Nermal2097 wrote:

With two weapons you can always choose which order they are applied. However even if you are not using the extra attack the penalties for TWF would always be in effect of wielding two weapons.

TWF is a special attack in the same sense the combat manuevers are special attacks. It just allows you attacks beyond the normal BAB. It is even listed as a special attack.

In the description of the special attack(TWF) it tells you how it works.
Since you are not using the special attack you can not take the penalties for it since the penalties are not for using a second weapon, but for using the special attack to get an extra attack above and beyond what you are allowed to get in with your off-hand.

The rules even state the off-hand weapon, and the extra attack as part of TWF. There is nothing stating a rule for a penalty otherwise.

That chart in the book is for TWF, not fighting with two weapons. In short fighting with two weapons is not automatically two weapon fighting.

Quote:

Two-Weapon Fighting

If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. You 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.

Table: Two-weapon Fighting Penalties summarizes the interaction of all these factors.

There is no off-hand weapon or extra attack for the OP's question. The penalties only apply when there is a primary and an off-hand weapon.

When using BAB you have your normal BAB, and you off-hand BAB.

If I am a level 6 fighter my BAB is 6/1.
If I use TWF(assuming a light weapon, but not feats for this purpose) which has penalties then it is 2/2(offhand attack)/-7.

However since I am not meeting the TWF standards of an offhand weapon, and an extra attack by the rules the penalties can not apply.

If you think this is just an oversight then feel free to press the FAQ button.
edit:clarification.

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Fun fact, your offhand can be your left hand one round and your right hand the next.


noretoc wrote:


stuff about TWF

Here is how it is listed.

Special Attacks(maing heading)
...Aid Another(tell you the conditions)
...Charge(tells you how it works)
...CMB(tells you how they work)
...TWF(tells you how it works)

There is no handedness in PF with regards to left and right hands, but there are primary and offhand weapons.
If you are not making an offhand attack which only comes up in the TWF section then you are not using an offhand.
The TWF section states that you can make an extra attack with the offhand weapon, but in doing so you will take penalties. It does not say making an attack with a second weapon brings about penalties.

Quote:
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.

What way is that you ask? It is fighting with a second weapon in order to gain extra attacks since that is what the paragraph entails.

The OP is not fighting with two weapons and getting an extra attack. He is only fighting with two weapons.


FiddlersGreen wrote:

Ok so here's the situation.

Say I have a scimitar in my left hand, and an axe in my right. I have a BAB of 13, so I have 3 iterative attacks at +13, 18 and +3 respectively (not counting other bonuses).

Question: can I, without the Two Weapon Fighting feat, deliver the first attack with my axe, and the next two attacks with my scimitar (i.e. axe attack with +13, and then two scimitar attacks at +8 and +3 respectively)?

No


FiddlersGreen wrote:
Awesome. But do the attacks with my scimitar also only get 1/2 my STR bonus for bonus damage?

Yes


Ingenwulf wrote:
FiddlersGreen wrote:
Awesome. But do the attacks with my scimitar also only get 1/2 my STR bonus for bonus damage?
Yes

The rules disagree with you.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

And now, on with the arguing!


wraithstrike wrote:
Ingenwulf wrote:
FiddlersGreen wrote:
Awesome. But do the attacks with my scimitar also only get 1/2 my STR bonus for bonus damage?
Yes
The rules disagree with you.

Often, but ... ask a silly question, get a silly answer...

Edit: However the rules seem to agree this time. When you deal damage with your off hand, you only add 1/2 your strength bonus.


TOZ wrote:
And now, on with the arguing!

That did sound jerkish not that I read it again. I apologize to Ingenwulf. I was only saying the rules don't support your view Mr.wulf


wraithstrike wrote:
TOZ wrote:
And now, on with the arguing!
That did sound jerkish not that I read it again. I apologize to Ingenwulf. I was only saying the rules don't support your view Mr.wulf

I didn't take offense, and my brevety in the first posts in this thread is down to my sense of humour. No offense taken or meant.


Ingenwulf wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Ingenwulf wrote:
FiddlersGreen wrote:
Awesome. But do the attacks with my scimitar also only get 1/2 my STR bonus for bonus damage?
Yes
The rules disagree with you.

Often, but ... ask a siily question, get a silly answer...

Edit: However the rules seem to agree this time. When you deal damage with your off hand, you only add 1/2 your strength bonus.

It is not an off-hand attack.

Example 1: Lets say the OP has an axe in his hand and he makes two attacks. We can agree, I believe, that the two attacks don't alter his attack roll or his str mod to the weapon so that he is not using 1.5 str damage.
Let's say that as a free action he drops the axe, and using quickdraw he then pulls out the scimitar since free actions are allowed in the middle of a full attack action. Does he get a penalty to the attack roll, and only get 1/2 str damage for a weapon being weilded in two hands.

Example 2: Another issue is this, the TWF rules assume the penalties are being applied for the duration of the entire attack. If I already make my attacks with the axe, and then attack with the scimitar that is already in my hand like the OP wants to do, and these first two attacks hit do you go back in time and say the axe now misses because you are retroactively applying the TWF penalties, if the penalties would have caused me to miss had I applied them up front?

edit:changed BAB to attack roll.
edit2:changed question to issue.


TOZ wrote:
noretoc wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Yes
I disagree. If you use two weapons, even though you are not taking the extra attack, I feel you are still two-weapon fighting.
So I can attack with a sword, drop it, quickdraw a dagger and attack with it, and not take two weapon fighting penalties, but I can't hold a sword and a dagger at the same time and make two separate attacks without TWF penalties? (Provided I have a +6 BAB.)

I see you ninja'd me, and they did not answer your question. Don't fret I asked it again. :)


wraithstrike wrote:

It is not an off-hand attack.

Example 1: Lets say the OP has an axe in his hand and he makes two attacks. We can agree, I believe, that the two attacks don't alter his attack roll or his str mod to the weapon so that he is not using 1.5 str damage.
Let's say that as a free action he drops the axe, and using quickdraw he then pulls out the scimitar since free actions are allowed in the middle of a full attack action. Does he get a penalty to the attack roll, and only get 1/2 str damage for a weapon being weilded in two hands.

Example 2: Another question is this the TWF rules assume the penalties are being applied for the duration of the entire attack. If I already make my attacks with the axe, and then attack with the scimitar that is already in my hand like the OP wants to do, and these first two attacks hit do you go back in time and say the axe now misses because you are retroactively applying the TWF penalties, if the penalties would have caused me to miss had I applied them up front?

edit:changed BAB to attack roll.

The way I would figure it, and this is only my opinion, is that any attack made while holding a large lump of metal in the other hand is slowed/hindered. Hence the penalty. A lighter lump of metal in the off hand does make it a little easier. A TWF feat means you are better trained to ignore the imbalance caused by whichever sized lump of metal (or wood if you are so inclined).

There would be no retroactive penalty if, during the initial attack no weapon is held in the off hand. If you were foolish enough to draw one then the penalty would apply at that time.

Due to the vagueries of free actions, all sorts of things could happen, however I would judge that the hand you began an attack sequence with would be your main hand. Most people would, even with the absence in the rules, admit to their character being right or left handed.


Ingenwulf wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

It is not an off-hand attack.

Example 1: Lets say the OP has an axe in his hand and he makes two attacks. We can agree, I believe, that the two attacks don't alter his attack roll or his str mod to the weapon so that he is not using 1.5 str damage.
Let's say that as a free action he drops the axe, and using quickdraw he then pulls out the scimitar since free actions are allowed in the middle of a full attack action. Does he get a penalty to the attack roll, and only get 1/2 str damage for a weapon being weilded in two hands.

Example 2: Another question is this the TWF rules assume the penalties are being applied for the duration of the entire attack. If I already make my attacks with the axe, and then attack with the scimitar that is already in my hand like the OP wants to do, and these first two attacks hit do you go back in time and say the axe now misses because you are retroactively applying the TWF penalties, if the penalties would have caused me to miss had I applied them up front?

edit:changed BAB to attack roll.

The way I would figure it, and this is only my opinion, is that any attack made while holding a large lump of metal in the other hand is slowed/hindered. Hence the penalty.

What about the situation where the one hand is holding one weapon, and the other hand is holding another weapon or even a shield?

edit:You can shield bash so do all shield holders need to take a penalty in case they might try this.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

If you are merely making successive iterative attacks, and not making 'extra attacks', TWF never applies.

You are effectively switching primary attack between one iterative and the next. You'd get full strength bonus, just as if you were wielding one weapon, and could mix up your iteratives freely.

I can see this easily applying if you have weapons optimized to different foes, but don't have TWF. For instance, a kukri of undead Bane and a kukri of humanbane you'd want to switch up and use against different foes if you're in range of a dark priest and his undead bodyguard. Likewise, if you drop a foe, and your second weapon is Ghost Touch, you can go after the wraith. You probably won't want to use a shield against an incorp, so having the weapon in hand if you don't have Quickdraw is the wiser recourse.

If you don't swing with it, all you're doing is gaining the benefit of not having to draw it, losing out on 1.5 str bonus for TH a weapon, and not getting 'extra' attacks. It just allows you to switch to a more effective weapon without pause.

==Aelryinth

Dark Archive

Ingenwulf wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

It is not an off-hand attack.

Example 1: Lets say the OP has an axe in his hand and he makes two attacks. We can agree, I believe, that the two attacks don't alter his attack roll or his str mod to the weapon so that he is not using 1.5 str damage.
Let's say that as a free action he drops the axe, and using quickdraw he then pulls out the scimitar since free actions are allowed in the middle of a full attack action. Does he get a penalty to the attack roll, and only get 1/2 str damage for a weapon being weilded in two hands.

Example 2: Another question is this the TWF rules assume the penalties are being applied for the duration of the entire attack. If I already make my attacks with the axe, and then attack with the scimitar that is already in my hand like the OP wants to do, and these first two attacks hit do you go back in time and say the axe now misses because you are retroactively applying the TWF penalties, if the penalties would have caused me to miss had I applied them up front?

edit:changed BAB to attack roll.

The way I would figure it, and this is only my opinion, is that any attack made while holding a large lump of metal in the other hand is slowed/hindered. Hence the penalty. A lighter lump of metal in the off hand does make it a little easier. A TWF feat means you are better trained to ignore the imbalance caused by whichever sized lump of metal (or wood if you are so inclined).

There would be no retroactive penalty if, during the initial attack no weapon is held in the off hand. If you were foolish enough to draw one then the penalty would apply at that time.

Due to the vagueries of free actions, all sorts of things could happen, however I would judge that the hand you began an attack sequence with would be your main hand. Most people would, even with the absence in the rules, admit to their character being right or left handed.

Except a heavy steel shield is a large and very heavy lump of metal (heavier than almost all weapons), and it does not hinder an attack at all, so long as the user is proficient. I don't see why holding a dagger in one hand should hinder my rapier strike with another.


Many think the point of TWF'ing is to use two different weapons, but of course I disagree. The point is the extra attacks.

I will pose a question.

If I offer you two feats which one do you choose?

feat 1 wrote:
If you choose this feat you get an extra attack anytime you are using a full attack, but at a -2 two penalty for the duration of the attack sequence.
feat 2 wrote:
If you start a round of combat wielding two weapon you may use them interchangeably, but you gain no extra attacks.


Mergy wrote:
Except a heavy steel shield is a large and very heavy lump of metal (heavier than almost all weapons), and it does not hinder an attack at all, so long as the user is proficient. I don't see why holding a dagger in one hand should hinder my rapier strike with another.

Yup, a shield is designed for the job, so only requires proficiency rather than a feat to negate any penalty. Your dagger is light sure, but, if you don't use it to attack via TWF is still a distraction.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ingenwulf wrote:
Mergy wrote:
Except a heavy steel shield is a large and very heavy lump of metal (heavier than almost all weapons), and it does not hinder an attack at all, so long as the user is proficient. I don't see why holding a dagger in one hand should hinder my rapier strike with another.
Yup, a shield is designed for the job, so only requires proficiency rather than a feat to negate any penalty. Your dagger is light sure, but, if you don't use it to attack via TWF is still a distraction.

So I can shield bash, but I can't use a dagger?

What job is a shield designed for, being held?
A locked gauntlet can lock a weapon in place just as well as shield's strap holds a shield in place.

edit:TWF'ing is TWF'ing. The rules have no support for shields ignoring the offhand attack without a certain feat, so either the shield imposes a penalty to the attack rolls by your interpretation of the rules or holding something in and of itself does not impose a penalty.

edit:clarification.


append to previous post

Quote:

Shield Master (Combat)

Your mastery of the shield allows you to fight with it without hindrance.

Prerequisites: Improved Shield Bash, Shield Proficiency, Shield Slam, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +11.

Benefit: You do not suffer any penalties on attack rolls made with a shield while you are wielding another weapon. Add your shield's enhancement bonus to attacks and damage rolls made with the shield as if it was a weapon enhancement bonus.


wraithstrike wrote:


edit:TWF'ing is TWF'ing. The rules have no support for shields ignoring the offhand attack without a certain feat, so either the shield imposes a penalty to the attack rolls by your interpretation of the rules or holding something in and of itself does not impose a penalty.

edit:clarification.

Nope , as well you know. :)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

This is actually something I've dealt with in one of my games. I was running a very Roman Legion-esque game. The issue came up due to the fact that the NPC legionnaires will never have a dex high enough for TWF, but were close to having iterative attacks. So the way I did it was this, if they used their first attack for their spear and their second for their shield bash they did NOT suffer from the full TWF penalties. Instead they got 1/2 str on the shield bash, I'm right handed my left hand is my offhand it doesn't matter what I may be doing with it, but they didn't suffer a penalty to hit. I did have a -2 penalty for hitting with your offhand, I dropped it because it wasn't really affecting the game anyways.


Nermal2097 wrote:

With two weapons you can always choose which order they are applied. However even if you are not using the extra attack the penalties for TWF would always be in effect of wielding two weapons.

Think things through. What is a weapon? Not just daggers.

Gauntlets are weapons. Medium armor comes with gauntlets. Do you take a -6 penalty to hit when using a one handed weapon while wearing a breastplate?

Shields are weapons. Do non-TWF shield-for-AC builds take -6 to all their attacks? -8 with heavy shields?

Metamagic rods function as light maces. Do your wizards take a -6 penalty making touch attacks if they're holding a metamagic rod?

Then there are improvised weapons. Pretty much anything rigid can be used as an improvised weapon even if many of them would be single use because of their fragility. Beer bottles are a fairly common improvised weapon in real life. Do you take a -6 penalty for attacking while holding a potion in your off hand? What about an actual beer bottle for your drunken barbarian?


Atarlost wrote:
Nermal2097 wrote:

With two weapons you can always choose which order they are applied. However even if you are not using the extra attack the penalties for TWF would always be in effect of wielding two weapons.

Think things through. What is a weapon? Not just daggers.

Gauntlets are weapons. Medium armor comes with gauntlets. Do you take a -6 penalty to hit when using a one handed weapon while wearing a breastplate?

Shields are weapons. Do non-TWF shield-for-AC builds take -6 to all their attacks? -8 with heavy shields?

Metamagic rods function as light maces. Do your wizards take a -6 penalty making touch attacks if they're holding a metamagic rod?

Then there are improvised weapons. Pretty much anything rigid can be used as an improvised weapon even if many of them would be single use because of their fragility. Beer bottles are a fairly common improvised weapon in real life. Do you take a -6 penalty for attacking while holding a potion in your off hand? What about an actual beer bottle for your drunken barbarian?

U R funny

Dark Archive

Ingenwulf wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
Nermal2097 wrote:

With two weapons you can always choose which order they are applied. However even if you are not using the extra attack the penalties for TWF would always be in effect of wielding two weapons.

Think things through. What is a weapon? Not just daggers.

Gauntlets are weapons. Medium armor comes with gauntlets. Do you take a -6 penalty to hit when using a one handed weapon while wearing a breastplate?

Shields are weapons. Do non-TWF shield-for-AC builds take -6 to all their attacks? -8 with heavy shields?

Metamagic rods function as light maces. Do your wizards take a -6 penalty making touch attacks if they're holding a metamagic rod?

Then there are improvised weapons. Pretty much anything rigid can be used as an improvised weapon even if many of them would be single use because of their fragility. Beer bottles are a fairly common improvised weapon in real life. Do you take a -6 penalty for attacking while holding a potion in your off hand? What about an actual beer bottle for your drunken barbarian?

U R funny

That's not an argument. Furthermore, you've done nothing to refute any of these points.


Here's a question for the Naysayers (for the moment please ignore your interpretation of the rules and give me your sincere opinion.)

What is bad about using different weapons with different iteratives? You could just be using the same weapon in two hands for 1.5x strength and power attack for the same number of attacks but a lot more damage.

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Why, as a GM, would I go out of my way to further punish a player that is making suboptimal choices in the name of flavor?

I wouldn't. Because that would be stupid.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Wraithstrike: You keep pointing to the special attack Two weapon fighting. I agree it is a special attack, but I do not agree that the part that causes it to be so, is the extra attack. Using two weapons in combat, (not just holding them, but using them to attack) is what turns it into two weapon fighting. Nothing in the rules say that it is the extra attack that is giving you the "Two weapon fighting condition". (Which I know is not a condition, I just stated it like that to help get my point across). If you have a weapon in each hand, but only make attacks with one, you are not two weapon fighting. As soon as you use them both, you are two weapon fighting. According to the rule when you fight "this way" you CAN get an extra attack. This is exactly what the rules say, they never mention that you have to use the extra attack. In fact it says "You CAN" take an extra attack. It does not say "When you use the extra attack granted by holding two weapons, you take a penalty..."

As for the shield arguments I see. It is the same. Holding a shield and using it to defend is part of the shield use and does not hinder your attack, by rules as written. Using the shield as a weapon causes you to be fighting with two weapons and suffer the penalties. When you do you also CAN get an extra attack. If you just shield bash, and don't make an attack with your other weapon, then you are only using one weapon and do not suffer penalties for fighting with two weapons. (Now xhields used to bash to cause other issue, in whether they can be used for AC in the same round, but that is another set of rules, and feats to deal with it)

The act that determines if you are two weapon fighting is exactly what the name implies, fighting with two weapons, regardless of the number of attacks taken, etc. (Also, I faq'd it on my first post)

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Varthanna wrote:

Why, as a GM, would I go out of my way to further punish a player that is making suboptimal choices in the name of flavor?

I wouldn't. Because that would be stupid.

Completely irrelevant to the issue. The question was about a rule and how it works. Punishment, want, balance, etc has no bearing on this at all. You or your DM are welcome to rule it anyway you want, this is just about the way it is written.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:

Here's a question for the Naysayers (for the moment please ignore your interpretation of the rules and give me your sincere opinion.)

What is bad about using different weapons with different iteratives? You could just be using the same weapon in two hands for 1.5x strength and power attack for the same number of attacks but a lot more damage.

See above, it has nothing to do with looking at how the rules work. I even said earlier, I would allow it (But a minus unless a light weapon is used.) When somone asks "Can I do this" you give them the answer regarding the way rules are written. whether or not is it cool, balanced, fair, etc is a different question entirely.


noretoc wrote:

Wraithstrike: You keep pointing to the special attack Two weapon fighting. I agree it is a special attack, but I do not agree that the part that causes it to be so, is the extra attack. Using two weapons in combat, (not just holding them, but using them to attack) is what turns it into two weapon fighting. Nothing in the rules say that it is the extra attack that is giving you the "Two weapon fighting condition". (Which I know is not a condition, I just stated it like that to help get my point across). If you have a weapon in each hand, but only make attacks with one, you are not two weapon fighting. As soon as you use them both, you are two weapon fighting. According to the rule when you fight "this way" you CAN get an extra attack. This is exactly what the rules say, they never mention that you have to use the extra attack. In fact it says "You CAN" take an extra attack. It does not say "When you use the extra attack granted by holding two weapons, you take a penalty..."

As for the shield arguments I see. It is the same. Holding a shield and using it to defend is part of the shield use and does not hinder your attack, by rules as written. Using the shield as a weapon causes you to be fighting with two weapons and suffer the penalties. When you do you also CAN get an extra attack. If you just shield bash, and don't make an attack with your other weapon, then you are only using one weapon and do not suffer penalties for fighting with two weapons. (Now xhields used to bash to cause other issue, in whether they can be used for AC in the same round, but that is another set of rules, and feats to deal with it)

The act that determines if you are two weapon fighting is exactly what the name implies, fighting with two weapons, regardless of the number of attacks taken, etc. (Also, I faq'd it on my first post)

Look at those two fake feats I created earlier and tell me which one makes more sense as a reason to go TWF.

The purpose of TWF is to get extra attacks not to use two weapons. That is the RAI and the balance feature of it so why attach a penalty to the flavor end?

wraithstrike wrote:
prd wrote:
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.

What way is that you ask? It is fighting with a second weapon in order to gain extra attacks since that is what the paragraph entails.

The OP is not fighting with two weapons and getting an extra attack. He is only fighting with two weapons.

Also what about:

Example 1: Lets say the OP has an axe in his hand and he makes two attacks. We can agree, I believe, that the two attacks don't alter his attack roll or his str mod to the weapon so that he is not using 1.5 str damage.
Let's say that as a free action he drops the axe, and using quickdraw he then pulls out the scimitar since free actions are allowed in the middle of a full attack action. Does he get a penalty to the attack roll, and only get 1/2 str damage for a weapon being weilded in two hands.

Example 2: Another issue is this, the TWF rules assume the penalties are being applied for the duration of the entire attack. If I already make my attacks with the axe, and then attack with the scimitar that is already in my hand like the OP wants to do, and these first two attacks hit do you go back in time and say the axe now misses because you are retroactively applying the TWF penalties, if the penalties would have caused me to miss had I applied them up front?

edit:In these example I still used two weapons.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

For those arguing that the TWF penalty applies all the time, then that would mean the penalty is even applied when the person uses a move and standard attack, for he is still holding the weapon right? No.

The penalty is only evoked when you gain the extra attack. It is a special attack and so it has a special penalty. Think about it like a monk; a monk is able to switch between any part of his body during a flurry of blows. Likewise, you can use any weapon available to you (left hand, right hand, unarmed attack, etc.) for each iterative attack. If you want an extra attack, you take the penalty.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:

Look at those two fake feats I created earlier and tell me which one makes more sense as a reason to go TWF.

The purpose of TWF is to get extra attacks not to use two weapons. That is the RAI and the balance feature of it so why attach a penalty to the flavor end

It dosen't matter what the feats say, or what you think was intended when the TWF was written. We are talking about what the rules say. The text is what we use to interpret RAI. I think RAI was to apply a penalty then a creature attacks with a weapon in each hand. The text support me. You think it is intended to apply only when the extra attack is made, the rules do not say that.

Quote:

Example 1: Lets say the OP has an axe in his hand and he makes two attacks. We can agree, I believe, that the two attacks don't alter his attack roll or his str mod to the weapon so that he is not using 1.5 str damage.

Let's say that as a free action he drops the axe, and using quickdraw he then pulls out the scimitar since free actions are allowed in the middle of a full attack action. Does he get a penalty to the attack roll, and only get 1/2 str damage for a weapon being weilded in two hands.

Nope, this ties back to something you said earlier. If he draws a new weapon and attacks with the same hand, then he is not making an attack with his main hand and off hand, therefore not using two weapon fighting. remember I said earlier that two weapon fighting it when a person attack with a weapon in his off hand and his main hand, whichever he chooses them to be that round.

Quote:
Example 2: Another issue is this, the TWF rules assume the penalties are being applied for the duration of the entire attack. If I already make my attacks with the axe, and then attack with the scimitar that is already in my hand like the OP wants to do, and these first two attacks hit do you go back in time and say the axe now misses because you are retroactively applying the TWF penalties, if the penalties would have caused me to miss had I applied them up front?

It is irrelevant to the question of what the rules say. Should it happen, it would be one of those weird situations which the DM has to decide what to do. It has no bearing though on the rules text or what they mean.

1 to 50 of 931 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Weapons in both hands and iterative attacks, without two weapon fighting All Messageboards