|
| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
While related to another active thread, this is asking a different set of core questions.
Situation 1:
A fighter has a bastard sword and a flail in his hands at the start of a round. He has a BAB of +8/+3 and has the Improved Trip feat. He makes a 5-foot step toward an enemy, and uses the trip combat maneuver with his flail using BAB of +8. He succeeds, then drops the flail. Now he takes hold of the sword in both hands and attacks.
In this situation, does he need to apply the two weapon fighting rules or does he get a straight BAB +3 attack? Does he still use 1.5 STR? Is that the same with his extra attack if he gets one? Does he forfeit his +3 attack because he dropped the flail, and only gets to use his sword in the extra attack? Or is this not even possible?
Situation 2:
As situation 1, except the fighter also has Quick Draw and has the sword sheathed at the start of the round. When he drops the flail, he gets to draw and attack with the sword using +3 BAB and no penalties, right?
Situation 3:
As situation 1, but swaps weapons instead of dropping the flail, and uses the sword 1-handed with Exotic Weapon Proficiency. How would this work?
-
We have insight from a certain "HangarFlying" and some others:
Ashiel wrote:
"If you have 4 attacks per round due to BAB (+20/+15/+10/+5) you could slap somebody with a sword, kick them in the nuts, slam them with a shield, and spike them with an armor spike if you wanted to, without penalties."No, you can't. The rule says you may strike with either weapon first. The rule does not say that you may strike with either weapon for the second attack. Nor does the rule say you may strike with either weapon for the "N"th attack.
This strikes at the heart of these questions. Flurry of Blows states that any combination of attacks may be made, as if using two weapon fighting. The point seems to be imagined, though, in an effort to be right in the thread this was posted.
"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."
First sentence: One must use the highest BAB first, then the second, etc. Second sentence: One can make the first attack with either weapon. Third sentance: One can make the first attack with either side of the weapon. Where is it saying we have to use the same weapon for all the iterative attacks?
-
Links:
Two Weapon Fighting, Quick Draw, Full Attack, Flurry of Blows, Shielded Fighter
I would prefer that those who posted about 10 times or more in the "WEAPONS IN BOTH HANDS AND ITERATIVE ATTACKS, WITHOUT TWO WEAPON FIGHTING" thread abstain from this one. I'm looking for the input of other individuals now. Please continue your discussion in the other thread.
dotting...
I would prefer that those who posted about 10 times or more in the "WEAPONS IN BOTH HANDS AND ITERATIVE ATTACKS, WITHOUT TWO WEAPON FIGHTING" thread abstain from this one. I'm looking for the input of other individuals now. Please continue your discussion in the other thread.
Downright exclusionary I say!
Downright exclusionary I say!I would prefer that those who posted about 10 times or more in the "WEAPONS IN BOTH HANDS AND ITERATIVE ATTACKS, WITHOUT TWO WEAPON FIGHTING" thread abstain from this one. I'm looking for the input of other individuals now. Please continue your discussion in the other thread.
Ya, I know. The same theories are going to apply. It will just come from different people. I will watch a new group of people make the same arguments we just made.
|
While related to another active thread, this is asking a different set of core questions.
Situation 1:
A fighter has a bastard sword and a flail in his hands at the start of a round. He has a BAB of +8/+3 and has the Improved Trip feat. He makes a 5-foot step toward an enemy, and uses the trip combat maneuver with his flail using BAB of +8. He succeeds, then drops the flail. Now he takes hold of the sword in both hands and attacks.In this situation, does he need to apply the two weapon fighting rules or does he get a straight BAB +3 attack? Does he still use 1.5 STR? Is that the same with his extra attack if he gets one? Does he forfeit his +3 attack because he dropped the flail, and only gets to use his sword in the extra attack? Or is this not even possible?
He can't apply the two-weapon fighting rules even if he wanted to, because he made an attack without including the TWF penalty.
He has drawn his sword and has it ready in hand, so he can attack with it. He has an attack available at +3. He can grip the sword in both hands as a free action, giving him 1.5 times his STR bonus.
Situation 2 is identical. In situation 3, he only gets his flat STR bonus to the sword attack.
While related to another active thread, this is asking a different set of core questions.
Situation 1:
A fighter has a bastard sword and a flail in his hands at the start of a round. He has a BAB of +8/+3 and has the Improved Trip feat. He makes a 5-foot step toward an enemy, and uses the trip combat maneuver with his flail using BAB of +8. He succeeds, then drops the flail. Now he takes hold of the sword in both hands and attacks.In this situation, does he need to apply the two weapon fighting rules or does he get a straight BAB +3 attack? Does he still use 1.5 STR? Is that the same with his extra attack if he gets one? Does he forfeit his +3 attack because he dropped the flail, and only gets to use his sword in the extra attack? Or is this not even possible?
He can't apply the two-weapon fighting rules even if he wanted to, because he made an attack without including the TWF penalty.
He has drawn his sword and has it ready in hand, so he can attack with it. He has an attack available at +3. He can grip the sword in both hands as a free action, giving him 1.5 times his STR bonus.
Situation 2 is identical. In situation 3, he only gets his flat STR bonus to the sword attack.
I would completely agree with this on the basis of common sense, if you had quickdraw you could actually make an attack two-handed with the flail and quickdraw your sword to stab him dead. Since it works just fine with throwing weapons I do not see a reason to exclude this tactic, it is the little things you can do to add to the game that separate it from a PC game.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
at my table, if you don't declare you are using two weapon fighting before the first attack, and apply the penalty to that first attack, you can't user the weapon in the other hand.
Just curious, what about AoO's at your table?
For example, character is a pole arm wielder, and goes full attack with armor spikes at the goblin who got close. Can he still make AoO with the polearm? Or does he now take TWF penalties?
At my table, TWF is a full attack action that grants you the extra attack with the off weapon in exchange for everything taking penalties.
You don't need it unless you want that extra attack(s).
So let's take a 8th level bard who (for sake of example) is hasted and has nothing better to do but to use his rapier and whip.
As a full attack action he can...
All without penalties.
He can also, as a full attack action, engage in TWF allowing him...
3 attacks with the rapier and one attack with the whip, at penalties.
3 attacks with the whip and one attack with the rapier, at penalties.
Maybe my interpretation is too liberal and the melee characters will outshine full casters ;-)
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't posted in the other threads, so I guess I'm one of the people whose opinions you're looking for?
Well, let's see:
The TWF rules in the Combat chapter of the CRB say this:
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.
So the first sentence says that if you have a second weapon, you can get an extra attack.
Second sentence says you take penalties "when you fight this way". It's sad that I have to point this out, but the english language works such that "fight this way" can only refer to a previously-specified method of action. The only item that fits is the "you can get one extra attack per round" line.
Thus, the penalties in Sentence 2 are connected to the gaining of an extra attack as referenced in Sentence 1; said penalties are NOT connected to the "If you wield a second weapon" line, because that's just a condition under which you can gain the extra attack. It's not a method of fighting, it's a condition that enables a method of fighting. And since it's not a method of fighting, it can't be what's referenced by "when you fight this way".
So to sum up: You take penalties if you use an extra attack. You can only get that extra attack if you have a second weapon. Anything else is outside the scope of the TWF mechanic.
Regarding this:
If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first.
If you had to make all your iteratives with the same weapon, then the word "first" wouldn't make much sense, would it? Saying "you can choose either one first" implies (again, by basic english) that you very well might intend to alternate between your different options.
Did that answer all your questions?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Using two weapons isn't a way of fighting... What next? Walking isn't a way of movement?
Not what I said.
Having a second weapon available is not a way of fighting.
Getting an extra attack via that extra weapon is a way of fighting.
Please don't put words in my mouth. If you don't realize you did so because you can't tell the difference... well, have a nice day.
I haven't posted in the other threads, so I guess I'm one of the people whose opinions you're looking for?
Well, let's see:
The TWF rules in the Combat chapter of the CRB say this: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.So the first sentence says that if you have a second weapon, you can get an extra attack.
Second sentence says you take penalties "when you fight this way". It's sad that I have to point this out, but the english language works such that "fight this way" can only refer to a previously-specified method of action. The only item that fits is the "you can get one extra attack per round" line.
Thus, the penalties in Sentence 2 are connected to the gaining of an extra attack as referenced in Sentence 1; said penalties are NOT connected to the "If you wield a second weapon" line, because that's just a condition under which you can gain the extra attack. It's not a method of fighting, it's a condition that enables a method of fighting. And since it's not a method of fighting, it can't be what's referenced by "when you fight this way".
So to sum up: You take penalties if you use an extra attack. You can only get that extra attack if you have a second weapon. Anything else is outside the scope of the TWF mechanic.
Regarding this:
If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first.If you had to make all your iteratives with the same weapon, then the word "first" wouldn't make much sense, would it? Saying "you can choose either one first" implies...
I'd say that's a pretty accurate summary of things. It just sucks that PF doesn't have some sort of arbitrator presiding over gaming sessions to make rulings on less-than-transparent system mechanics... wait a minute!
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Alright, I'm going to make one last attempt to give you the benefit of the doubt and pretend you just misunderstood me.
What I pointed out in my longer post was that, per the first sentence of the TWF rules, "wielding a second weapon" is a state that can be true or untrue. If true, that state enables a method of fighting: gaining an extra attack.
One is a condition, the other is the fighting method. The first half of the sentence specifies the condition, and the second half specifies the fighting method enabled by said condition. The related-but-separate nature of these clauses is shown by the comma which divides the sentence.
Let me reiterate: the first clause (wielding a second weapon) is a condition, while the second clause (using said weapon to gain an extra attack) is the fighting method. The entire sentence is not a fighting method. Only the second clause is.
You then replied to me, claiming that I said using both weapons wasn't a method of fighting. But using both weapons implies gaining that extra attack, which is exactly what I specified IS a method of fighting. You seem to have failed to differentiate this from the separate concept of having the second weapon available, which is what I actually said isn't a method of fighting.
I described X with A and described Y with B, then you seemed to claim that I described Y with A, and then mocked me for it.
If you expect me to have any respect for your opinions, you're going to have to at least read a little more carefully.
wow - is this turning into another "wielding" vs. "using" thread?
Possibly. *sigh*
Well, seems we didn't have enough of these yet...
I removed a post and the replies to it. Just because someone disagrees with you does not make them a fool.
|
|
So far we have a nearly one-sided approach saying that two weapon fighting can't be applied to situation 1 but can be done, and subsequently situation 2 and 3 fall under the same results. Only Cpt_kirstov disagrees. If I'm not mistaken, you're saying that by using a second weapon, he should use two weapon fighting. Given that, how should situation 1 be handled?
ImperatorK, we're all quite aware of your ... contribution. Please stop contributing the same one lines now. Making more noise isn't going to help anyone.
nosig, the save for mania is DC 14.
Type insanity; Save Will DC 14
Onset 1 day
Effect target is sickened (if manic) or shaken (if phobic) as long as the source of the mania or phobia is obvious; chance of becoming fascinated or frightened (see below)
DESCRIPTION
A mania is an irrational obsession with a (usually inappropriate) particular object or situation, while a phobia is an irrational fear of a (usually commonplace) object or situation. Additionally, if a manic or phobic character is directly confronted by his obsession (requiring a standard action), he must make a Will save against the insanity or become fascinated (if manic) or frightened (if phobic) by the object for 1d6 rounds.
No need to argue the wielding thing. Just interpret how the situations should be handled in your own way :)
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
So far we have a nearly one-sided approach saying that two weapon fighting can't be applied to situation 1 but can be done, and subsequently situation 2 and 3 fall under the same results. Only Cpt_kirstov disagrees. If I'm not mistaken, you're saying that by using a second weapon, he should use two weapon fighting. Given that, how should situation 1 be handled?
ImperatorK, we're all quite aware of your ... contribution. Please stop contributing the same one lines now. Making more noise isn't going to help anyone.
nosig, the save for mania is DC 14. ** spoiler omitted **
No need to argue the wielding thing. Just interpret how the situations should be handled in your own way :)
I would note that switching hands around and going from one-handing to two-handing a weapon is something that (to my knowledge) has been debated a lot and not resolved, as far as what actions are involved and when those actions can be used. So keep that in mind in situation 1, unless you already know that your GM will allow the free-action hand-swapping. I personally have not looked into that particular item, so I have no direct input.
|
So far we have a nearly one-sided approach saying that two weapon fighting can't be applied to situation 1 but can be done, and subsequently situation 2 and 3 fall under the same results. Only Cpt_kirstov disagrees. If I'm not mistaken, you're saying that by using a second weapon, he should use two weapon fighting. Given that, how should situation 1 be handled?
ImperatorK, we're all quite aware of your ... contribution. Please stop contributing the same one lines now. Making more noise isn't going to help anyone.
nosig, the save for mania is DC 14. ** spoiler omitted **
No need to argue the wielding thing. Just interpret how the situations should be handled in your own way :)
if you had not declared you were useing two weapon fighting when using the flail for the first action then you can't use the weapon in the other hand. If you did, then the two weapon fighting penalty would apply to both the flail and the BS
I would note that switching hands around and going from one-handing to two-handing a weapon is something that (to my knowledge) has been debated a lot and not resolved, as far as what actions are involved and when those actions can be used. So keep that in mind in situation 1, unless you already know that your GM will allow the free-action hand-swapping. I personally have not looked into that particular item, so I have no direct input.
Not "Official" but:
Switching a held object from one hand to the other doesn't require an action, so the end result is the same whether or not you use the light shield hand to lay on hands or your weapon hand after switching your weapon to the off hand, and then back to your weapon hand.The fact that allowing you to use your light shield hand to do so without so many fiddly steps is why I'd say it's fine to let it work that way.
and
if you're wielding a 2H weapon, you can let go of the weapon with one of your hands (free action). You're now only carrying the 2H weapon, not wielding it, but your free hand is now free to attack or help cast spells or whatever. And at the end of your turn if your free hand remains free you'd be able to return it to grip your 2H weapon so you can still threaten foes and take attacks of opportunity if you want.
(No mention of TWF in that one, even though you're using two hands and two weapons in the same round...)
|
I haven't participated in the other thread, and haven't even read it past the first 60 posts or so. My opinion, going back to 3.5 SRD days, and supported by the final 3.5 FAQ, for those who use it and/or want continuity between the editions, is that you only suffer from two-handed penalties if you are gaining an additional attack. I recognize that the 3.5 FAQ is not meaningful for those who see PF as a completely different game. Jiggy has provided the grammatical analysis that supports this position, both in 3.5 SRD and PF, even for those who see the two editions as different game without reference to the history of the game since 2003 or earlier.
While related to another active thread, this is asking a different set of core questions.
Situation 1:
A fighter has a bastard sword and a flail in his hands at the start of a round. He has a BAB of +8/+3 and has the Improved Trip feat. He makes a 5-foot step toward an enemy, and uses the trip combat maneuver with his flail using BAB of +8. He succeeds, then drops the flail. Now he takes hold of the sword in both hands and attacks.In this situation, does he need to apply the two weapon fighting rules or does he get a straight BAB +3 attack? Does he still use 1.5 STR? Is that the same with his extra attack if he gets one? Does he forfeit his +3 attack because he dropped the flail, and only gets to use his sword in the extra attack? Or is this not even possible?
He can't make use of the two-weapon fighting rules. He didn't take the penalty on the first attack that would be necessary, so it isn't even an option. If OP's intent was that he had made use of the TWF penalty on the first attack, it applies to all attacks in the sequence, whether he uses the extra attack or not.
He has taken hold of the sword with both hands. Per the 3.5 FAQ, this is a move action. The PF rules are silent. James has provided the input, which many use, that in PF this is a free action. Most will allow it as a free action in PF. Many don't like the 3.5 FAQ reply and would call it a free action anyway. So, let's assume it is a free action and move on.
He is making the second attack, allowed with BAB, and not making use of TWF. He is attacking with the weapon using two hands, and gets 1.5 STR bonus to damage. TWF does not apply.
Situation 2:
As situation 1, except the fighter also has Quick Draw and has the sword sheathed at the start of the round. When he drops the flail, he gets to draw and attack with the sword using +3 BAB and no penalties, right?
He draws as a free action. Same as above. For those who care for the 3.5 FAQ, this is explicitly covered there.
Situation 3:
As situation 1, but swaps weapons instead of dropping the flail, and uses the sword 1-handed with Exotic Weapon Proficiency. How would this work?
He isn't gaining an additional attack. He gets the second attack at +3 BAB without penalty for TWF. He gets 1x Str bonus to the attack. If OP's intent is that he took a TWF penalty on the first attack, it applies here as well and is at the +8 BAB additional attack; he would have the +3 attack remaining.
-Where is it saying we have to use the same weapon for all the iterative attacks?
It doesn't say this explicitly anywhere. The grammar analysis (which has been around since at least 2005, IIRC), and the 3.5 FAQ say you don't have to use the same analysis. It isn't overpowered. It provides tactical options.
**************************************
This all said, the question about using multiple weapons as part of iterative attacks will remain until it is FAQ'd in PF. And, until it is, the question will have multiple camps because people split on the basic idea in an irreconcilable manner.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's only two-weapon fighting if you are trying to get the extra attack from it.
It's only two-weapon fighting if you are trying to get the extra attack from it.
Thank you. For all that is good and beautiful, THANK YOU!
It's only two-weapon fighting if you are trying to get the extra attack from it.
Hooray for finality! You're the best, SKR!
Now about that "off-hand damage" thing...
Noooo!!!! Don't do it!!!!
Noooo!!!! Don't do it!!!!
Now about that "off-hand damage" thing...
*mumbles something about a multi-armed creature with Multi-weapon fighting, Flurry of blows and a couple of natural attacks*
*runs for cover*
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
It's only two-weapon fighting if you are trying to get the extra attack from it.
Hooray for finality! You're the best, SKR!
Now about that "off-hand damage" thing...
My two C-bills? 'off hand damage' is specifically for TWF (like 1.5 str is for THF) so if your +11/+6/+1 fighter goes Mace/sword/mace they're doing full strength damage since none of the attacks are off hand.
It's only two-weapon fighting if you are trying to get the extra attack from it.
Thank you. You have successfully rescued Pathfinder players from ourselves. You get a CR 25 XP reward!
|
|
The clouded sky splits open. Beams of light swathe over the lands, burning the eyes of those who gaze to the heavens. Tears stream down the faces of guilty and innocent alike. A clear, powerful voice booms in their minds. "It's only two-weapon fighting if you are trying to get the extra attack from it."
And the world returns to normal. Thanks Sean!
And the world returns to normal. Thanks Sean!
Did you ever get your original question answered?
|
|
And the world returns to normal. Thanks Sean!Did you ever get your original question answered?
Yes. It answers everything. (Well, not by itself, but now its much more definitive.)
Situation 1. This can't be done. One cannot use a two handed weapon in a full attack after using a one handed or light weapon, even after dropping it. 3.5 rules carry over, nothing in Pathfinder disagrees and is even supported by James, as stated by Grick.
Situation 2. Like situation 1. I'd like to see that rule regarding quick draw, though...
Situation 3. This CAN be done, using either two weapon fighting or not. The character doesn't have to swap weapons.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
And the world returns to normal. Thanks Sean!Did you ever get your original question answered?Yes. It answers everything.
Situation 1. This can't be done. One cannot use a two handed weapon in a full attack after using a one handed or light weapon, even after dropping it. 3.5 rules carry over, nothing in Pathfinder disagrees and is even supported by James, as stated by Grick.
Situation 2. Like situation 1. I'd like to see that rule regarding quick draw, though...
Situation 3. This CAN be done, using either two weapon fighting or not. The character doesn't have to swap weapons.
If you have Quick Draw, you could even start the round wielding only one weapon, make your main attack with it, draw the second weapon as a free action after your first attack, and use that second weapon to make your iterative attack. As long as you're properly using the BAB values for your iterative attacks, and as long as you're not exceeding the number of attacks per round granted by your BAB, you are not considered to be using two-weapon fighting, and therefore do not take any of the penalties for two-weapon fighting.
Either you misunderstood the FAQ, or I misunderstood you...?
|
|
Two-handed weapon. Needs a move action to grab with both hands. In other words, a character can't attack with both a two-handed weapon and a light, ranged, or one-handed weapon in the same full attack iteration. Which explicitly excludes using a two handed weapon as an off hand attack using two weapon fighting, and that makes perfect sense, even with Quick Draw (according to Howie23, though still looking for that 3.5 FAQ).
It's only two-weapon fighting if you are trying to get the extra attack from it.
Thanks Sean! I humbly accept defeat! I shall stand at the side of the road and cheer for the winners as the go by.
Since we got a FAQ ruling, isn't everyone a winner? :)