But if you use two weapons, you choose one as primary (the one you attack with first) and the rest are off-hand, so you take TWF penalties.
No, if you choose to use Two Weapon Fighting. Big difference in mechanics, little diffrence in names.
|
In other words: If you use just one weapon, that weapon is primary. There's no off-hand weapons in use you don't use, so there's no penalties. But if you use two weapons, you choose one as primary (the one you attack with first) and the rest are off-hand, so you take TWF penalties.
Your "other words" are not what I wrote.
There is no off-hand and no TWF penalties apply unless the player declares use of the two-weapon fighting rules option to allow her an extra attack.
|
There's no difference. It's the same thing.But if you use two weapons, you choose one as primary (the one you attack with first) and the rest are off-hand, so you take TWF penalties.No, if you choose to use Two Weapon Fighting. Big difference in mechanics, little diffrence in names.
No, it is different.
Longsword in the right, mace in the left, iterative attack +6/+1.
Hit skeleton with the first attack with the longsword. Notice damage reduction.
Make your second iterative attack with the left at +1. You don't get a modifier for 2 weapon fighting.
If instead you use your first iterative attack to make one attack with the right and one with the left you get the modifiers for TWF.
By using two weapons, you ARE using Two Weapon Fighting, whether you take the extra attack or not, the modifiers apply. -6 to the primary, -10 to the secondary modfied by feats and weapon choice. Your primary hand is whatever you designate for your character as dominant. In other words unless you're going to try to munchkin because RAW doesn't require it, it's not something you can change each round.
No LazarX, it don't wok that way in Pathfinder I am almost sure it didn't worked that way in 3.5.
You are thinking of the 3.0 rules, but they have been changed.|
|
That's an incorrect use of the rules. you didn't add the TWF penalties, therefore you can't use your other weapon.Longsword in the right, mace in the left, iterative attack +6/+1.
Hit skeleton with the first attack with the longsword. Notice damage reduction.
Make your second iterative attack with the left at +1. You don't get a modifier for 2 weapon fighting.
You didn't use two-weapon fighting, therefore you don't take TWF penalties.
You did use two weapons, therefore you should take TWF penalties. If you didn't, you aren't using RAW.
You know what I don't understand about you. I gave you evidence and you aren't even using it.
According to the evidence that I gave you you can't use your off hand attacks for the additional attacks due to high BAB.
Meaning you still don't get TWF penalties unless you get your extra attacks.
The evidence I gave you prove that statement true... that is if you except it as evidence.
Here is a case where you use two weapons during a full attack without Two-Weapon Fighting.
I have a Longsword in one hand and Mace in the other.
My BAB is +6/+1.
I declare a Full Attack (but no a TWF, so no extra attack).
My first Attack is made with the Longsword but I notice the creature is resistant to the Slashing damage.
My second Attack is then made with the Mace.
No TWF penalty is accrued. I used two weapons in the fight.
Should the Mace receive the off-hand penalty? By current conventional understanding it does not. Off-Hand penalties are applied to the extra attacks granted by TWF.
=====
If you read the rules carefully you are not actually obligated to commit to a Full Attack. You can take a single Attack, see how it goes, and then follow up. If you think it doesn't go well you can still take your Move Action. A good example would be if you're first hit drops the foe and leaves nothing within reach.
This gets tricky when you have multiple extra attacks from Flurry of Blows or TWF (etc.). These require that you declare their use and suffer their penalties, making them quasie-exceptions to the rule allowing you take each attack in its own sequence.
=====
I would point out that off-hand is left over cruff from 3.0 D&D where there was indeed a dedicated off-hand. 3.5 and Pathfinder junked that made an unrepentant mess of confused rulings. The fact the PF devs back the use of Shield-Bash as a non-off-hand attack if used on it's own makes the point.
Frankly this is a area that should be closely looked at and the bolts tightened in a future revision.
According to the evidence that I gave you you can't use your off hand attacks for the additional attacks due to high BAB.Yes, you can't. Not without penalties. If you do, you take the penalties.
OMG!!! you've learned NOTHING!!!
I swear.
If Shield fighter (EX) allows you to use your shield on alternate iterative attacks the that is evidence that you can't normally get Off hand attacks during a full attack action unless you use the extra attack provided by the TWF special attack.
Do you understand this. I'm trying to help you argue your side.
It's not "you have to take the penalties."
It's "you can't attack with your off hand without TWF"
That is an invalid use of the rules. If you don't declare that you want to use your second weapon, you can't use it. If you declare , you incur TWF penalties.My first Attack is made with the Longsword but I notice the creature is resistant to the Slashing damage.
My second Attack is then made with the Mace.
No TWF penalty is accrued. I used two weapons in the fight.
Should the Mace receive the off-hand penalty? By current conventional understanding it does not. Off-Hand penalties are applied to the extra attacks granted by TWF.
I am a high level Rogue, BAB +11/+6/+1
I stab the guy standing next to me with my dagger. He dies
I then throw it at another guy 10 ft. away.
I quick draw second dagger into my other hand (for s%&&s and giggles, and because it looks cool) and also throw it at him.
Do I suffer TWF?
Change it, I draw it into the hand I used to the throw the first one. As a second (different) weapon, am I allowed to throw it at all?
This thread is redundant with an existing thread.
This thread is redundant with an existing thread.Why?
Because you're arguing the exact same things you are here in another, larger thread.
ImperatorK you're not going to like the gaps in the rules logic.
By your contention, if you take a swing with a weapon in your "other hand" then you suffer the TWF penalties because it is now the off-hand.
This creates a conflict because you did not suffer TWF penalties on your first attack, thus you can't be using TWF.
Karlgamer expands that by saying because you aren't using TWF you can't even attack with at weapon. You can only attack with a Weapon in the hand you started swinging.
Personally I don't agree with that rather round-about interoperation given that the rule we are discussing is cruff from 3rd Edition D&D and has not been significantly reworded despite the fact that off-hand has been completely removed from the glossary in Pathfinder.
If a normal character (i.e. a character without the multiattack and/or multidexterity feats) wields a second weapon (fights two handed), that character can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. Fighting in this way is very hard, however, and the character suffers a -6 penalty for regular attacks with the first hand and a -10 penalty to the attack with a other hand. A character can reduce these stiff penalties in three ways:
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:
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.
Between 3.0 and 3.5 Ambidexterity (feat) was merged with Two-Weapon Fighting. Off-Hand remained in the printed 3.5 PHB glossary (my books are all packed up in boxes at the moment, I will double confirm this afternoon when I get off work) but not in the SRD. As an aside this was often confused in 3.5 and people didn't notice it was still there.
Between 3.5 and Pathfinder Paizo lost access to off-hand as a Glossary term under the OGL and has apparently decided it no longer exists save in direct reference the penalites associated with getting the extra attack out of TWF. See modification and ruling on Shield Bash.
You're arguing legacy cruff that hasn't been appropriately reworded, given that the underlying rule for it's wording doesn't even exist anymore.
Yes, I agree with KrispyXIV, this thread is redundant and you are trying to discuss the same thing from a different angle.
When is a hand (or weapon in the hand) considered primary and when secondary (off-hand)?
Why ask a question if you're going to adamantly refuse to accept anything but what you have already determined for yourself? I've seen and understand your side of the argument on this subject. If that's how you want to interpret it, that's cool. If that's not how you want to interpret it, that's cool too. Starting a thread just so you can repeatedly tell people they're wrong is pointless, though.
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, basically you are discussing what the clause 'when you fight this way' refers to.
Does it refer to wielding a weapon in the off hand?
Does it refer to making use of the option (note the words 'you can') of getting one extra attack?
ImpK is adamant in his belief the former interpretation is true.
Several others stick with the second interpretation.
Now, what are you getting all upset about?
ImpK is adamant in his belief the former interpretation is true.Because it is.
Stating something is so does not make it so.
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, basically you are discussing what the clause 'when you fight this way' refers to.
Does it refer to wielding a weapon in the off hand?
Does it refer to making use of the option (note the words 'you can') of getting one extra attack?ImpK is adamant in his belief the former interpretation is true.
Several others stick with the second interpretation.Now, what are you getting all upset about?
I'm not upset, just confused. It's akin to a situation where you ask someone where they'd like to eat, and they say "I don't care, you decide." After explaining where you'd like to eat, they immediately overrule you with a "No, I don't want to eat there, let's go here instead."
Why beat around the bush? If you know where you stand, by all means, proudly stand by it. There's no need to lure people into a dead end, though.
Because it is.
Apparently you don't know that.
*shrugs*
Trying to offend people by one-sentence posts (sometimes even less than that) is the sign of a troll.
Do whatever you wish, I'm out of here.
*PLONK*
|
|
ImpK is adamant in his belief the former interpretation is true.Because it is.
Yes, that interpretation is a true interpretation. However, the other interpretation is also perfectly true and a valid way to read the sentence. Both positions could be correct. Which one you chose depends on which one you think is rigt. Now can we please knock of spamming the bloody messageboards with this pointlessness as I can see at least three thread with the same argument. Right now, neither side is listening. We've heard the arguments. We can agree or not. You're not saying anything new and this is becoming unproductive.
Both sides KNOCK IT OFF!
|
|
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, basically you are discussing what the clause 'when you fight this way' refers to.
Does it refer to wielding a weapon in the off hand?
Does it refer to making use of the option (note the words 'you can') of getting one extra attack?
I think this is the key to the disagreement.
I personally would read "when you fight this way" to mean when you fight and get an extra attack with the off hand weapon. The reason is that it says "and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand" - i.e. singular attack.
Therefore it cannot refer to using your off hand in iterative attacks as theoretically if you could do that you could get multiple attacks with the off hand weapon (e.g. BAB of 11/6/1, primary attacks with +11, and off hand with +6 and +1).
So I would argue that...
a) Unless you are using TWF (or some special feat or special ability like the aforementioned Shield fighter) all iterative attacks must be made with the same weapon (and thus that would be the primary weapon).
b) TWF penalties only apply when using two weapon to gain an extra attack.
EDIT: Actually reading my own post back I wouldn't even strongly argue a), just b).
|
|
b) TWF penalties only apply when using two weapon to gain an extra attack.TWF penalties apply when using two weapons. That is true.
That is not what I wrote though.
Forgetting the iterative attacks issue, if a character has a longsword in their right hand and a magic dagger in their left, they could make an attack with the Longsword as a standard action at no penalty for simply wielding a dagger in their left hand) and then move.
Should a foe then provoke an AoO the character could, if desired, use the dagger (again without penalty) to make that AoO.
So in this case a character is "using" two weapns but wouldn't suffer the TWF penalties.
b) TWF penalties only apply when using two weapon to gain an extra attack.TWF penalties apply when using two weapons. That is true.That is not what I wrote though.
Forgetting the iterative attacks issue, if a character has a longsword in their right hand and a magic dagger in their left, they could make an attack with the Longsword as a standard action at no penalty for simply wielding a dagger in their left hand) and then move.
Should a foe then provoke an AoO the character could, if desired, use the dagger (again without penalty) to make that AoO.
So in this case a character is "using" two weapns but wouldn't suffer the TWF penalties.
The man has a point.
Edit: I can see, however, where one will argue that AoOs resolve separate from a Full Attack action, and wouldn't be subject to penalties incurred during said action.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We know, without argument, that a character can fight with a longsword and large shield, using only the longsword, and not take TWF penalties. A large shield is a bashing weapon.
I don't see any rule that calls out shields as special in this case. So, at my table, you'd certainly, without any argument, be able to hold a longsword in one hand, a mace in the other, and make a full attack with either weapon, without incurring TWF penalties.
The question comes up, can you split iterative attacks between weapons?
By my reading, the rules are vague. It makes sense to me in the following scene:
A 12th-level fighter with a longsword in one hand and a mace in the other attacks Orc #1 with the longsword and kills it. She takes a 5-foot step (allowable between iterative attacks) to stand next to Orcs #2 and #3. But Orc #2 had a readied action (trigger: "When someone steps up to me") and successfully disarms the fighter. The fighter has two iterative attacks left, and a weapon in hand.
If I'd allow it under those circumstances, I would allow it without the disarm attempt, and without the 5-foot step.
So, sorry, ImperatorK, but I don't think the rulebok is at all clear in this matter, and I would favor the interpretation that allows the fighter to complete his suite of attacks (no extra attack) with any available weapon, without suffering TWF penalties.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does this discussion need to be in three different threads??
Does this discussion need to be in three different threads??
+1. People can't argue by themselves. I have decided to not try to refute anything else. It is rather pointless.
We know, without argument, that a character can fight with a longsword and large shield, using only the longsword, and not take TWF penalties. A large shield is a bashing weapon.
I don't see any rule that calls out shields as special in this case. So, at my table, you'd certainly, without any argument, be able to hold a longsword in one hand, a mace in the other, and make a full attack with either weapon, without incurring TWF penalties.
The question comes up, can you split iterative attacks between weapons?
By my reading, the rules are vague. It makes sense to me in the following scene:A 12th-level fighter with a longsword in one hand and a mace in the other attacks Orc #1 with the longsword and kills it. She takes a 5-foot step (allowable between iterative attacks) to stand next to Orcs #2 and #3. But Orc #2 had a readied action (trigger: "When someone steps up to me") and successfully disarms the fighter. The fighter has two iterative attacks left, and a weapon in hand.
If I'd allow it under those circumstances, I would allow it without the disarm attempt, and without the 5-foot step.
So, sorry, ImperatorK, but I don't think the rulebok is at all clear in this matter, and I would favor the interpretation that allows the fighter to complete his suite of attacks (no extra attack) with any available weapon, without suffering TWF penalties.
That's pretty much my take on it, without regard to whatever ruling is hidden deep in the recesses of the book, so deep that an armada of forum threads need be made to pick it apart.
Of more importance to me is the following: should a character attacking with weapons in both hands without making the additional TWF attack be subject to the 1/2 Str Bonus to off-hand ruling? I'm leaning more towards enforcing the penalty, personally, as having two weapons ready seems like a method of skirting a lack of Quickdraw to utilize multiple weapon benefits. I welcome other takes on it, however.
When is a hand (or weapon in the hand) considered primary and when secondary (off-hand)?
I just noticed these threads (I guess you can call this Part 2 of the thread that was locked).
I did scan through Part 1 and I did not see any comment by Paizo staff on this.
Firstly, I am a little disappointed that given that Part 1 accumulated in about 1000 posts in 4 days and about 50 FAQ tags, that no one from Paizo commented. (If they did, then I must have missed it).
Secondly, many contentious issues such as this were often addressed in 3.5. (This is striaght from the Glossary section of the Player's Handbook). Off-hand was defined in 3.5:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_off hand&alpha=
Therefore, if you are using a weapon in your off-hand, the appropriate penalties apply. (This glossary was most likely not included in the Core Rulebook due to space limitations.)
We know, without argument, that a character can fight with a longsword and large shield, using only the longsword, and not take TWF penalties. A large shield is a bashing weapon.
I don't see any rule that calls out shields as special in this case. So, at my table, you'd certainly, without any argument, be able to hold a longsword in one hand, a mace in the other, and make a full attack with either weapon, without incurring TWF penalties.
The question comes up, can you split iterative attacks between weapons?
By my reading, the rules are vague. It makes sense to me in the following scene:A 12th-level fighter with a longsword in one hand and a mace in the other attacks Orc #1 with the longsword and kills it. She takes a 5-foot step (allowable between iterative attacks) to stand next to Orcs #2 and #3. But Orc #2 had a readied action (trigger: "When someone steps up to me") and successfully disarms the fighter. The fighter has two iterative attacks left, and a weapon in hand.
If I'd allow it under those circumstances, I would allow it without the disarm attempt, and without the 5-foot step.
So, sorry, ImperatorK, but I don't think the rulebok is at all clear in this matter, and I would favor the interpretation that allows the fighter to complete his suite of attacks (no extra attack) with any available weapon, without suffering TWF penalties.
That's pretty much my take on it, without regard to whatever ruling is hidden deep in the recesses of the book, so deep that an armada of forum threads need be made to pick it apart.
Of more importance to me is the following: should a character attacking with weapons in both hands without making the additional TWF attack be subject to the 1/2 Str Bonus to off-hand ruling? I'm leaning more towards enforcing the penalty, personally, as having two weapons ready seems like a method of skirting a lack of Quickdraw to utilize multiple weapon benefits. I welcome other takes on it, however.
That second weapon in your hand being useful is corner case, and really inefficient.
1. You are most likely improving the 2nd weapon as if TWF'ing is your main fighting style, but it is not so you are paying the price(gold wise) without getting the benefits of it. It is much more efficient, gold and damage wise, to concentrate on one weapon and use the two-handed fighting method with power attack. In short you would be gimping yourself for flavor. You might get disarmed 3 times during an entire campaign by most GM's if at all, but every round you are holding those 2 weapons, but only using one you are doing substantially less damage than you could be doing.PS:To those who saw my last post I am not arguing the rules. I am explaining efficiency and DPR(damage per round).
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Of more importance to me is the following: should a character attacking with weapons in both hands without making the additional TWF attack be subject to the 1/2 Str Bonus to off-hand ruling? I'm leaning more towards enforcing the penalty, personally, as having two weapons ready seems like a method of skirting a lack of Quickdraw to utilize multiple weapon benefits. I welcome other takes on it, however.
Are you meaning a situation where I have BAB +6/+1, attack with a different weapon for each of those two attacks, and asking if one of those attacks deals less damage?
I'd lean toward regular damage. The reason is this: you only deal 50% STR damage on off-hand attacks, and the only place in the entirety of the Pathfinder rules that an attack is ever designated as off-hand is when you're employing the TWF mechanic.
If you can't find something to designate a non-TWF attack as off-hand, then you don't reduce the damage. (If you CAN find a non-TWF mechanic that designates an attack as being off-hand, then please show me. Just be thorough in your research.)
As for "skirting a lack of Quickdraw", you're also losing out on having a shield for no extra attacks in exchange. Also, you're shorting yourself a lot of damage by making each of your attacks one-handed instead of making all of them two-handed. Versatility at the expense of power.
In case you were wondering how long the TWF penalties last and if they influence AOO.
Please read this
I've encouraged people in the past to read all of this but apparently most haven't.
Here is the revelent portion:
Attack Penalties: When you use the full attack action to attack with two weapons, you can make your primary and off-hand attacks in any order -- though most people attack with the primary hand first.
You do not have to choose between the attack and full attack actions until after you have made your first attack on your turn (see page 143 in the Player's Handbook). However, if you intend to attack with two weapons during your action, you must take the correct penalty for each attack or give up your opportunity to use your second weapon (because the rules require you to take a penalty on attacks you make with both your primary and off hands). For example, suppose you hold a longsword in your primary hand and carry a lit torch in your off hand. It's reasonable to assume the torch is a light weapon, albeit an improvised weapon. You don't have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, but being able to see in the torchlight is more important to you than a shield right now.
If something leaps out at you and you decide to hack at it with your sword, you could also try to whack it with your torch (perhaps the foe seems slightly flammable, or perhaps you suspect you're facing a regenerating monster). You can make your attack roll with your longsword and observe the result before deciding between an attack or a full attack, but you must take a -4 attack penalty on that primary hand attack to preserve your option to attack with the torch. In this situation it would be entirely reasonable for the DM to make you take the -4 attack penalty before you see your first attack's result (because it speeds play); however that's not strictly necessary. The DM might allow you to see the result before deciding to attack with the torch. If that is so and you decide to try an attack with the torch, your DM must recalculate the result of your sword attack, taking the primary weapon penalty into account. (I don't recommend this option, but it fits the letter of the rules.)
Even if you decide to take the penalty, you don't have to attack with the torch, or even use the full attack action. If you decide to attack with the torch, you make a single attack with the torch and you'll take a -8 penalty for the off-hand attack and an additional -4 penalty for the improvised weapon (see page 113 in the Player's Handbook), for a total penalty of -12.
Once you take a two-weapon fighting penalty, the penalty applies to all the attacks you make with that hand during your current action. It does not apply to attacks you make during some other character's turn. For example, say your torch-wielding swordfighter from the previous example has a base attack bonus of +10. With the full attack action, the character could make two attacks with the sword: one at +10 and the other at +5.
If you opt to throw in an off-hand attack with the torch, the -4 penalty for your primary hand applies to both attacks, dropping your attack bonus to +6 (10-4 = 6) and +1 (5-4 = 1). When you attack with the torch, you make only a single attack (because the two-weapon fighting option allows you only one extra attack) at -2 (you use your full attack bonus for the single attack, so that's 10 -8 for an off-hand attack with a light weapon and an additional -4 for the improvised weapon).
Some attack penalties you voluntarily assume, such as the penalty for defensive fighting (see pages 140 and 143 in the Player's Handbook), apply until your next turn, but two weapon penalties are not one of them.
If, after you made two-weapon attacks with your sword and torch, a foe later provokes an attack of opportunity from you that same round, you can strike that foe with your longsword with no two-weapon penalty at all. (You also can use just the torch, also with no two-weapon penalty, though you still take the -4 penalty for an off-hand attack; you also still take the -4 penalty for an improvised weapon for a total penalty of -8.)
Note that in 3.5 off hand attacks came with a -4 penalty(see page 311 in the Player's Handbook.) In pathfinder this was removed.
Notice that the torch can be used for an attack of opportunity without receiving a TWF penalty.
PF changed the rules so this is irrelevant.
My stance:
You state which hand/weapon is primary just before the action that needs that information, most often (or probably only) the attack action (note that you can change your primary hand/weapon before each attack action). All other hands/weapons are then off-hand, because you can't have two primary hands/weapons. There's no official rules for that, because IT'S COMMON SENSE. Do you seriously need to have common sense specifically stated in the rulebooks?
..but wouldn't that make it relevant since the old rules support your claim, just asking.
In Pathfinder the -4 penalty was removed.
PF changed the rules so this is irrelevant.
What rules exactly did Pathfinder change?
Why do those changes make this irrelevant?
This isn't something you can talk your way out of tell me why exactly this is irrelevant...
You didn't read it so how would you know?
Note that in 3.5 off hand attacks came with a -4 penalty(see page 311 in the Player's Handbook.) In pathfinder this was removed.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_off hand&alpha=
This is from the Glossary in the Player's Handbook (on the aforementioned page 311). Paizo did not include the glossary (likely due to space concerns), but I don't believe that by not including the glossary, that it "removes" this rule from the game -- going by that logic everything mentioned in the glossary has been "removed" from the game.