Karl, thanks for showing your work, but you're coming at this from a fundamentally flawed perspective.
1. Pathfinder is an offshoot of 3.5/3.0/whatever this article is referring to. There is no, I repeat, no, automatic penalties to holding a weapon in your "off-hand". You are equally capable with either hand. In fact characters are not required to give an indication of which hand is their their "primary" hand and which is their "off-hand" at any time other than when enacting TWF.
As I showed you in my earlier post about Shield Bash, this train of thought did not carry over to Pathfinder. Shield Bash can be a primary attack. Just as an Improvised Weapon (Torch) could be considered primary in an AoO (in pathfinder that is).
2. Magus Archetype: There have been many flaws found with the archetypes and I'm quite positive that if Sean saw this reference to off-hand he'd agree that the dagger could be used as a primary attack dealing full STR just like he stated about the shield in the shield bash FAQ. I'm interpreting this as, *the dagger goes in the hand without your weapon*
Look at the combat chapter:
Off-hand is only listed in a few places... the first is in the Damage Section, the second is the TWF section, the third is the TWF table. Nothing about specifying off-hands, nothing like that.
It needs to be known if my second attacks with other hands have less str and therefore less power attack. Gonna bring up a corner case here so bear with me. I am using a Small (and there fore onehanded) reach weapon in my off hand and a long sword in my main wwith a locking guantlet.(think Hilde from soulcaliber 4)I am also unable to move from my square for some reason I attack a goblin who is adjacent and kill him another is 10ft away if i attack with my lance do i get full or 1/2 str.
It needs to be known if my second attacks with other hands have less str and therefore less power attack. Gonna bring up a corner case here so bear with me. I am using a Small (and there fore onehanded) reach weapon in my off hand and a long sword in my main wwith a locking guantlet.(think Hilde from soulcaliber 4)I am also unable to move from my square for some reason I attack a goblin who is adjacent and kill him another is 10ft away if i attack with my lance do i get full or 1/2 str.
Let's simplify this for a second...
Example #1: Talon has 1 attack.
Round 1: He uses the left hand to attack with his spear, that deals damage plus full str. it is a primary attack.
Round 2: In the next round he deals damage with the longsword in his right hand, he deals damage plus full STR. It is a primary attack.
Agree?
Example #2:
Talon's character has 2 attacks (from iteratives, ie BAB). They are both considered *primary attacks*.
Per SKR's example he uses his +6 attack on the spear and the +1 attack on the sword.
Full str all around.
1. Pathfinder is an offshoot of 3.5/3.0/whatever this article is referring to. There is no, I repeat, no, automatic penalties to holding a weapon in your "off-hand". You are equally capable with either hand. In fact characters are not required to give an indication of which hand is their their "primary" hand and which is their "off-hand" at any time other than when enacting TWF.
The article is for 3.5 and the only difference between the rules presented there and the rules for pathfinder is that pathfinder doesn't have the -4 to off hand attacks.
As I showed you in my earlier post about Shield Bash, this train of thought did not carry over to Pathfinder. Shield Bash can be a primary attack. Just as a Torch could be in an AoO (in pathfinder that is).
The train of thought that you are perceiving is imaginary. If you read had actually read the article you would have noticed that in 3.5 just like as in pathfinder you can choose either hand as primary at the start of your turn.
The only difference between the rules presented in the article and pathfinder rules is the -4 off hand penalty.
In 3.5 you can bash with your shield as a primary hand too.
Just a thought though do you think you have too primary attacks? Primary hand happens to only be mentioned in one section of the Combat chapter.
2. Magus Archetype: There have been many flaws found with the archetypes and I'm quite positive that if Sean saw this he'd agree that the dagger could be used as a primary attack dealing full STR just like he stated about the shield in the shield bash FAQ. I'm interpreting this as, *the dagger goes in the hand without your weapon*
I sure you can deal full strength with the dagger but not on the same turn you already applied full damage to another weapon in a different hand.
Off-hand is only listed in a few places... the first is in the Damage Section, the second is the TWF section, the third is the TWF table. Nothing about specifying off-hands, nothing like that.
Off hand when referring to the amount of strength damage(the only thing important to Non-TWF use of off hand) is all throughout the book.
Off hand when referring to TWF penalties only appears in the TWF section or related feats.
I don't think that each section of rules is in its own little bubble but It is structured in such a way to be the most intuitive for the most common usage of the rules.
Many things that are not likely to come up don't have examples in the book but the placement of the rules does indicate there importance.
The train of thought that you are perceiving is imaginary. If you read had actually read the article you would have noticed that in 3.5 just like as in pathfinder you can choose either hand as primary at the start of your turn.The only difference between the rules presented in the article and pathfinder rules is the -4 off hand penalty.
You seem to be having trouble with what i am saying. Here again: you don't have to "choose either hand as primary at the start of your turn" that is simply false. The only context you'd do this is if you were TWF as a full round action.
You don't have to designate an off-hand *ever* if you don't TWF. If you are simply wielding two weapons, I repeat, you don't have to designate a primary or off-hand.
You seem to be having trouble with what i am saying. Here again: you don't have to "choose either hand as primary at the start of your turn" that is simply false. The only context you'd do this is if you were TWF as a full round action.
You don't have to designate an off-hand *ever* if you don't TWF. If you are simply wielding two weapons, I repeat, you don't have to designate a primary or off-hand.
You can always say the first weapon I attack with is my primary hand.
I think that's assumed most of the time anyway.
but if you attack with two weapons(from different hands) in a turn one of those weapons is Off hand.
and it isn't going to be the one you applied 1 X strength to.
There is a reason that there was an argument regarding fighting with two weapons using iterative attacks. It had a lot to do with the fact that most of what we are talking about is irrelevant because most of the time the only you only attack with one weapon throughout the course of a single turn. (Or several weapons with one hand.)
I'm sorry that neither of us have an example of the rules as they are meant to be. It could end up the way you see it. I believe the rules favor off handed during iterative attacks.
Yes I see it from that perspective because I feel that the examples that I have shown show that.
Especially the article and the quote form Jacob. They seem pretty clear.
Yes I see it from that perspective because I feel that the examples that I have shown show that.Especially the article and the quote form Jacob. They seem pretty clear.
I feel equally strong about my position from what I read in Sean's FAQ. For our discussion, it happens to be the most relevant piece of information.
There is no offhand unless you are TWF'ing, as I said in the debate that SKR had to clarify. You should also note that SKR did not mention an off-hand in his clarification which is the only way to get a str mod of .5.
The full round attack section in the combat section does not associate using two weapons with an off-hand either so in order for an offhand to exist outside of TWF it must be referenced outside of TWF.
@Karlgamer:Mr.Jacobs was quoted as also saying you would take TWF penalties even without using TWF by a poster in the other thread so that is not really proof. The poster, and I don't remember who it was, may have misrepresented him, but from what I saw he was not using the rule correctly.
** spoiler omitted **
Reading this is clear to me that Off Hand STR malus is always active. You could have TWF or not, but if you strike an opponent with a second weapon in the same round you make an attack with a first weapon the second one is always off handBy the way james' quote would also mean that if i throw two weapons using quick draw and the same hand the second one is 1/2 str.
Thats where it gets weird if i attack with the same hand with 4 different weapons in a round its full str if i use two different hands then one of those attacks loses some str.
Which is why you can't take a forum post from a dev as rules text. It often doesn't work outside the context the dev was referring. If you read the rest of that thread, James' meaning is quite clear.
That said, there's already an entry in the "Official FAQ." FAQ entries often contradict past opinions and rulings from threads, but the FAQ is official.
I really don't see how the FAQ could be more clear. And that is what you should go by.
Of course, anything that doesn't work at your table you should houserule. "Houserule" isn't a dirty word, it's the best way to make the game work for you. Everybody's doing it!
It needs to be known if my second attacks with other hands have less str and therefore less power attack. Gonna bring up a corner case here so bear with me. I am using a Small (and there fore onehanded) reach weapon in my off hand and a long sword in my main wwith a locking guantlet.(think Hilde from soulcaliber 4)I am also unable to move from my square for some reason I attack a goblin who is adjacent and kill him another is 10ft away if i attack with my lance do i get full or 1/2 str.
I don't think you can get reach with a weapon too small for you.
@Karlgamer:Mr.Jacobs was quoted as also saying you would take TWF penalties even without using TWF by a poster in the other thread so that is not really proof. The poster, and I don't remember who it was, may have misrepresented him, but from what I saw he was not using the rule correctly.
Mr. Jacobs did say you would take TWF penalties even without using TWF. It's in the thread associated with the post linked further up this very thread.
Which is why you can't take a forum post from a dev as rules text.
Speaking of which...
I don't think you can get reach with a weapon too small for you.
Reach weapons and weapon size interacts really weirdly. As written, a Small longspear provides reach, but a Large spear does not. This is probably a good area for GMs to step in and apply some common sense to the situation as necessary, I guess.
Which is why you can't take a forum post from a dev as rules text.Speaking of which...
I don't think you can get reach with a weapon too small for you.Reach weapons and weapon size interacts really weirdly. As written, a Small longspear provides reach, but a Large spear does not. This is probably a good area for GMs to step in and apply some common sense to the situation as necessary, I guess.
So not exactly RAW, but common sense rules the day.
Forgot about that post, too. Thanks.
So not exactly RAW, but common sense rules the day.
Actually, it is RAW, as James says. Small longspear has reach, and you can use a small weapon at penalties.
If a Halfling can hit a guy 10' away with it, why can't an Elf? It's the same weapon, with the same reach. It's just sized for a smaller guy to handle, so Elf takes a penalty to hit.
I really don't see how the FAQ could be more clear. And that is what you should go by.
Of course, anything that doesn't work at your table you should houserule. "Houserule" isn't a dirty word, it's the best way to make the game work for you. Everybody's doing it!
Agreed.
There is no off hand unless you are TWF'ing
While I respect all of your opinions on this matter you simply do not have evidence that backs up this claim.
Certainly "off hand" is only usually important with TWF.
Not surprising there are few examples of Off hand attacks outside of the TWF action. Although they are not unheard of. For instance after using the TWF action(an example where we all agree off hands exist.) if you make an AOO with the hand you previously declared as off hand you would receive the 1/2 strength but not TWF Penalties.
Certainly handedness isn't an issue and hasn't been since 3.0.
It doesn't matter which hand if left or right or whatever.
Certainly it doesn't matter which hand you choose as your Primary hand between rounds.
Certainly you can attack with either hand using your iterative attacks without receiving TWF Penalties.
You are however using a two hands. The extra attack and the TWF penalties are the only part of TWF that are not present when fighting with two weapons in each hand for iterative attacks.
You are also using Two hands when you use a Two-handed weapon, a primary hand and an off hand. You get the Strength damage from both hands.
You are also using two hands when you use a double weapon, a primary hand and off hand. You get the strength damage from either or both hands.
For instance after using the TWF action(an example where we all agree off hands exist.) if you make an AOO with the hand you previously declared as off hand you would receive the 1/2 strength but not TWF Penalties.
I respectfully disagree with this statement.
In my interpretation a character that makes an AoO with a previously declared off-hand would not be subject to TWF penalties and thus also not be subject to off-hand STR damage as there is no off-hand.
As TWF does not apply in this instance (making the AoO), neither should the attack in question be termed "off-handed". There is only a single attack for the consideration of each AoO.
Furthermore, if two AoO's were provoked from a character with Combat Reflexes, then any of the threatening weapons that character was wielding at the time would be entitled to make the attack (without TWF modifiers) and at full one-handed strength damage.
I am in disagreement with "Skip Williams" in respect to how the AoO functions in Pathfinder (not D&D 3.5).
As TWF does not apply in this instance, neither should the attack be termed "off-handed". I am in disagreement with "Skip Williams" in respect to how this functions in Pathfinder (not D&D 3.5).
Okay, you can disagree with both of us on this matter.
Here's the thing. Except for the -4 to off hand attacks the rules for Off hand attacks haven't change between pathfinder and 3.5.
Looking at how both of the books are spelled out in roughly the same manner (regarding off hand attacks) I do not see where Pathfinder parts form these rulings.
Even taking into consideration the FAQ I am still convinced that Pathfinder does not part from this ruling as written.
If this gets answer in an FAQ I will except that Pathfinder has changed this aspect of the game and change my games accordingly(although it probably won't have much impact.)
I certainly know how pathfinder parts for 3.5 in a larger sense because I bought the CRB. I've put my money where my mouth is.
If it's the -4 that throws you. It's important to note that that isn't considered a TWF penalty and as of 3.5 there was still know way of reducing it for single off hand attacks.
The way I see it...
If you have a +4 base attack bonus, nothing prevents you from holding two long swords and having one attack with full strength bonus (with either one) in the round. This would be like wielding a double bladed weapon but having only one attack.
If you have a +6 base attack bonus, you have two attacks per round, and can hold two swords, the first attacking at +5 and the second attacking at +1 using either sword, and both at full strength bonuses. Same as using a double-bladed weapon correctly. Should you choose to ADD an extra attack to this, it then falls under the two-weapon fighting rules and get the penalties that come with it (the off-hand half-strength penalty, the penalties for not having the two-weapon fighting feat, etc...)
The is from the Pathfinder RPG site:
"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."
It seems pretty clear to me.
Ultradan
In regard to the OP, the following blurb is taken directly from the PFSRD:
•Damage rolls when using a melee weapon or a thrown weapon, including a sling. (Exceptions: Off-hand attacks receive only half the character's Strength bonus, while two-handed attacks receive 1–1/2 times the Strength bonus. A Strength penalty, but not a bonus, applies to attacks made with a bow that is not a composite bow.)
This indicates that to me that regardless of whether you are TWF or not, one hand is a Primary Weapon Hand the other is an off-hand or less dominant hand. You apply only 1/2 strength to weapons in the off-hand.
Here's the contradiction in rules that you wind up with if you allow both hands to get full strength bonuses in this model of iterative fighting.
A two-handed weapon gives 1.5x the str bonus.
The iterative model of two weapon fighting... would yield an effective DOUBLING or 2x the Str Bonus.
How do you figure?
BAB+6 FighterGuy -
Attack 1: Greatsword - 1.5xStr
Attack 2: Armor Spike - 1xStr
vs
Attack 1: Greatsword - 1.5xStr
Attack 2: Greatsword - 1.5xStr
or (TWF)
Attack 1: Greatsword - 1.5xStr
Attack 2: Greatsword (BAB-5) - 1.5xStr
Attack 3: Armor Spike - 0.5xStr
the off-hand half-strength penalty
The 1/2 strength to off hand attacks isn't a penalty and shouldn't be viewed as such.
A penalty is defined in the front of the CRB p 12
In fact if your strength is positive it as a bonus.
A bonus is defined in the front of the CRB p 11
would yield an effective DOUBLING or 2x the Str Bonus.
I have personally kept from saying this. Mostly because it's wrong. if full strength score were allowed for offhand attacks it wouldn't be as if you were giving them 2X damage. It would be like you were allowing them to replace the weapon in there primary hand between attacks.
I haven't found it in Pathfinder CRB, but in D&D 3.5 player manual (similar to Pathfinder) on page 109 (Italian) you can read: A palyer can be Right or left-handed.
Also in CRB i've not read if i must breathe...
if full strength score were allowed for offhand attacks... It would be like you were allowing them to replace the weapon in there primary hand between attacks.
Which they could do anyway, making the off-hand during non-TWF thing even more silly.
Did you know in Beta there was a feat for that? It was called Weapon Swap, and it was killed off, to which Jason Bulmahn said "Woot."
I haven't found it in Pathfinder CRB, but in D&D 3.5 player manual (similar to Pathfinder) on page 109 (Italian) you can read: A palyer can be Right or left-handed.
In the description chapter? Being left or right handed has as much rules impact as having green or blue eyes.
Also in CRB i've not read if i must breathe...
You might be right about the CRB but the Bestiary does say.
Humanoids breathe, eat, and sleep.
yes, descripton after Hight and Weight
Here is my opinion.
If you have a BAB of +6, it means you have the capability of attacking twice in one round if you use the full-attack action. It means you are martially proficient to attack twice in one round, the second attack with a penalty - known as iterative attacks.
The only rulings for off-hand weapons that I've seen are usually linked to the full-attack action known as two-weapon fighting. If you have a BAB of less than +6, it means that you need to exert yourself to attack beyond your regular limit - this is why you suffer penalties on all attacks when you perform a two-weapon fighting.
This has been mentioned multiple times. As an example of my conclusion and the logic behind it:
I'm a 6th level Fighter, wielding a waraxe in my right hand (my dominant hand) and a warhammer in my left hand (the weaker hand). When I attack twice at BAB +6 with two different weapons, the rules do not say one of the weapons is an off-hand for the purposes of strength bonuses.
Logically, this would be the case.. It isn't a faulty conclusion. When I am wielding two different weapons, I am "dual-wielding", which generally tends to require a primary hand and an off-hand. This can easily be interpreted as two-weapon fighting. Per RAW, I can't find any justification for said conclusion, though.
I am in favour of full strength for the warhammer's attack, the alleged "off-hand". At BAB +6 I am that proficient in martial combat. As a 6th level fighter, I know how to efficiently attack twice in a round. I am not exerting myself to attack beyond my limit. This is my in-character, fluff-based explanation.
It boils down to preference and personal interpretation. To my knowledge, the rules never mention off-hands apart from when you are using the two-weapon fighting attack action. Therefore, the only attacks in which the concept of an off-hand for the purposes of strength to the attack becomes relevant is when you are performing a two-weapon attack. Merely changing weapons during a regular full-round attack is not classified as a two-weapon attack, per the rules as
My opinions, at least.
Which they could do anyway, making the off-hand during non-TWF thing even more silly.
In the example prior to his response there talking about swapping a weapon into the hand that you are using for a light shield.
Not Swapping two weapons one in each hand. Just testing this out with my CRB in one hand and my PHB in another... it seems like it would at least be a Move action.
Swapping which hand I hold a single weapon seems like it would be a lot easier. Just testing it out with my CRB and it seems like it would be a free action.
I would say swapping which end you attack with using a quarterstaff would be a free action. When I was taking my stage combat classes I remember switching the ends being super quick.
Here is my opinion.
If you have a BAB of +6, it means you have the capability of attacking twice in one round if you use the full-attack action. It means you are martially proficient to attack twice in one round, the second attack with a penalty - known as iterative attacks.
The only rulings for off-hand weapons that I've seen are usually linked to the full-attack action known as two-weapon fighting. If you have a BAB of less than +6, it means that you need to exert yourself to attack beyond your regular limit - this is why you suffer penalties on all attacks when you perform a two-weapon fighting.
This has been mentioned multiple times. As an example of my conclusion and the logic behind it:
I'm a 6th level Fighter, wielding a waraxe in my right hand (my dominant hand) and a warhammer in my left hand (the weaker hand). When I attack twice at BAB +6 with two different weapons, the rules do not say one of the weapons is an off-hand for the purposes of strength bonuses.
Logically, this would be the case.. It isn't a faulty conclusion. When I am wielding two different weapons, I am "dual-wielding", which generally tends to require a primary hand and an off-hand. This can easily be interpreted as two-weapon fighting. Per RAW, I can't find any justification for said conclusion, though.
I am in favour of full strength for the warhammer's attack, the alleged "off-hand". At BAB +6 I am that proficient in martial combat. As a 6th level fighter, I know how to efficiently attack twice in a round. I am not exerting myself to attack beyond my limit. This is my in-character, fluff-based explanation.
It boils down to preference and personal interpretation. To my knowledge, the rules never mention off-hands apart from when you are using the two-weapon fighting attack action. Therefore, the only attacks in which the concept of an off-hand for the purposes of strength to the attack becomes relevant is when you are performing a two-weapon attack. Merely changing weapons during a regular full-round...
What would be the benifit of handling two weapons, if you had to a)take a smaller weapon in your off hand and b)cut your strength bonus to x.5 for all the second attack with the smaller weapon? None. It would even be non-productive. Just hit twice with your primary weapon, right?
Again, take the double-bladed weapon (or the quarter-staff) for example. You can hit with either end for your two attacks at your discretion (one can deal +1d6 fire and the other could deal +1d6 cold) without reducing your strength bonus due to "off hand". Now if you were to try and ADD an attack with said quarterstaff, NOW you would get the penalties associated with two-weapon fighting.
Same goes for two swords being held.
Ultradan
|
Why are there so many people who think that it's okay to penalize their players for no reason? The player gains no significant benefit out of using a mix of weapons in a regular iterative progression, why hunt tiny scraps of evidence to support your way of punishing them for doing so?
(Also, if a character can drop their weapon and draw a new one into the same hand without taking off-hand penalties, why can't they use the exact same attack with a weapon in their other hand with no penalties? Do you WANT your players doing silly looking things for the sake of enforcing right/left handedness in a game that doesn't possess it?)
Stuff...
I think you missed my point.
There is no off hand unless you are TWF'ingWhile I respect all of your opinions on this matter you simply do not have evidence that backs up this claim.
Certainly "off hand" is only usually important with TWF.
Not surprising there are few examples of Off hand attacks outside of the TWF action. Although they are not unheard of. For instance after using the TWF action(an example where we all agree off hands exist.) if you make an AOO with the hand you previously declared as off hand you would receive the 1/2 strength but not TWF Penalties.
Here is my proof. If it written it ain't RAW. When you show text that has the off-hand outside of TWF I will be wrong, but until then I am right.
As for RAI SKR did not mention it in the FAQ, not is it in the full attack section of the combat chapter.If this were a court of law the jury would decide in my favor.
I see no rule stating that TWF penalties apply to Attack of opportunities.
Example:
Power Attack (Combat)
You can make exceptionally deadly melee attacks by sacrificing accuracy for strength.
Prerequisites: Str 13, base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: .....You must choose to use this feat before making an attack roll, and its effects last until your next turn. The bonus damage does not apply to touch attacks or effects that do not deal hit point damage.
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.
I don't see anything stating TWF penalties or anything from it last until your next turn.
Presumably the players involved want to fight with two weapons and hope to avoid the usual penalties for doing so without taking the feat.
Because there are no penalties for doing so.
Fighting with two weapons is not the same as "Two-Weapon Fighting" despite the similarity in wording. It's only "Two-Weapon Fighting" when you want to make the extra attack beyond those granted from BAB.
A guy with sword-n-board is probably going to mostly use his sword, right? And yet, he can just make a shield bash attack at his normal, main-hand attack bonus.
If not, then there's two FAQ's you're houseruling.
Why are there so many people who think that it's okay to penalize their players for no reason?
The 1/2 strength to off hand attacks is not a penalty.
The player gains no significant benefit out of using a mix of weapons in a regular iterative progression, why hunt tiny scraps of evidence to support your way of punishing them for doing so?
Your right there isn't a significant benefit.
I disagree that it is punishment.It is simply applying an appropriate amount of fun to the rules without denying every realistic implication.
Also, if a character can drop their weapon and draw a new one into the same hand without taking off-hand penalties, why can't they use the exact same attack with a weapon in their other hand with no penalties?
Because there drawing it into the same hand.
Do you WANT your players doing silly looking things for the sake of enforcing right/left handedness in a game that doesn't possess it?I have already said that:
Being left or right handed has as much rules impact as having green or blue eyes.
And I doubt that players will be doing the silly things you are suggesting.
That all being said your right that this is all very unimportant. It matters little whether or not you apply 1 X str or 1/2 X str because most likely players aren't going to be attacking with there off hand unless they were attacking with TWF.
|
|
Presumably the players involved want to fight with two weapons and hope to avoid the usual penalties for doing so without taking the feat.Why are there so many people who think that it's okay to penalize their players for no reason? The player gains no significant benefit out of using a mix of weapons in a regular iterative progression, why hunt tiny scraps of evidence to support your way of punishing them for doing so?
(Also, if a character can drop their weapon and draw a new one into the same hand without taking off-hand penalties, why can't they use the exact same attack with a weapon in their other hand with no penalties? Do you WANT your players doing silly looking things for the sake of enforcing right/left handedness in a game that doesn't possess it?)
Let's clarify this right here: Fighting with two weapons confers no advantages whatsoever unless you are gaining the extra attacks. Therefor, there is no reason to apply ANY penalty. The FAQ has already been quoted as saying you do not take two-weapon fighting related penalties unless you gain the extra attack.
Why be so restrictive with the players? If they want to do it, it's not obtusely against the rules, it's fair and it's cool, then there is absolutely no reason to rule against it.
Nevermind the fact that I'm sure if a dev stepped in right now they'd say "Offhand strength was implied as part of the 'don't take two-weapon fighting penalties' of the last FAQ."
When a player asks for something you should never start from a position of "no" while looking for reasons to say "yes", you should start from a position of "Yes" while looking for reasons to say "No." If nothing you come up with seems at all scary to you*, then you should be saying yes.
*"This ability's wording implies..." is not a concern, "stacking this allowance with this other ability gains them infinite cosmic power" would be.
EDIT: Clarification of wording.
i've the answer i've asked to JJ:
Hi, i've read FAQ, but i've yet a small problem. If i wielding 2 weapon (withh or without TWF feats) do i apply my full str bonus or only half of it with the second one?
Example: Fighter +6+1 with Longsword and a torch. reading faq, if he has TWF feat he can strike with any combination of them at +6+1 if he make only 2 attacks, but if he want use 3 attack he must declare it and take proper malus. This fighter strike with the longsword +6 (adding full STR damage bonus), but the second one? He can add full STR bonus also if he strike with weapon in the secon hand (or off hand)?
I see no rule stating that TWF penalties apply to Attack of opportunities.
TWF penalties don't apply to Attacks of opportunities. I never said they did.
I suppose they would apply if you made an AoO during the TWF action but that would be a rare case indeed.
I spend a lot of time writing my responses. I try(not always successfully) to word them carefully. I can only expect you to read them carefully too.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
i've the answer i've asked to JJ:** spoiler omitted **Hi, i've read FAQ, but i've yet a small problem. If i wielding 2 weapon (withh or without TWF feats) do i apply my full str bonus or only half of it with the second one?
Example: Fighter +6+1 with Longsword and a torch. reading faq, if he has TWF feat he can strike with any combination of them at +6+1 if he make only 2 attacks, but if he want use 3 attack he must declare it and take proper malus. This fighter strike with the longsword +6 (adding full STR damage bonus), but the second one? He can add full STR bonus also if he strike with weapon in the secon hand (or off hand)?
I see no rule stating that TWF penalties apply to Attack of opportunities.TWF penalties don't apply to Attacks of opportunities. I never said they did.
I suppose they would apply if you made an AoO during the TWF action but that would be a rare case indeed.
I spend a lot of time writing my responses. I try(not always successfully) to word them carefully. I can only expect you to read them carefully too.
For instance after using the TWF action(an example where we all agree off hands exist.) if you make an AOO with the hand you previously declared as off hand you would receive the 1/2 strength but not TWF Penalties.
The penalties I spoke of was the .5 strength mod.
As I showed in my last power with the power attack example TWF does not have any effects past that player's action unlike power attack which stays activated until the next turn.
In short TWF as written has no effect on an AoO.
Locations "Off-hand" Appears in Combat section that are not specifically in TWF
Damage
Off-Hand Weapon: When you deal damage with a weapon in your off hand, you add only 1/2 your Strength bonus. If you have a Strength penalty, the entire penalty applies.
Natural Attacks
Your natural attacks are treated as light, off-hand weapons for determining the penalty to your other attacks.
=====
Both of these references are junk 3.5 cruff and need to be removed. The Off-hand doesn't exist outside of TWF, as it applies to the hand making the extra attacks outside of normal BAB iterative attacks.
Any similar references should also be stricken from consideration.
This sure seems like the people who are arguing for half str mod are the same people who were arguing against the ability to use two weapons without two weapon fighting in the first place. And it seems like they are largely using the exact same arguments simply because the FAQ didn't explicitly call this out. This is really fighting tooth and nail to impose what little TWF penalties they can onto their players. What's the point? Just let them have the str mod.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Locations "Off-hand" Appears in Combat section that are not specifically in TWF
Neither of these are really issues, and here's why:
Damage
Off-Hand Weapon: When you deal damage with a weapon in your off hand, you add only 1/2 your Strength bonus. If you have a Strength penalty, the entire penalty applies.
This merely states how much damage an off hand attack deals. It does not define what constitutes such an attack.
Natural Attacks
Your natural attacks are treated as light, off-hand weapons for determining the penalty to your other attacks.
Here we have a "treated as" clause. Something that is "treated as" X for purposes of Y is not X.
I'm not sure who, if anyone, thought that these references supported the idea that off-hand attacks exist outside of the TWF mechanic, but they don't. Having off hand attacks only exist in TWF does not make the damage entry or the natural attacks entry not make sense.
The penalties I spoke of was the .5 strength mod.
As I showed in my last power with the power attack example TWF does not have any effects past that player's action unlike power attack which stays activated until the next turn.
In short TWF as written has no effect on an AoO.
Your right TWF Penalties don't extend past the TWF action.
You don't get .5 strenght mod to off hand attacks.
You get .5 strenght BONUS to off hand attacks.
A penalty is defined int the front of the book page 12
Penalty: Penalties are numerical values that are subtracted from a check or statistical score. Penalties do not have a type and most penalties stack with one another.
Even if it was a penalty it wouldn't be a TWF penalty because it isn't mentioned under TWF anywhere.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Karlgamer, people are using the words "penalty" and "penalize" in their general, english-language senses, not the game term that refers to a negative integer applied to a score or check. (I would also note that "penalize" doesn't even have that rules meaning, yet you still responded to it earlier in the same way you've been responding to usage of "penalty".)
More importantly, I'm noticing that every time you get hung up on the use of the word "penalty", you also fail to actually address the argument being presented.
The penalties I spoke of was the .5 strength mod.
You're going to have to be more pedantic.
Karlgamer is using the game mechanic definition of Penalty which are numerical values that are subtracted from a check or statistical score. He's correct (if missing the point).
Most everyone else is using the English dictionary version of penalty, meaning a punishment or disadvantage.
This sure seems like the people who are arguing for half str mod are the same people who were arguing against the ability to use two weapons without two weapon fighting in the first place. And it seems like they are largely using the exact same arguments simply because the FAQ didn't explicitly call this out. This is really fighting tooth and nail to impose what little TWF penalties they can onto their players. What's the point? Just let them have the str mod.
I will also say this. Before the FAQ I don't think there was an official answer to the first TWF question because nobody ever thought to use two weapons like that.
I think this questions falls into the same boat, however if SKR makes another ruling I am sure he will say both weapons do full damage. I really don't see the point of trying to apply a penalty to something that is already inefficient.
The penalties I spoke of was the .5 strength mod.
As I showed in my last power with the power attack example TWF does not have any effects past that player's action unlike power attack which stays activated until the next turn.
In short TWF as written has no effect on an AoO.Your right TWF Penalties don't extend past the TWF action.
You don't get .5 strenght mod to off hand attacks.
You get .5 strenght BONUS to off hand attacks.
A penalty is defined int the front of the book page 12
Penalty: Penalties are numerical values that are subtracted from a check or statistical score. Penalties do not have a type and most penalties stack with one another.Even if it was a penalty it wouldn't be a TWF penalty because it isn't mentioned under TWF anywhere.
I was not using "penalty" by the game definition.
With that said show me where an off-hand exist outside of a situation where you do not get more attacks than normal such as TWF or natural attacks combined with martial weapons.
James Jacobs (Creative Director):
If you wield two weapons, the weapon in your off hand adds half your Strength bonus unless you have the Double Slice feat.[/] See the rules for light and one-handed weapons on page 141 of the Core Rulebook.
All (normal ;) )Character have 2 hand, main and off if you attack with the off hand you add only 0.5 bonus STR. no doubt JJ is not me or my comrades.
This sure seems like the people who are arguing for half str mod are the same people who were arguing against the ability to use two weapons without two weapon fighting in the first place. And it seems like they are largely using the exact same arguments simply because the FAQ didn't explicitly call this out. This is really fighting tooth and nail to impose what little TWF penalties they can onto their players. What's the point? Just let them have the str mod.
I was clearly on the side of the can use off hand attacks without TWF penalties part of the previous debate.
Karlgamer, people are using the words "penalty" and "penalize" in their general, english-language senses, not the game term that refers to a negative integer applied to a score or check. (I would also note that "penalize" doesn't even have that rules meaning, yet you still responded to it earlier in the same way you've been responding to usage of "penalty".)
When dealing with rules semantics is VERY VERY important.
Even taking into consideration the actual definition of penalty getting a strength bonus to off hand attacks still doesn't count as a penalty.
If it was a penalty in either case it still wouldn't be a TWF penalty.
This discussion should have nothing to do with penalties. Even taking into consideration the general English-language sense.
show me where an off-hand exist outside of a situation where you do not get more attacks than normal such as TWF or natural attacks combined with martial weapons.
Armor Spikes: "You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case. (You can't also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.)"
This means that while you can use your KISS boots to make a regular melee attack and get full Str, you can't do that and then attack with another weapon. It's that bit in parenthesis:
If you have made an attack with an off-hand weapon, you can't also attack with armor spikes. Sure, makes sense, whatever. No Rapier/Dagger/ArmorSpike combos with TWF. (Three-Weapon Fighting averted!)
Vice versa means if you have made an attack with armor spikes, you can't also attack with another off-hand weapon. And, per James, any second weapon you wield is an off-hand.
So at BAB+6 you can:
Greatsword (Primary, 1.5xStr) then ArmorSpike (Off-hand, 0.5xStr)
or
Dagger (Primary, 1xStr) then ArmorSpike (Off-hand, 0.5xStr)
but you can't
ArmorSpike (Primary, 1xStr) then Any Other Weapon (Off-hand, 0.5xStr)
Unless, when it says "another off-hand weapon" it means only if Armor Spikes have been used as an off-hand weapon, which would mean you could
ArmorSpike (Primary, 1xStr) then Greatsword (Off-hand, ????xStr)
And that Greatsword off-hand would have both 0.5xStr (as an off-hand) and 1.5xStr (as a two-handed) so....