I can't seem to locate the FAQ document!
Click Help/FAQ in the very top right corner of any page.
if I'm TWF and I declare a full attack action, and I proceed to attack only with the main-hand weapon w/ Precise, can I then declare a Parry with any remaining off-hand attacks?
If you use Precise Strike then you cannot attack with with a weapon in your other hand. This means you cannot use Two-Weapon Fighting and Precise Strike, and you can't give up an off-hand attack because you don't have an off-hand attack to give up.
You can use TWF without Precise Strike, and give up your off-hand attack to parry.
I can't seem to locate the FAQ document!Click Help/FAQ in the very top right corner of any page.
if I'm TWF and I declare a full attack action, and I proceed to attack only with the main-hand weapon w/ Precise, can I then declare a Parry with any remaining off-hand attacks?If you use Precise Strike then you cannot attack with with a weapon in your other hand. This means you cannot use Two-Weapon Fighting and Precise Strike, and you can't give up an off-hand attack because you don't have an off-hand attack to give up.
You can use TWF without Precise Strike, and give up your off-hand attack to parry.
TWF doesn't preclude you from using precise strike, attacking with a weapon in your other hand does. If you forgo the attack, your not attacking with that weapon, hence the conditions for precise strike are not violated.
Alternatively, off-hand blade boot. Forgo that attack and parry with your foot. Or, don't even bother with the blade boot, off-hand head butt. Since you're not actually attacking with your unarmed attack, you don't need to worry about provoking. 'Cause parrying blows with your face makes a lot more sense than, say, a dagger in your off hand.
Oh yeah, I did find the general Help/FAQ. :) Is there a link to a rules FAQ in there somewhere?
The right side of that page (and all the FAQ pages) has a box of "More FAQs" and you have to pick the FAQs for the relevant book.
Pathfinder RPG Advanced Player's Guide
Pathfinder RPG Ultimate Combat
Etc.
They change places in the table sometimes, and I don't know why they don't have short non-gibberish URLs.
There's also an Unofficial FAQ which compiles some Official FAQ responses as well as message board posts at:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/extras/pathfinder-faq
TWF doesn't preclude you from using precise strike, attacking with a weapon in your other hand does. If you forgo the attack, your not attacking with that weapon, hence the conditions for precise strike are not violated.
You can't elect not to take an attack that you can't make anyway. If you use Precise Strike you can't make an attack with a weapon in your other hand. So not only can you not elect not to take the attack, you can't make the attack roll to Parry, either.
Headbutt is not a light or one-handed piercing weapon.
Boot blade might work by RAW.
They are treated as light weapons and this feat can make them piercing.
Hot damn.
|
You can't elect not to take an attack that you can't make anyway. If you use Precise Strike you can't make an attack with a weapon in your other hand. So not only can you not elect not to take the attack, you can't make the attack roll to Parry, either.
Headbutt is not a light or one-handed piercing weapon.
Boot blade might work by RAW.
While it may be pretty likely that you're not supposed to be able to use TWF + Precise to get off-hand parries, I would probably allow it as it's not the greatest class anyway and the visual is awesome. I mean, that's the entire reason the Main Gauche existed.
I would go with the interpretation of "You cannot attack does not mean you cannot give up the attack." Since you aren't actually attacking you can use precise strike, but since you said you want to use precise strike you must either sacrifice the attack for a non-attack or not take the attack at all.
Just my 2 cents anyway.
Since you aren't actually attacking you can use precise strike
So you're sticking a guy with your rapier.
You can't make an attack with your dagger, because of Precise Strike.
So you elect not to make an attack with your dagger, which you can't make anyway, in order to Parry.
Someone takes a swing at you, so you make an attack roll, with your dagger that you can't attack with, to deflect it.
If Parry didn't involve an attack roll, I could maybe see it. But you're electing not to make an attack that you couldn't make anyway, then making an attack with it.
Boot blade/Armor Spike avoid the 'hand' issue and should work by RAW.
|
One of the best ways to play a duelist is to go TWFing with Scimitar/Rapier and Unarmed Strikes, then take the Crane style feat chain. I heavily suggest to begin with a Lore Warden fighter (easy to find on the boards) from the Pathfinder Society Field Guide, and to dig on maneuvers/dexterity with agile and dueling magic properties on your weapons.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you're sticking a guy with your rapier.
You can't make an attack with your dagger, because of Precise Strike.
So you elect not to make an attack with your dagger, which you can't make anyway, in order to Parry.
Someone takes a swing at you, so you make an attack roll, with your dagger that you can't attack with, to deflect it.
If Parry didn't involve an attack roll, I could maybe see it. But you're electing not to make an attack that you couldn't make anyway, then making an attack with it.
Boot blade/Armor Spike avoid the 'hand' issue and should work by RAW.
See, here's the problem: In this game, having an attack available and making an attack are two different things. If you get cursed, frightened or hit with some variety of spell that says "cannot attack", that does not prevent you from parrying because you aren't attacking anyone or anything.
If you declare two-weapon fighting you are declaring that you have the attack available, not that you're necessarily attacking with it. In fact, it's entirely possible to declare two-weapon fighting, make one attack, then change your mind about attacking (gaining nothing from making the declaration except an attack penalty).
Finally, when you parry you aren't attacking, you're blocking. The only reason they use the attack roll is it's an easy way to ensure that your skill in combat is reflected in your ability to parry and that it matches fairly with the skill of your opponent.
|
|
...Or does it?
It depends on the effect. If you curse them with "cannot attack" then they can still use the attack action, just not to attack someone. If you curse them with "cannot use any attack action types" (nevermind the meta-gaming implications), then they wouldn't be able to parry as they can't take the necessary action type. Note that the first curse also restricts offensive spells and such, while the second doesn't.
I have to admit, though, that I misremembered the frightened condition. It does not restrict you to defending yourself when cornered (it allows you to fight). And panicked restricts your action types to "get out of there" unless you're cornered, in which case you perform whatever your best defensive option is (typically total defense). And since you dropped your weapons from the state, parrying would be... interesting.
If you get cursed, frightened or hit with some variety of spell that says "cannot attack", that does not prevent you from parrying because you aren't attacking anyone or anything.
How are you taking a full attack action when you're not attacking anyone?
Frightened doesn't prevent you from attacking.
Forbid Action - Attack states "The target cannot take any action that involves an attack roll..."
If you declare two-weapon fighting you are declaring that you have the attack available, not that you're necessarily attacking with it.
So, if I have a dagger at my belt, but I'm wielding my greatsword, I can use TWF, elect not to make my off-hand attack with the dagger, and later on Parry with it, even though my hands are full and my dagger is sheathed? And if I'm invisible, it doesn't break since the attack roll isn't an attack, it's a block? And if I'm under Sanctuary it doesn't break either? What about Trip, that's got an attack roll, is it not an attack either?
|
|
So, if I have a dagger at my belt, but I'm wielding my greatsword, I can use TWF, elect not to make my off-hand attack with the dagger, and later on Parry with it, even though my hands are full and my dagger is sheathed? And if I'm invisible, it doesn't break since the attack roll isn't an attack, it's a block? And if I'm under Sanctuary it doesn't break either? What about Trip, that's got an attack roll, is it not an attack either?
Combat maneuvers ARE attacks, this is explicitly called out in the relevant section in the combat chapter.
The dagger thing isn't really relevant as common sense would dictate that the weapon has to be in hand to parry with it. Also, you're referring to a two-hander when the duelist abilities don't work with the two-hander, so it seems a silly thing to bring up.
The rest is fine. If you block, you didn't attack anyone, and thus invis shouldn't pop. If you have sanctuary going and someone manages to make their save to attack you, blocking that attack shouldn't count as an aggressive action and thus shouldn't drop it. If you can summon a creature for the express purpose of killing them and not lose invisibility, I don't see why blocking should lose it.
Oh, and if "Forbid Action" says "You can't do anything with an attack roll", then yes that blocks parry. Like I said above, SOME effects would block only actual attacks, while others would block both attacks and parries.
Combat maneuvers ARE attacks, this is explicitly called out in the relevant section in the combat chapter.
The part where it says "Combat maneuvers are attack rolls"? Similar to Parry which says "the duelist makes an attack roll".
The dagger thing isn't really relevant as common sense would dictate that the weapon has to be in hand to parry with it.
Common sense also dictates that if you can't attack with it, you can't make an attack roll with it.
|
|
Common sense also dictates that if you can't attack with it, you can't make an attack roll with it.
I fail to see where Precise Strike prohibits an attack *roll*. It prohibits an attack, not an attack roll.
But you're right, the combat section doesn't come right out and say "This is an attack." But, you are performing an aggressive action against an opponent, which is generally defined as an "attack" by all effects that refer to attacks (such as invisibility and sanctuary). And it explicitly says that all bonuses that would apply to attacking that opponent still apply (potentially including damage bonuses if you choose to sunder).
Parry, however, does nothing to the opponent. It is purely defensive.
And unfortunately for all of us, you DO have to use common sense for the rules as some things are not defined in the context of rules. Attack appears to be one of those examples. It is generally accepted that anything that includes an opponent as a target is considered an attack (taken from the invisibility spell, although nothing says this applies to all things). Assuming we use this standard: Does parry include the opponent as a target? No, it does not. Not any more than Total Defense would, anyway.
Basically the issue here is "Is an attack roll automatically an attack?" I say no, it is not. It is certainly a hint that it may be an attack, but an attack must affect an opponent of some kind (even if that opponent is an inanimate object). It is fairly common to use an "attack" roll to determine various forms of parry/deflection as it is a good way to ensure that it is balanced without inventing a new modifier. That doesn't mean that blocking should pop invisibility, or end sanctuary, or prevent you from blocking if you are preventing from attacking people in some other fashion.