| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Hi Folks,
Note: this is completely separate from the "multiclass monk base attack questions" (though I *can* make an argument for both sides & which I never saw any definitive answers to btw...)
Just noticed this last night...after 30+ years playing D&D...<sheesh>
For this purpose assume a 20th level single class monk.
Base attack: +15 / +10 / +5
For their flurry of blows ability we use their Monk level as their base attack, giving them the effective BA of a 20th level fighter (+20 / +15 / +10 / +5)
At 20th level they have the virtual Greater Two Weapon Fighting Feat thus:
(Cumulative - assuming light weapon in off hand)
Primary hand always gets a (-2 to BA)
Two weapon: 1 extra attack with off hand at -2 to to BA
Imp. Two Weapon: 2 extra attacks at (-2 & -5) to BA
Gr. Two Weapon: 3 extra attacks at (-2, -5, & -10) to BA
SO... A 20th Fighter or (Monk using flurry of blows) using the RAW (feat descriptions) has the following:
Primary Hand: +18 / +13 / +8 / +3
Off Hand: +18 / +15 / +10
Yet the Monk has (flurry table 3-10 Core RB): 18 / +18 / +13 / +13 / +8 / +8 / +3
The only way that happens is if the (-2) off-hand penalty keeps stacking with the other "penalties" associated with the improved & greater two weapon fighting feats. Yet the feat descriptions for both Impr. 2 Weapon & Gr. 2 Weapon don't say that. They just say that there is a (-5) or (-10) penalty to attack with the off hand.
So, either Table 3-10 (monk flurry of blows) is wrong OR the feat descriptions are wrong. Which one is it?
Actually, I don't have the rules in front of me, but the flurry table is correct.
The Imrpoved and greater 2-weapon fighting feats just allow you to take extra attacks from BAB with you off-hand weapon. In other words, without those feats, you would have whatever number of attacks with you primary at -2, -7, and -12. You would have only one attack with your off-hand at -2. With those feats, you get the -2, -7, & -12 with your off hand as well, giving you 6 attacks instead of 4.
Think about it. The way you have it written out, the character would be MORE skilled with his off-hand than his on-hand; which doesn't make that much sense.
The -2 penalty applies to all attacks, including any extra attacks you get with either hand.
The Improved and Greater Two-Weapon Fighting feats give you extra attacks that track the extra attacks you're already getting with your main hand.
The question is, does the -2 penalty on all attacks stack with the -5 and -10 penalties for the additional off-hand attacks?
The answer is yes, it does.
(all numbers assume using light off-hand weapon, for simplicity):
-2 is penalty to attack rolls when fighting with two weapons. Bonus off-hand attack use character's BAB (TWF), BAB -5 (Improved TWF), BAB -10 (Greater TWF), I think that there were feat/PrC in 3.5 that granted fourth off-hand attack at BAB -15.
Improved TWF and Greater TWF penalties do not include TWF penalty because their penalties apply only to one specifc attack while TWF penalty applies to all attacks made until the begining of following turn, including bonus attack from haste and attacks of opportunity. Their description is not wrong - it avoids redundant information as there is general rule that penalties stack unless noted otherwise. Is there a note that TWF penalties don't stack? Nope. There is no reason to repeat the information in each feat.
Improved TWF and Greater TWF penalties do not include TWF penalty because their penalties apply only to one specifc attack while TWF penalty applies to all attacks made until the begining of following turn, including bonus attack from haste and attacks of opportunity. Their description is not wrong - it avoids redundant information as there is general rule that penalties stack unless noted otherwise. Is there a note that TWF penalties don't stack? Nope. There is no reason to repeat the information in each feat.
Can anyone point me to that "general rule" in the RAW? Because I can't find it.
Besides - you don't have to repeat - you have to REFERENCE.
And chapter 8 (pg 202) does NOT say it applies/stacks. In fact it only references the 1 extra attack.
I'm not talking "common sense" here (nod to Daroob)I'm intentionally parsing the language.
Common sense (and tradition) says that the feats (ITWF & GTWF) should be re-written to use a -7 and -12 adjustment to BAB (or that you suffer an additional penalty of x); which would bring the wording in line with TWF. Otherwise you have the artifact that you fight better with your off-hand than you do with your primary <shrug>. But barring some explicit rule somewhere that artifact is real.
Remember - descriptive text beats tables
Getting started. First chapter of CRB. Penalty.
Anyone can use two weapon fighting, the feat is not required. The feat reduces the penalty. The Improved versions of the feat mention nothing about negating that penalty, they add to it an additional penalty.
Getting started. First chapter of CRB. Penalty.
Already checked that...In both the entries (penalties & stacking) the phrase used is "most".
If I wrote a specification like that I'd lose my engineering license.
Further more specific rules always supersede general ones
Yes, this is "uber-rules-lawyerly" and an*l about parsing the language...but I can't read the designer's minds.
The way it reads (unless we can find official text otherwise) the designers intended that you should be able to fight better with your off hand than your primary hand.
Find proof that "most" doesn't apply here.
Anyone can use two weapon fighting, the feat is not required. The feat reduces the penalty. The Improved versions of the feat mention nothing about negating that penalty, they add to it an additional penalty.
TWF reduces the penalty. ITWF and TWF don't say anything about that. They just say you get an extra attack at -5 or -10 without reference to the penalty at all.
The devs are not technical writers, nor lawyers. They don't have to be. There's a thing called a DM who decides what the rules say.
If you say the penalties don't stack, they don't. However, the devs say they do, as shown by the official statblocks they publish.
I know the DM decides. I've been a dm for most of my gaming career with players that *LOVE* to stretch he rules until they break. So we'd discuss it and come up with a solution that works for us. Been there done that got the t-shirt.
I'm intentionally arguing the language used to discern intent - was it a typo or not.
"Official statblocks" have been known to be wrong and the descriptive text always over-rules statblocks unless errata specifies otherwise.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Arguments for the sake of argument are cool and all, but you really need to be playing purposely obtuse to bring up something like this. Two weapon fighting states that your main and offhand take a penalty. Improved states that you get another attack in addition to your first offhand attack at a -5 penalty. So -2 for the first one with an additional -5 to the second.
The math and language is really simple. Anyone arguing it otherwise needs a swift kick.
Find proof that "most" doesn't apply here.
"Most" simply means "in the majority of cases"
It doesn't say "at an additional penalty" which would clearly state that they do stack (and even that those additional penalties stacked if you weren't using light weapons).
ITWF and GTWF merely state that you gain an additional attack at the stated penalty.
Improved Two-Weapon Fighting (Combat)
You are skilled at fighting with two weapons.
Prerequisites: Dex 17, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: In addition to the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you get a second attack with it, albeit at a –5 penalty.
Normal: Without this feat, you can only get a single extra attack with an off-hand weapon.
Greater Two-Weapon Fighting (Combat)
You are incredibly skilled at fighting with two weapons at the same time.
Prerequisites: Dex 19, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +11.
Benefit: You get a third attack with your off-hand weapon, albeit at a –10 penalty.
Arguments for the sake of argument are cool and all, but you really need to be playing purposely obtuse to bring up something like this. Two weapon fighting states that your main and offhand take a penalty. Improved states that you get another attack in addition to your first offhand attack at a -5 penalty. So -2 for the first one with an additional -5 to the second.
The math and language is really simple. Anyone arguing it otherwise needs a swift kick.
It came up because I'm playing around with a spreadsheet and when I read the text it doesn't jive with the tables. And if "the language was simple" I wouldn't have started the thread
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I looked it up, and you're right, it isn't written properly. I beleive in 3.5 it was more explicit that it allows BAB extra attacks with the off hand.
Even so, the 2-weapon fighting entrie states specifically that the penalty is to the specific one attack granted by attacking with the off hand. "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'll see that it says THE attack with your off hand, while specifying attack or attacks above.
As written, there is no penalty. This is still clearly an oversight, and some sort of errata aught to address it in future editions. As intended, however, the -2 is to all attacks made. You would be correct in your assertion that no text can prove this, however. At least, I can't find one.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
It's really just a question of if you use the base bonus to determine iterative bonuses, or the modified base bonus.
I know of no one who would allow you to determine your iterative attack bonuses off of the base bonus without modifiers.
Your phrasing of the question is correct. Whether someone would allow it or not is irrelevant to the purpose behind my starting the thread.
I have a related question. An unarmed attack can be a kick, right? Does that mean I can use TWF and a 2-handed weapon? Chop with Axe, kick with iron boot?
I looked it up, and you're right, it isn't written properly. I beleive in 3.5 it was more explicit that it allows BAB extra attacks with the off hand.
Even so, the 2-weapon fighting entrie states specifically that the penalty is to the specific one attack granted by attacking with the off hand. "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'll see that it says THE attack with your off hand, while specifying attack or attacks above.
As written, there is no penalty. This is still clearly an oversight, and some sort of errata aught to address it in future editions. As intended, however, the -2 is to all attacks made. You would be correct in your assertion that no text can prove this, however. At least, I can't find one.
I agree with you on the intention (it's how I've always played the game) I just had too much caffeine last night and so spent a couple hours looking for a rule I was SURE had to be there. And when I couldn't find it I figured I'd post here.
It's been a while - how do we submit questions for an official FAQ or Errata again?
I have a related question. An unarmed attack can be a kick, right? Does that mean I can use TWF and a 2-handed weapon? Chop with Axe, kick with iron boot?
That is the way I would read it (for monks at least pg 58 CRB). For other non-monkey types not so much.
That being said, I thing it's such a cool idea I'd allow it <grin>. It'd be similar to shield bashing with a buckler I'd say (or at least spin off that)
Find proof that "most" doesn't apply here."Most" simply means "in the majority of cases"
It doesn't say "at an additional penalty" which would clearly state that they do stack (and even that those additional penalties stacked if you weren't using light weapons).
ITWF and GTWF merely state that you gain an additional attack at the stated penalty.
Improved Two-Weapon Fighting (Combat)
** spoiler omitted **Greater Two-Weapon Fighting (Combat)
** spoiler omitted **
Penalties stack. You took a -2 penalty to TWF, ergo your attacks are 10/10/5 as opposed to 12/7. You take ITWF to gain an additional attack at a -5 penalty normally this would be 12/7/7 however since you elected to TWF (the only scenario that qualifies you for the attack) you take an additional penalty and since you took TWF that penalty is -2. SO you're attacks are 10/10/5/5
JohnBear, if you really want to make an argument about RAW says, you need to be explicit.
ITWF gives me an additional attack with my off-hand. Please go through the process, citing all relevant rules, of exactly what modifies the attack roll when making that additional attack.
I think you'll find, as I did, that any modifiers to your off-hand attack (including the -2 for TWF) are included in that calculation, or else you're in the situation of not even knowing which modifiers apply and which don't at all.
I have a related question. An unarmed attack can be a kick, right? Does that mean I can use TWF and a 2-handed weapon? Chop with Axe, kick with iron boot?
It's been determined on other threads that, yes, this is perfectly legal. You can use TWF to attack with a 2-handed weapon and:
1) an unarmed attack;2) armor spikes;
3) boot blade;
or any other one weapon that doesn't require a hand to wield.
I have a related question. An unarmed attack can be a kick, right? Does that mean I can use TWF and a 2-handed weapon? Chop with Axe, kick with iron boot?It's been determined on other threads that, yes, this is perfectly legal. You can use TWF to attack with a 2-handed weapon and:
1) an unarmed attack;
2) armor spikes;
3) boot blade;
or any other one weapon that doesn't require a hand to wield.
Every time that comes up a consensus is never reach so no that has yet to be determined unless I missed the post.
Did they say if the 2-handed weapon still gets 1.5x Str to damage, or is it reduced to Str bonus by TWF, AvalonXQ?
Yes, the two-handed weapon still gets 1.5 Str to damage. No, it's really not overpowered, as the math guys have demonstrated.
I think he wants the rules written so there can be no wrong interpretation, but it will never happen.
Of course, I already posted about this earlier in the thread but the OP chose to ignore it as it proved him wrong. The worst type of rules lawyer are those who present bad cases and cannot stand being proven wrong.Have you considered that sometimes RL gets in the way of posting on a message board?
I'll go through it all when I address AvalonXQ's request later today during my lunch break
I think he wants the rules written so there can be no wrong interpretation, but it will never happen.
"Interpretations" will always happen, and it doesn't matter (especially in a game setting) *how* anyone chooses to interpret the rules provided all the players in the group agree with the interpretation.
What I identified was an area where the descriptive text and the tables did not agree with each other - which is an editing issue.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Y'know, I was originally going to post another "how could you think that?" post, but after reading the rule text, I think I have to agree with JohnBear. Not in the intent, but in the actual text.
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.
By standard un-feated TWF with light weapons, you take a -4 to attacks with your primary hand, and -8 to the attack with your off hand. If you add the TWF feat, you reduce that to -2 / -2. So far so good.
In addition to the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you get a second attack with it, albeit at a –5 penalty.
The implication here is that instead of the -2 penalty, you use a -5 penalty. Nothing here refers to BAB, or makes the comparison to your second main-hand attack. Likewise, it doesn't say that it stacks with the existing penalty. Penalties generally stack, but only if they're both applicable, and nothing says that the -2 to the first off hand attack is applicable here. Thus the main hand would be -2 / (-2-5) and the off hand would be -2 / -5. If it said "albeit at an additional -5 penalty", it would clearly stack. As is, it could be intended as replacing the -2. RAI? Not at all. RAW? Seems that way.
You get a third attack with your off-hand weapon, albeit at a –10 penalty.
Again here, it seems to be stating a penalty to this third attack which otherwise would not be penalized at all. Thus -2 / -5 / -10.
Definitely FAQ/errata worthy, if just for clarity's sake. The easiest fix would be to change the general two weapon fighting rules to add "or attacks" to the off-hand section. That's all it would take, and it would also address the case of wielding a speed weapon in your off hand (you already took the two-weapon fighting attack, with it's -2, and now you take the speed attack without it).
Edit: I'm not sure if FAQs for different posts in the same thread stack, but I'd suggest FAQing this one rather than the original post, just because I spell out specifically what the problem is. Without that, it might be looked at, and said "Of course it doesn't work that way" and ignored.
Y'know, I was originally going to post another "how could you think that?" post, but after reading the rule text, I think I have to agree with JohnBear. Not in the intent, but in the actual text.
{snip}
Definitely FAQ/errata worthy, if just...
Thanks Bobson. Here's what I was just typing whilst you were apparently doing the same...
In answer to AvalonXQ's request (and Trikk's notes) here is how I came upon the results that I did.
Assumptions:
1) Descriptive text ALWAYS overrides tables
2) Base attack bonus of +20, yielding normal combat progression of +20 / +15 / +10 / +5
3) Character has TWF, ITWF, and GTWF
4) Ignore all stat bonuses
5) Both weapons are considered to be "light" (let's keep the math simple)
References
In an effort to make sure that we are all using the same references I will be pulling the rules from the
following website: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/
For the sake of speed and neatness I will include the relevant rules here inside spoiler tags
Two-Weapon Fighting
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You
suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack
with your off hand when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in two ways. First, if your off-hand
weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light. Second, the
Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6.
Table: Two-weapon Fighting Penalties summarizes the interaction of all these factors.
{snip}
Table: Two-Weapon Fighting Penalties
Circumstances Primary Hand Off Hand
Normal penalties –6 –10
Off-hand weapon
is light and Two-Weapon Fighting feat –2 –2
Two Weapon Fighting Feat
You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands. You can make one extra attack each round with the
secondary weapon.
Prerequisite: Dex 15.
Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary
hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6. See Two-Weapon Fighting in Combat.
Normal: If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.
When fighting in this way 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. If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2
each. An unarmed strike is always considered light.
Improved Two Weapon Fighting Feat
You are skilled at fighting with two weapons.
Prerequisites: Dex 17, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: In addition to the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you get a second attack
with it, albeit at a –5 penalty.
Normal: Without this feat, you can only get a single extra attack with an off-hand weapon.
Greater Two Weapon Fighting Feat
You are incredibly skilled at fighting with two weapons at the same time.
Prerequisites: Dex 19, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +11.
Benefit: You get a third attack with your off-hand weapon, albeit at a –10 penalty.
Let's start with the case where the character has none of the feats. They take a -6 penalty to all attacks with
the PRIMARY HAND (says so with "attacks" being plural). THEN it says you take a penalty of -10 to the ATTACK
(singular) with your off hand. OK so far...we're all in agreement.
TWF just changes the penalty (in this case to a -2 to all attacks with the PRIMARY hand and a -2 to the attack
with the off hand). Again, we're all in agreement.
Now the tricky part.
Nowhere does it say that the "-2" penalty applies to additional attacks with the off hand. Just the one attack.
Which makes sense because at that point you only *have* one additional attack.
ITWF says that you get an *additional attack* at a -5 penalty. Given that the initial "-2" for TWF comes off the
highest attack, so would this -5. Note that the feat does NOT say that you get *an additional" penalty. just
that you get "a penalty". Furthermore, under the basic rules for Two Weapon Fighting, it EXPLICITLY calls out
*all* attacks with your *primary* hand.
The exact same reasoning and logic prevails with GTWF.
Thus to make the actual TEXT of the rules here agree with the tables (for instance Monk Flurry) the text of the
ITWF and GTWF feats must change to read: "albeit at an additional -X penalty to the offhand weapon
".
That's all I'm saying.
Without that change out BAB(20) character has attacks like this:
Primary hand: +18 / +13 / +8 / +3
Off hand: +18 / +15 / +10
With that change out BAB(20) character has attacks like this:
Primary hand: +18 / +13 / +8 / +3
Off hand: +18 / +13 / +8
Which is what the tables (and most convention) says should be the case.
If anyone can find in the RAW where this reasoning does not apply please point it out. Otherwise the Devs should
add this as an errata item in the next go around.
JohnBear
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Y'know, I was originally going to post another "how could you think that?" post, but after reading the rule text, I think I have to agree with JohnBear. Not in the intent, but in the actual text.
{snip}
Definitely FAQ/errata worthy, if just...
Thanks Bobson. Here's what I was just typing whilst you were apparently doing the same...
In answer to AvalonXQ's request (and Trikk's notes) here is how I came upon the results that I did.
Assumptions:
1) Descriptive text ALWAYS overrides tables
2) Base attack bonus of +20, yielding normal combat progression of +20 / +15 / +10 / +5
3) Character has TWF, ITWF, and GTWF
4) Ignore all stat bonuses
5) Both weapons are considered to be "light" (let's keep the math simple)
References
In an effort to make sure that we are all using the same references I will be pulling the rules from the
following website: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/
For the sake of speed and neatness I will include the relevant rules here inside spoiler tags
Two-Weapon Fighting
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You
suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack
with your off hand when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in two ways. First, if your off-hand
weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light. Second, the
Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6.
Table: Two-weapon Fighting Penalties summarizes the interaction of all these factors.
{snip}
Table: Two-Weapon Fighting Penalties
Circumstances Primary Hand Off Hand
Normal penalties –6 –10
Off-hand weapon
is light and Two-Weapon Fighting feat –2 –2
Two Weapon Fighting Feat
You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands. You can make one extra attack each round with the
secondary weapon.
Prerequisite: Dex 15.
Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary
hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6. See Two-Weapon Fighting in Combat.
Normal: If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.
When fighting in this way 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. If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2
each. An unarmed strike is always considered light.
Improved Two Weapon Fighting Feat
You are skilled at fighting with two weapons.
Prerequisites: Dex 17, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: In addition to the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you get a second attack
with it, albeit at a –5 penalty.
Normal: Without this feat, you can only get a single extra attack with an off-hand weapon.
Greater Two Weapon Fighting Feat
You are incredibly skilled at fighting with two weapons at the same time.
Prerequisites: Dex 19, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +11.
Benefit: You get a third attack with your off-hand weapon, albeit at a –10 penalty.
Let's start with the case where the character has none of the feats. They take a -6 penalty to all attacks with
the PRIMARY HAND (says so with "attacks" being plural). THEN it says you take a penalty of -10 to the ATTACK
(singular) with your off hand. OK so far...we're all in agreement.
TWF just changes the penalty (in this case to a -2 to all attacks with the PRIMARY hand and a -2 to the attack
with the off hand). Again, we're all in agreement.
Now the tricky part.
Nowhere does it say that the "-2" penalty applies to additional attacks with the off hand. Just the one attack.
Which makes sense because at that point you only *have* one additional attack.
ITWF says that you get an *additional attack* at a -5 penalty. Given that the initial "-2" for TWF comes off the
highest attack, so would this -5. Note that the feat does NOT say that you get *an additional" penalty. just
that you get "a penalty". Furthermore, under the basic rules for Two Weapon Fighting, it EXPLICITLY calls out
*all* attacks with your *primary* hand.
The exact same reasoning and logic prevails with GTWF.
Thus to make the actual TEXT of the rules here agree with the tables (for instance Monk Flurry) the text of the
ITWF and GTWF feats must change to read: "albeit at an additional -X penalty to the offhand weapon
".
That's all I'm saying.
Without that change out BAB(20) character has attacks like this:
Primary hand: +18 / +13 / +8 / +3
Off hand: +18 / +15 / +10
With that change out BAB(20) character has attacks like this:
Primary hand: +18 / +13 / +8 / +3
Off hand: +18 / +13 / +8
Which is what the tables (and most convention) says should be the case.
If anyone can find in the RAW where this reasoning does not apply please point it out. Otherwise the Devs should
add this as an errata item in the next go around.
JohnBear
The -2 applies to the TWF fighting style, therefore it is always there.
The -5 from the improved and greater versions is tacked on in addition to that. I will explain it in detail later on if nobody else does it first.
PS:There are areas when the writing is not that clear. If this is bothering you go and check out the mirror image, and great cleave thread. :)
The -2 applies to the TWF fighting style, therefore it is always there.
Except it's not explicitly attached to the style. It's attached to attacks (plural) with the main hand, and the single attack granted by TWF (the style) with the off hand.
|
The ITWF and GTWF feats grant additional off-hand attacks at a -5 and -10 penalty respectively. You must use your current off-hand attack bonus to determine your iterative off-hand attack bonuses.
Since you must be TWFing to get those extra attacks, and they must be taken in order, your first off-hand attack is taking the -2 penalty. Thus, you must subtract 5 and 10 from your off-hand attack bonus (which is at a -2 like your main hand attack) to determine off-hand iterative attack bonuses.
Thus, main and off-hand attack bonuses are the same for each iterative.
The table(one for TWF) says use the -2 when TWF'ing, and the table is not contradicting any written text that I noticed. Therefore it is always on. Combine that with ToZ's post which is above this one and the results are correct.
You must use your current off-hand attack bonus to determine your iterative off-hand attack bonuses.
That's a mind read (and a common hold over from 3.5 apparently, as we all go with that in actual play...) Nowhere in the RAW does it actually say that.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You must use your current off-hand attack bonus to determine your iterative off-hand attack bonuses.
That's a mind read (and a common hold over from 3.5 apparently, as we all go with that in actual play...) Nowhere in the RAW does it actually say that.
So it looks like we have two interpretations here: JohnBear's, and most everyone else's.
"Everyone Else": It is held that "most penalties stack" means that penalties stack unless otherwise noted, and therefore the "-2 to all attacks" from TWF really does mean "-2 to all attacks", which in turn causes the calculated attack bonuses to match those from the table, leaving us with no unanswered discrepancies.
JohnBear: It is held that "most penalties stack" means... I'm not really sure what, but something which causes "-2 to all attacks" to not stack with other penalties, resulting in calculated values that just happen to be exactly 2 off from the values in the table. This leaves us needing to explain what could be meant by "most penalties stacks" that allows an unspecified penalty to be exempt, and we also have to explain why the table would be off in the first place, for a total of two discrepancies.
So unless there's something I missed, the former makes everything work without contradicting anything else, while the latter creates two discrepancies which would then need to be reconciled.
I think this thread is done.
IMHO: If 98% of the community gets it the rule does not need to be adjusted.
So it looks like we have two interpretations here: JohnBear's, and most everyone else's.
{snip}
So unless there's something I missed, the former makes everything work without contradicting anything else, while the latter creates two discrepancies which would then need to be reconciled.
I think this thread is done.
"Most penalties stack" actually means absolutely nothing because it is too vague. Thus we read into it what we want it to mean (probably "all applicable penalties stack").
I started this thread because the TWFing rules were extremely specific in how they were written (especially compared to the vagueness mentioned above) in that they talked about specific "attacks" with a specific hand. Not the style or "all attacks".
Apparently all of us (myself included) read into the rules what we were expecting to see based upon our past association with different flavors of the game.
The exact wording of the text implies that the penalties do not stack, thus the RAW needs to be updated.
The exact wording of the text implies that the penalties do not stack, thus the RAW needs to be updated.
No it doesn't and no it doesn't.
So it looks like we have two interpretations here: JohnBear's, and most everyone else's.
{snip}
So unless there's something I missed, the former makes everything work without contradicting anything else, while the latter creates two discrepancies which would then need to be reconciled.
I think this thread is done.
"Most penalties stack" actually means absolutely nothing because it is too vague. Thus we read into it what we want it to mean (probably "all applicable penalties stack").
I started this thread because the TWFing rules were extremely specific in how they were written (especially compared to the vagueness mentioned above) in that they talked about specific "attacks" with a specific hand. Not the style or "all attacks".
Apparently all of us (myself included) read into the rules what we were expecting to see based upon our past association with different flavors of the game.
The exact wording of the text implies that the penalties do not stack, thus the RAW needs to be updated.
Table: Two-Weapon Fighting Penalties is where the below information is from.
The TWF table says that when TWF'ing you get a -2 for your primary and off hand attacks when using a light weapon in the off-hand and TWF'ing.
I think we can agree you are already at a -2 penalty if both of these are met.
----------
Using ITWF gets you another attack, but with an additional penalty -5. Remember the -2 is already in play, and from a different source so they stack.
------------------------
Here is how. You are initially at a -10 just for trying to use TWF. You use a light weapon, and the penalty is reduced. You add in the TWF feat and the penalty is further reduced.
So lets look at this at his again your -6, -10 penalties have been reduced to -2,-2 due to a light weapon and the first TWF feat.
Later you qualify for ITWF with a -5 penalty, which is not the same penalty from TWF. The feats are in the same feat tree, but are still separate feats, and therefore different sources, therefore they stack, and not overlap.
How do we know penalties stack?
....a character taking two or more penalties of the same type applies only the worst one, although most penalties have no type and thus always stack.
So unless you can show where the penalties from the TWF feat tree are of a certain type and therefore don't stack, or you can show where a special exception to the rule is mentioned and it says they over ride each other no errata is needed.