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.
It's not done until you can quote the line from the two weapon fighting rules which actually says "-2 to all attacks".
This has nothing to do with whether penalties stack or not. It has everything to do with the fact that nowhere does it say that the penalty associated with ITWF or GTWF is supposed to stack with anything.
I'll reiterate that I think that the wording is poor, that it is supposed to stack, and that everyone who assumes that it does is right. But I'll also reiterate that the rules as written give no indication of that.
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.
Please refer to my earlier post, and my analysis of the 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.
The main hand says it applies to all attacks. The off hand says it only applies to the single extra attack you get. The later feats just say "An attack at this specific penalty" not "An attack at this additional penalty".
If you argue that if they do stack without saying so, then the off hand attack sequence should actually be -2 / -7 / -17, because GTWF gives a -10 penalty which would stack with ITWF's -5 and the default -2.
I see I looked at it incorrectly. I will redo my analysis.
ITWF only refers to the second attack, and GTWF is only concerned with the 3rd attack by RAW.
so for GTWF it would be BAB(at least 11 -2(for TWF'ing with light weapons) -10( for 3rd offhand attack give to you by the GTWF feat.)
Benefit: You get a third attack with your off-hand weapon, albeit at a –10 penalty.
Note GTWF only references the third attack for its penalty.
and ITWF only references the 2nd attack for its penalty which is below.
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.
Going back to the TWF fighting style as a whole:
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.
Note the bolded section which says "when you fight this way". Then note that text that refers you to the table when fighting in that manner which gives you the penalties for you main and off hand attacks. It does not say for the first primary or off-hand attack only.
Now because you are fighting in "that way" you are at a -2. You then decide you want a second attack with the offhand so you take ITWF, so you to take the -5 and tack it on to the -2 that you are already dealing with.
Later you want a 3rd off-hand attack, but that off-hand attack is at a -10, but you still have to deal with the -2 from fighting that way.
Now the entry feat in this feat tree is TWF. It does not give a penalty, but reduces the penalties from fighting that way meaning it is always on.
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.
TWF(the entry feat) never says for your first, second, or third attack. It only cares that you are using a primary and an off-hand.
I'm just quoting your quote again concerro and bold another section:
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.
I think the main point they're making is, for primary hand it actually says "attack or attacks" and therefore clearly speaks of all, no question.
For the offhand it only says "attack", and therefore obviously only means the first additional attack.However they're forgetting something:
The default penalty for TWF with the feat (you can't ITWF without the TWF feat, so ignoreing the -6/-10 situation) is not -2/-2 it's -4/-4. The extra +2 is a reduction of the penalty (not a bonus) for using a light-hand weapon.
So assume someone is using a longsword, do you guys actually propose with BAB 20 their attacks are:
Mainhand: 16/11/6/1
Offhand: 16/15/10
??
And when you then use a light-weapon, what happens then, it also doesn't affeckt the additional attacks? Or does it and it's suddenly 18/17/12, basicly better than the normal non TWF attacks would be?
Come on, you seriously can't believe that.
Yes, it might be written SLIGHTLY weird, but if you think about it for 3 seconds and still think that's how it actually works, you should probably consider not DMing anymore, for the sake of your players.
If the rules were all 100% waterproof, we'd not need DMs anymore, we could just replace them with a computer. Because that is your job as a DM to make a call on rules that seem weird, or poorly written and apply common sense to them. And your interpretation that they do not stack just makes no sense at all.
I will also add the book is full of rules that are not easy to read. An example is trying to figure out the damage to TWF weapons when using a double weapon. It has been read by many as applying the full damage to both sides, and even though that is not the intent I saw their points.
Now the thread Abraham made about monks and using TWF is something that needs to be fixed.
The main hand says it applies to all attacks. The off hand says it only applies to the single extra attack you get. The later feats just say "An attack at this specific penalty" not "An attack at this additional penalty".How do you determine what the bonus you apply that penalty to is?
Huh? What bonus?
Edit: If you're asking what the default bonus to attacks that you're penalizing is, it's your full BAB, because all attacks are made at full BAB, before factoring in any penalties (including normal iterative penalties).
Your attack bonus with a melee weapon is: Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + size modifier
I think the main point they're making is, for primary hand it actually says "attack or attacks" and therefore clearly speaks of all, no question.
For the offhand it only says "attack", and therefore obviously only means the first additional attack.
Exactly.
However they're forgetting something:
The default penalty for TWF with the feat (you can't ITWF without the TWF feat, so ignoreing the -6/-10 situation) is not -2/-2 it's -4/-4. The extra +2 is a reduction of the penalty (not a bonus) for using a light-hand weapon.So assume someone is using a longsword, do you guys actually propose with BAB 20 their attacks are:
Mainhand: 16/11/6/1
Offhand: 16/15/10
??And when you then use a light-weapon, what happens then, it also doesn't affeckt the additional attacks? Or does it and it's suddenly 18/17/12, basicly better than the normal non TWF attacks would be?
No, you were right in the first place.
16/11/6/1+16/15/10 becomes 18/13/8/3+18/15/10Come on, you seriously can't believe that.
Yes, it might be written SLIGHTLY weird, but if you think about it for 3 seconds and still think that's how it actually works, you should probably consider not DMing anymore, for the sake of your players.If the rules were all 100% waterproof, we'd not need DMs anymore, we could just replace them with a computer. Because that is your job as a DM to make a call on rules that seem weird, or poorly written and apply common sense to them. And your interpretation that they do not stack just makes no sense at all.
The problem with appealing to how something "actually works" is that it's entirely possible for the majority of people (or at least the majority of posters) to be doing it wrong. See some of the big clarifications that the devs put out: Vital Strike, tripping with non-trip weapons, etc. I don't think that's the case here, but it does invalidate the "everyone does it this way" arguments.
|
Edit: If you're asking what the default bonus to attacks that you're penalizing is, it's your full BAB, because all attacks are made at full BAB, before factoring in any penalties (including normal iterative penalties).
Okay, I see where you're coming from. I'm still going with concerro's point that the TWF penalty table says 'off-hand', which means all off-hand attacks take a penalty, not just the first, as the text says. (Since the table is saying the extra attacks from ITWF and GTWF get the penalty, this is not in conflict with the text.)
However they're forgetting something:
The default penalty for TWF with the feat (you can't ITWF without the TWF feat, so ignoreing the -6/-10 situation) is not -2/-2 it's -4/-4. The extra +2 is a reduction of the penalty (not a bonus) for using a light-hand weapon.
So suddenly it wouldn't matter if you used a light or one handed weapon. That should send up additional red flags to anyone who thinks that's how it works. Even if you could understand your reading of it, tons of other people can also understand the correct reading, so maybe it's not a problem with the rules so much as your inability to see evidence that contradicts your view, like this, or the fact that penalties stack, or come on duh.
So suddenly it wouldn't matter if you used a light or one handed weapon. That should send up additional red flags to anyone who thinks that's how it works. Even if you could understand your reading of it, tons of other people can also understand the correct reading, so maybe it's not a problem with the rules so much as your inability to see evidence that contradicts your view, like this, or the fact that penalties stack, or come on duh.
However they're forgetting something:
The default penalty for TWF with the feat (you can't ITWF without the TWF feat, so ignoreing the -6/-10 situation) is not -2/-2 it's -4/-4. The extra +2 is a reduction of the penalty (not a bonus) for using a light-hand weapon.
It would matter for the main hand attacks and the first offhand attack - which is everything that's actually talked about in the rules on fighting with two weapons and in the TWF feat itself. It only wouldn't matter to the extra attacks granted by ITWF and GTWF. I don't think that counts as "it wouldn't matter."
Also, just because "tons of other people" believe it doesn't make it right.
And finally, I'm still waiting for someone to actually post evidence that the -2 to the single off hand attack referenced by the TWF stuff (including the TWF table) is supposed to apply to all off hand attacks. I'm also still waiting for someone who supports the "penalties stack for each subsequent attack, even when there isn't anything explicitly saying so" position, like yourself, to tell me why the third attack that GTWF lets you make isn't at -17. Feel free to provide said evidence.
|
|
And finally, I'm still waiting for someone to actually post evidence that the -2 to the single off hand attack referenced by the TWF stuff (including the TWF table) is supposed to apply to all off hand attacks.
The table says 'off-hand', not 'off-hand attack', and therefore applies to all attacks made with the off-hand.
The table says 'off-hand', not 'off-hand attack', and therefore applies to all attacks made with the off-hand.
And finally, I'm still waiting for someone to actually post evidence that the -2 to the single off hand attack referenced by the TWF stuff (including the TWF table) is supposed to apply to all off hand attacks.
But tables are subordinate to the descriptive text, and the descriptive text specifies only a single off hand attack. It is perfectly valid to interpret the table's "Off-hand" label as applying to the single off hand attack that the rules text mentions, as opposed to all off hand attacks (which it specifically doesn't).
Subordinate, but not overridden. The text says the attack, the table adds all attacks. The text does not contradict the table.
But the table doesn't add all attacks. It just says "off hand", not "off hand attacks". In and of itself, that's not enough to draw any conclusions from. Compare to table 8-2, the "Actions in Combat" table. It has a column named "Attack of Opportunity". From that label alone, you can't tell whether it's saying that the specified actions provoke an AoO or can be done as an AoO. You have to refer back to the text to find out that it's the former rather than the latter.
In this case, referring back to the text tells you that it's in reference to the single off hand attack granted by fighting with a second weapon.
Note this text which is not a part of the table but directs you to the table-->Table: Two-weapon Fighting Penalties the interaction of all these factors.
The text basically says refer to the table for more detail, which is where the "off-hand attack" numbers come in which apply to all off-hand attacks.
Not only that, but the text says
"Second, the Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6."
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.
At no point do I see a limitation that would apply only to the first off-hand attack. I just see a reduction to the off-hand attack penalty which applies to all TWF attacks.
The feat just says "...for fighting with two weapons...", which happens no matter how many off-hand attacks you have, therefore it should apply even up to GTWF.
Subordinate, but not overridden. The text says the attack, the table adds all attacks. The text does not contradict the table.But the table doesn't add all attacks. It just says "off hand", not "off hand attacks". In and of itself, that's not enough to draw any conclusions from. Compare to table 8-2, the "Actions in Combat" table. It has a column named "Attack of Opportunity". From that label alone, you can't tell whether it's saying that the specified actions provoke an AoO or can be done as an AoO. You have to refer back to the text to find out that it's the former rather than the latter.
In this case, referring back to the text tells you that it's in reference to the single off hand attack granted by fighting with a second weapon.
Ok. I see the issue now.
Time for another breakdown.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.
TWF(the spell full round attack) before you add any feats gives you no way to drop penalties(with respect to feats), and no extra off-hand attacks other than the first one.
So with no feat you get one extra attack with an off-hand weapon, and a penalty for doing so. The TWF section then goes on to say that "when you fight this way", which can only be assumed to mean when you employ TWF Fighting that you take certain penalties since it is in the TWF section.
It then goes on to give you ways to reduce those penalties while fighting in that way.
It also sends you to the table for an example of intent that does not contradict the text.
The ITWF, and the GTWF feats give you extra attacks "when you fight this way", and also provide you with the consequences of doing so.
It is academic unless "when you fight this way" does not refer to TWF'ing.
PS: Vital Strike was a bad example since most people got that one wrong, and most people get TWF right.
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.
TWF(the spell full round attack) before you add any feats gives you no way to drop penalties(with respect to feats), and no extra off-hand attacks other than the first one.
So with no feat you get one extra attack with an off-hand weapon, and a penalty for doing so. The TWF section then goes on to say that "when you fight this way", which can only be assumed to mean when you employ TWF Fighting that you take certain penalties since it is in the TWF section.
It then goes on to give you ways to reduce those penalties while fighting in that way.
It also sends you to the table for an example of intent that does not contradict the text.The ITWF, and the GTWF feats give you extra attacks "when you fight this way", and also provide you with the consequences of doing so.
It is academic unless "when you fight this way" does not refer to TWF'ing.
You missed my point. I'm not arguing that "when you fight this way" doesn't mean TWF, or vice versa. I'm saying that the penalty applied "when you fight this way" (i.e. when you fight with two weapons) only applies to the first attack you get when you fight this way.
Take a look at ITWF:
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.
Normally, you get a single extra attack with an off hand weapon. No disagreement there. That attack is at a -2 penalty (based on the TWF rules and the table). Again, no disagreement. ITWF grants you a second attack with that off-hand weapon, at a -5 penalty. Here's where we differ. I say that the wording on this is vague enough that there is no indication that this -5 penalty is supposed to stack with the -2 to the single extra attack. It doesn't say "an additional -5 penalty" or anything else to link them. And as previously discussed, the original attack penalty was specifically only for that attack.
PS: Vital Strike was a bad example since most people got that one wrong, and most people get TWF right.
But that's exactly why it's a good example of how saying "the crowd is right" is bad logic. People could have argued (and probably did) "this is how everyone sees it" about Vital Strike, but then the devs said "Nope, that's not how we intended it. Here's official clarification."
It would matter for the main hand attacks and the first offhand attack - which is everything that's actually talked about in the rules on fighting with two weapons and in the TWF feat itself. It only wouldn't matter to the extra attacks granted by ITWF and GTWF. I don't think that counts as "it wouldn't matter."
Seriously? In no way does that make sense. The two weapon fighting section only mentions one attack because that's all the normal person gets. It would be stupid to point out that you get only one extra attack for twf (which it does) and then say that the penalty applies to multiple fictional attacks, but the chart gives you solid evidence for when you may have other attacks and what penalties would apply, the ITWF feat then also adds a penalty, and penalties stack.
I say that the wording on this is vague enough that there is no indication that this -5 penalty is supposed to stack with the -2 to the single extra attack. It doesn't say "an additional -5 penalty" or anything else to link them. And as previously discussed, the original attack penalty was specifically only for that attack.
Ok, after reading it again I see what you are saying since I am assuming the focus is on the phrase "attack with your off hand" which I am guessing you think should read "attack", but look at it like this. The "fight this way" is not referring to a single attack. It is referring to the TWF situation as a whole.
Normally the TWF situation as a whole only gives you one extra attack that occurs through the off-hand. I think we can agree on that.
The text also refers you to the table for what basically amounts to complete instructions in which it gives you the penalties for using the TWF style. For the sake of saving time, if the word "style" irritates you replace it or ignore it, only because I hate arguing semantics.
That penalty is being applied to the offhand because you are using TWF, otherwise you get no extra attack, and no penalty. If you disagree then please state why.
When obtaining the ITWF and GTWF feats you are still using TWF so the penalty still applies to the off-hand. The feat allows you additional off-hand attacks while using the TWF style, but with a penalty tacked on to it also. If you want to be rid of the penalty then one must no longer TWF.
"But that's exactly why it's a good example of how saying "the crowd is right" is bad logic. People could have argued (and probably did) "this is how everyone sees it" about Vital Strike, but then the devs said "Nope, that's not how we intended it. Here's official clarification."
I think it makes it a terrible example because it was a badly written feat.
As an example if I say go to Cairo, and only 1% of the people go to Japan looking for Cairo because I did not specify what country Cairo was in you can't compare it to me saying "go to Georgia", and having 99% of the people go to the state of Georgia when I meant the country because one set of instructions is clearly easier to get right than the other.
In the TWF example, and the Cairo example most people will go to the correct place, and get it done correctly(regarding the feat). With the Vital Strike action it was never spelled out as its own standard action. It was written similar to power attack which is a choice that can be added to another attack and is not an attack on its own.
Now when you read anything some level of interpretation will always be required. Even technical manuals which are written to be very precise confuse some people. The best you can do is write it so that most people understand it. There are not too many rules in the game that I have not seen confuse someone no matter how many other people had a clear understanding of how the rule worked.
That penalty is being applied to the offhand because you are using TWF, otherwise you get no extra attack, and no penalty. If you disagree then please state why.When obtaining the ITWF and GTWF feats you are still using TWF so the penalty still applies to the off-hand. The feat allows you additional off-hand attacks while using the TWF style, but with a penalty tacked on to it also. If you want to be rid of the penalty then one must no longer TWF.
Bobson the Literalist: LOVE the new alias - I'll have to do the same at some point {grin}
concerro & others: The discussion appears to have shifted here from my original post...
The TWF style is less the issue than than the effects (and more specifically the wording) of the ITWF & GTWF feats. We have feats all over the game that essentially re-write the rules (agile maneuvers, etc).
Given how often feats & class powers carve out all sorts of exceptions and the emergence of byzantine rules situations is not surprising.
Also given the assumption I made at the beginning (that a more specific rule always overrides a more general one) was never challenged we'll run with that.
The problem in the RAW (vs. the RAI) is that the feats both say you get an extra attack at a *specific* penalty. DONE! No mention of what to apply the penalty to. Rules convention is that attack penalties all base off the base attack bonus. Gaming tradition (going back to DnD 3.0) is that these penalties are off the second hand's attack (with the -x original penalty in place).
The table (Table: Two-Weapon Fighting Penalties), if it truly was the "complete instructions" would have included 2 more lines to account for the ITWF & GTWF feats. All of which were published in the same book.
It (obviously) springs from the cut-n-paste nature of how the book was assembled.
To address concerro directly, (and please remember that we are talking about what the words literally are (a very clintonian way of arguing to be sure, but it works in law and therapy...) when you are gaining additional attacks (ITWF & GTWF) with your off hand weapon you are no longer (by definition) fighting "this way" since you now have additional attacks, using additional feats.
So until one of the devs (SKR maybe?) chimes in and clearly states what they officially meant, the table under Monk FoB) is wrong.
And if Vital Strike is a badly written feat, so is TWF/ITWF/GTWF.
The problem in the RAW (vs. the RAI) is that the feats both say you get an extra attack at a *specific* penalty. DONE! No mention of what to apply the penalty to. Rules convention is that attack penalties all base off the base attack bonus. Gaming tradition (going back to DnD 3.0) is that these penalties are off the second hand's attack (with the -x original penalty in place).
Not done. There is a general rule that says penalties stack. You are asking for the ITWF and GTWF feats to state that they add to the TWF penalty. I do understand that sometimes PF will repeat a rule as a reminder, but it is not needed. Should they either repeat all the time or never to stay consistent? For me the answer is not, but that would still be a valid arguement if someone said said. In order for the feat penalties to supersede the TWF penalties already in place that would need a specific rule, since it would mean penalties are not stacking like they normally do. I have already quoted where penalties stack. You would need to prove that the feat supersedes and does not stack by RAW or least list why the general stacking rule is not going to apply in this case.
Your arguement that the feats don't say what the penalty applies to is also false. If that were the case then nobody would know where to apply the penalty to at all. They would not know to apply it to AC, saves, and so on, but the feat does say.
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 "it" refers to the off-hand attack so the break is that you get the penalty to the off-hand. You already have a -2 already for TWF'ing for fighting in that way. Since you are still fighting in that way the penalty still applies. Since penalties stack the answer is academic unless the "it" refers to something else. If that is the case I would like to hear what "it" is. No pun intended.
Fighting this way involves TWF'ing as a whole as written, which I already explained. The RAW is correct, and needs no adjusting.
edit:clarification
Your arguement that the feats don't say what the penalty applies to is also false. If that were the case then nobody would know where to apply the penalty to at all. They would not know to apply it to AC, saves, and so on, but the feat does say.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 "it" refers to the off-hand attack so the break is that you get the penalty to the off-hand. You already have a -2 already for TWF'ing for fighting in that way. Since you are still fighting in that way the penalty still applies. Since penalties stack the answer is academic unless the "it" refers to something else. If that is the case I would like to hear what "it" is. No pun intended.
Fighting this way involves TWF'ing as a whole as written, which I already explained. The RAW is correct, and needs no adjusting.
edit:clarification
So why is the third attack from GTWF not at -17?
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.
You get a third attack with your off-hand weapon, albeit at a –10 penalty.
It seems to me that if you read the text of ITWF to be stacking with the -2 (or -4) from your first off hand attack with two weapons, then the only valid reading for GTWF, which uses the same text, is that it applies an additional -10 to the attack from ITWF:
"You get a second attack with [an off-hand weapon], albeit at a -5 penalty."
"You get a third attack with your off-hand weapon, albeit at a -10 penalty."
Either the penalties stack (-2/-7/-17) or they don't (-2/-5/-10). I can't see any other literal reading which makes sense.
Bobson the Literalist: LOVE the new alias - I'll have to do the same at some point {grin}
I'm just happy I found an avatar which works well for it, while still being reminiscent of my usual one.
Except that the penalties for ITWF and GTWF are especially called out as applying to that strike, where as the basic TWF penalties apply to all attacks a person makes.
Either the penalties stack (-2/-7/-17) or they don't (-2/-5/-10). I can't see any other literal reading which makes sense.
"You suffer ... a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand" (reduced to -2 or -4 by other rules)
"You get a second attack with [an off-hand weapon], albeit at a -5 penalty.""You get a third attack with your off-hand weapon, albeit at a -10 penalty."
I see three attacks, one at a -2 or -4 penalty (reduced from -10), one at a -5 penalty, and one at a -10 penalty. I really can't see any reading of these three sentences where they stack, or where the first penalty applies to each of the other two. In other words, you say that ITWF and GTWF are called out as applying to the strike they grant, and I agree and add that TWF itself is called out the same way. Thus three attacks, at three penalties each associated with a single attack.
So why is the third attack from GTWF not at -17?
I answered that one a long time ago. The -2 from "fighting in that way applies anytime you are using the TWF style of attacking.
The feats specifically call out which attack they apply too. ITWF calls out the second offhand attack meaning it is limited to that attack. GTWF specifically calls out the 3rd attack.
However they never put in verbage that supersedes the -2 from "fighting in that way", but by calling out the 2nd or 3rd offhand attack depending on which feat is in discussion the effect of the penalty is limited to that attack.
PS:I do like the name.
Except that the penalties for ITWF and GTWF are especially called out as applying to that strike, where as the basic TWF penalties apply to all attacks a person makes.
Either the penalties stack (-2/-7/-17) or they don't (-2/-5/-10). I can't see any other literal reading which makes sense.
Darn I was ninja'd, and with a lot less words.
Except that the penalties for ITWF and GTWF are especially called out as applying to that strike, where as the basic TWF penalties apply to all attacks a person makes.
Either the penalties stack (-2/-7/-17) or they don't (-2/-5/-10). I can't see any other literal reading which makes sense."You suffer ... a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand" (reduced to -2 or -4 by other rules)
"You get a second attack with [an off-hand weapon], albeit at a -5 penalty."
"You get a third attack with your off-hand weapon, albeit at a -10 penalty."I see three attacks, one at a -2 or -4 penalty (reduced from -10), one at a -5 penalty, and one at a -10 penalty. I really can't see any reading of these three sentences where they stack, or where the first penalty applies to each of the other two. In other words, you say that ITWF and GTWF are called out as applying to the strike they grant, and I agree and add that TWF itself is called out the same way. Thus three attacks, at three penalties each associated with a single attack.
You just quoted the rule that kills your argument. The first penalty is applied to the off hand. The feats stipulate that the feat applies NOT to the off hand but to the off hand WEAPON. Different penalties, and thus they stack.
CASE CLOSED
EDIT: Sorta ninja'd by not reading the posts following the quote.
You just quoted the rule that kills your argument. The first penalty is applied to the off hand. The feats stipulate that the feat applies NOT to the off hand but to the off hand WEAPON. Different penalties, and thus they stack.
CASE CLOSED
That's a pretty good point, but let me add a fourth line and some emphasis to show why that logic doesn't work for me:
"You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand" (reduced to -2 or -4)
"You suffer ... a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand" (reduced to -2 or -4)
"You get a second attack with [an off-hand weapon], albeit at a -5 penalty."
"You get a third attack with your off-hand weapon, albeit at a -10 penalty."
The penalty in the second quote is singular, compared to the multiple attacks in the first one. Also, as far as I know, the phrases "an attack with your off hand" and "an attack with your off hand weapon" are interchangeable so long as you aren't dealing with spells.
Bob either you or the OP already asked about that 2nd line, and we already answered it, but I will do so again.
Without TWF before the ITWF and the GTWF feats you get several primary off-hand attacks if your BAB is high enough, but you without the feats you never get more than one off-hand attack, however if you write out that entire phrase instead of snipping it then it reads "a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way.".
Now we already know that fight this way refers to the TWF method.
When you bring the feats into it you are still fighting in that way. In order for your interpretation to be correct TWF would have to read that you only take that penalty to the first attack with an off-hand weapon which would also mean that the feats would have to be reworded, but the limiter is not there, and that is why it applies for TWF as a whole.
With regard to your side thought:
Most spells that require attack rolls are treated as weapons. As an example you can take weapon focus ray. A held spell goes off when you touch anything so if you were a monk cleric and you punched someone the first hit would also discharge the spell. I don't think you would be allowed to hit someone with two weapons at once so I would say a held spell is not a weapon, but you are armed which is why the touch spells don't provoke when you used them on their own, and unarmed attacked do unless have improved unarmed strike.
I will admit I don't know how your side thought works by RAW, and there is probably some loopiness in there, but the game is full of things that depend on figuring out intent at time to avoid it being written in legalese.
Bob either you or the OP already asked about that 2nd line, and we already answered it, but I will do so again.
Without TWF before the ITWF and the GTWF feats you get several primary off-hand attacks if your BAB is high enough, but you without the feats you never get more than one off-hand attack, however if you write out that entire phrase instead of snipping it then it reads "a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way.".
Now we already know that fight this way refers to the TWF method.
We're totally in agreement about what "fight this way" means. Whether you're just using a single off hand attack, or whether you have ITWF or GTWF, you're fighting "this way". What happens when you fight "this way"? Your main hand attack or attacks take a -10 penalty (reduced), and you get one extra attack with your off hand at a -10 penalty (also reduced).
ITWF modifies that to let you take two attacks with your off hand (the second at a -5 penalty), and GTWF modifies that to let you take a third attack (at a -10 penalty).
When you bring the feats into it you are still fighting in that way. In order for your interpretation to be correct TWF would have to read that you only take that penalty to the first attack with an off-hand weapon which would also mean that the feats would have to be reworded, but the limiter is not there, and that is why it applies for TWF as a whole.
My position is that it does specify that it's only to the first attack. Compare "Attack or attacks" with "the attack". One is plural, the other is singular. It's not as clear as it could be, and the change you suggested would help with that. Alternatively, changing it to a plural (such as "all attacks") would resolve it the other way.
My point is that the limitation is to the off-hand, and not just the first attack.
As an example the feats specifically call out the 2nd and 3rd attack.
The general TWF section in the combat section say the offhand attack because you only one off-hand attack at that time, but it never has any verbage limiting it to that particular off-hand attack like the feats do.
Once again I understand that it is singular, but you can't really apply penalties to attacks you don't have yet, and by the normal rules of the game you won't get. That bolded section is important because it helps to understand why the primary hand has both "attack" and "attacks". The reason is that by the default rules of the game you can potentially get more primary attacks. Without feats or some other special ability you never get more than that one off-hand attack.
That is why the "fight this way" verbage comes into play. By specifying the off hand attack(singular) the feats get kept out of the discussion, but it still keeps the penalty active whenever that type of combat(TWF) comes up. There would be no reason to include "fight this way" if not to allow it to always apply when that style of combat was being used. It could have just been left out. As I said before a literal interpretation would have to literally say that it refers to that first attack only.
Being literal: It says off-hand attack, but never says first, second, 3rd or 4th, and so on, so do I get to choose which attack to apply it to?
At least the feats specify attacks. The point is that if someone is willing to be obtuse enough nothing can be written perfectly. I have seen arguments for 9th level spells at level 1, and not as part of a thought exercise.