If a duelist has two weapon fighting how do the two abilities interact?
You get Precise Strike bonus damage when all of the following are true:
A) Attacking with a light or one-handed piercing weapon
B) Not attacking with a weapon in your other hand
C) Not using a shield
D) Attacking a living creature with discernible anatomy that is not immune to critical hits
When using Parry you elect not to take one of your attacks.
So lets say your 5th level rapier/dagger Duelist makes a full attack. You elect not to take your off-hand attack, saving it for Parry. You make your main hand attack(s) against an orc. When you hit the orc, you are attacking with a one-handed piercing weapon, you're not attacking with a weapon in your off-hand, you're not using a shield, and the orc has guts. So you get precise strike damage.
Later, when the orc attacks you, you can Parry it, and Riposte grants you an attack of opportunity. If you use your off-hand to take this AoO, then again, you're meeting ABCD above, and you'll get precise strike damage.
If, however, you elect to use your rapier for the AoO, some DMs may rule that you don't get precise strike, perhaps saying that since the parry activated the AoO, the AoO is sort of the same action, thus you're attacking with two weapons. (Parry is an attack roll) I don't really agree with this, as the Parry is an immediate action and the AoO is Not an Action. The problem is Precise Strike doesn't really specify an action or a timeframe, so people could read B) to mean you cannot attack with a weapon in your other hand this round or this turn or this hour. Personally, I think the only reasonable reading is to limit it only to the action in which the attack happens. So if you full-attack, don't use an off-hand. If it's an AoO, it doesn't matter what you attacked with earlier, it matters what you attack with right then. Just like with TWF, you don't take TWF penalties on AoOs, regardless of when the AoO happens or how you were fighting earlier.
When sacrificing your OH TWF attack, your MH (full) attacks should still be taken as if TWF, or in other words at the appropriate -2/-4 penalty.
Yes, I didn't mention that, but you'll need to take whatever penalties as if you had made that off-hand attack. (And they'll apply whenever you use that attack to Parry)
However, they shouldn't apply to the AoO granted from Riposte. That'll be a regular full-BAB AoO.
If a duelist has two weapon fighting how do the two abilities interact?You get Precise Strike bonus damage when all of the following are true:
A) Attacking with a light or one-handed piercing weapon
B) Not attacking with a weapon in your other hand
C) Not using a shield
D) Attacking a living creature with discernible anatomy that is not immune to critical hitsWhen using Parry you elect not to take one of your attacks.
So lets say your 5th level rapier/dagger Duelist makes a full attack. You elect not to take your off-hand attack, saving it for Parry. You make your main hand attack(s) against an orc. When you hit the orc, you are attacking with a one-handed piercing weapon, you're not attacking with a weapon in your off-hand, you're not using a shield, and the orc has guts. So you get precise strike damage.
Later, when the orc attacks you, you can Parry it, and Riposte grants you an attack of opportunity. If you use your off-hand to take this AoO, then again, you're meeting ABCD above, and you'll get precise strike damage.
If, however, you elect to use your rapier for the AoO, some DMs may rule that you don't get precise strike, perhaps saying that since the parry activated the AoO, the AoO is sort of the same action, thus you're attacking with two weapons. (Parry is an attack roll) I don't really agree with this, as the Parry is an immediate action and the AoO is Not an Action. The problem is Precise Strike doesn't really specify an action or a timeframe, so people could read B) to mean you cannot attack with a weapon in your other hand this round or this turn or this hour. Personally, I think the only reasonable reading is to limit it only to the action in which the attack happens. So if you full-attack,...
Which hand is your "other hand"? Sounds like it meant off-hand I'd guess. But maybe it just meant no two handing a one handed weapon?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which hand is your "other hand"? Sounds like it meant off-hand I'd guess. But maybe it just meant no two handing a one handed weapon?
The rules are based on the assumption you're a humanoid with two hands.
Using Precise Strike, when you attack with one hand, you're not attacking with a weapon in the other hand.
If it said "off-hand" it would apply only when Two-Weapon Fighting, and someone could use both hands via iterative attacks and still get precise strike.
If you're using both hands on your shortspear, you're attacking with a weapon in your other hand, so no precise strike.
If you're using Two-Weapon Fighting, and not using Parry, you're attacking with a weapon in your other hand, so no precise strike.
By using Parry, you're electing to not take that attack, meaning you're not attacking with it.
It's probably up to DM discretion if you have three hands as to whether B) means "other hand(s)" or means "one other hand." (I would rule the latter)
If you're using Two-Weapon Fighting, and not using Parry, you're attacking with a weapon in your other hand, so no precise strike.
Not when I'm attacking I'm not. I'm attacking with my hand, and when I'm making my other attack, it's being made with that hand, not the other hand. See how that wording starts to fall apart.
If it said off hand it would apply to TWF and if it says other hand it would apply this way and it could have said both.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm attacking with my hand, and when I'm making my other attack, it's being made with that hand, not the other hand.
If it's the same hand, then you're fine. If the other attack is using your other hand, then you can't use precise strike.
See how that wording starts to fall apart.
Not really.
If it said off hand it would apply to TWF and if it says other hand it would apply this way and it could have said both.
"Other hand" does apply to both. "Off-hand" only applies to one. I don't see the problem.
I'm attacking with my hand, and when I'm making my other attack, it's being made with that hand, not the other hand.If it's the same hand, then you're fine. If the other attack is using your other hand, then you can't use precise strike.
See how that wording starts to fall apart.Not really.
If it said off hand it would apply to TWF and if it says other hand it would apply this way and it could have said both."Other hand" does apply to both. "Off-hand" only applies to one. I don't see the problem.
If you're attacking with a hand you're never attacking with the other hand. It makes the least amount of sense when it's applied in real time like in your original example and applied on a per attack basis as opposed to per turn.
Because what you're saying now contradicts what you said earlier.
If you're attacking with a hand you're never attacking with the other hand. It makes the least amount of sense when it's applied in real time like in your original example and applied on a per attack basis as opposed to per turn.
Because what you're saying now contradicts what you said earlier.
See last paragraph of my first post in this thread.
If you apply it on a per-attack basis, then the restriction only applies to wielding a weapon two-handed. The wording "in her other hand" rather than "in both hands" means this is not the intent.
Applying it on the basis of time doesn't make sense because the ability doesn't restrict it, meaning if you have ever attacked with your other hand, you can't ever use precise strike. Thus: "Personally, I think the only reasonable reading is to limit it only to the action in which the attack happens."
If you full attack using the two-weapon fighting style and attack with both your rapier and your dagger, you do not get the bonus from precise strike.
If you do the same thing, but use parry to elect not to take your off-hand attack, then in that action you are not attacking with a weapon in that hand, thus your main hand can get the bonus from precise strike.
If, at any point, you take an AoO, even if that AoO was granted by an ability triggering from an attack with the other hand, you can get precise strike, because the AoO is a different action.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a duelist has two weapon fighting how do the two abilities interact?You get Precise Strike bonus damage when all of the following are true:
A) Attacking with a light or one-handed piercing weapon
B) Not attacking with a weapon in your other hand
C) Not using a shield
D) Attacking a living creature with discernible anatomy that is not immune to critical hits
The bit in bold is kind of important. If you are TWFing, you have a weapon in each hand, and you are using them. Now by RAW you can have anything you like in that hand, as long as you do not use it to get an extra attack you are not TWFing, so that's OK. If you use it to make an attack, you lose Precise Strike. If you DON'T use it to make an attack you cannot give up an attack from it to make a parry.
Sorry, but based on that wording, you can't TWF and precise strike at in the same round. Some DMs might let you get away with it, but that's a house rule.
I will add that I don't actually like the wording on Precise Strike, I think it's far too focussed on one-handed rapiers, and should be broader in scope, but that's how I read it: no attacks with the off-hand weapon means no attacks you can give up in order to parry with it.
I personally would love to see a Maine Gauche feat to allow this, as I think it is thematically great, but there you are.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah but the Parry ability states "Whenever the duelist takes a full attack action with a light or one-handed piercing weapon, she can elect not to take one of her attacks." It makes it quite clear you're not attacking and if that attack replaced is the offhand one ... the universe implodes?
If the attack replaced is the off-hand one, then you had to be attacking with the off-hand weapon in order to give up the attack. Therefore it's either in replacement of a main hand attack (which is legal) or you are TWFing, which means no precise strike.
Actually one other thing can you store more than one parry if your choose to or is it limited to a maximum of one?
As many as you have attacks.
EDIT: *sigh* The more I look at it the less appealing Duelist looks ... this is rather irritating maybe I'll just scrap the idea and dump my surplus levels into something useful.
Don't be disheartened - you can be a very effective fighter, but you have to fight smart. Use an Agile weapon and don't worry that you will be out-damaged on paper by a thug with a greatsword. Instead use maneuvers like Disarm and Trip to offset their attacks. Your damage output won't be bad, you can make up with the number of accurate hits you get for the damage output (and with both Agile and Precise Strike, damage will be decent).
They attack - you Trip or Disarm them. They lose a move action and you get an AoO on them as they stand/retrieve weapon. Make it a trip if they retrieve and a disarm if they get up. In between times poke them to death. They'll never get a full attack on you if you play it right.
I recommend starting with the Freehand Fighter archetype and then going duelist from there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the attack replaced is the off-hand one, then you had to be attacking with the off-hand weapon in order to give up the attack. Therefore it's either in replacement of a main hand attack (which is legal) or you are TWFing, which means no precise strike.
TWF is not really relevant. If you have multiple attacks due to high BAB or Haste, you can attack with either/both weapons.
The point is you have an attack available, and you elect not to take it.
If you elect not to take an attack with that hand, you're not attacking with that hand.
Take away offhands completely. An unbuffed level 1 fighter with a greataxe. He can make one attack per round. If he elects not to take his attack that round, is he attacking? No, he's electing not to. It's the same thing with multiple weapons. If you could make two attacks that round, and you elect not to take one, you're not making that attack. If you only attack with one hand, you're not making an attack with the other one.
Actually one other thing can you store more than one parry if your choose to or is it limited to a maximum of one?As many as you have attacks.
No, Parry lets you elect to not take one of your attacks. Actually parrying the incoming attack is an immediate action, of which you can only have one per round.
Very true sadly our group doesn't really need more disruption unfortunately it does need damage ... blagh. I'd really just be better off going further into rogue or fighter instead which is sad because I really like the flavor but sadly the Duelist doesn't accomplish what I need.
Damage isn't bad from the duelist.
Weapon Specialisation + Weapon Training = +3 damage
Duelist Level = + Precise Strike damage
Agile weapon = + Dex mod damage
Keen or Improved crit on a rapier and you are going to sting.
10th level with 22 Dex and you are dishing +13 damage on a 15-20 threat. Not as vicious as a greatsword but still enough to get take-downs.
|
<cheese>Anyone want to throw unarmed strikes and natural attacks into the mix? A bite can be a light, piercing weapon not wielded by another hand. Also consider that unarmed strikes can take advantage of Serpent Style to make them piercing, while using kicks and headbutts.
Both bites and piercing unarmed strikes can take advantage of TWF or full attacks in some shape or form, without resorting to using a weapon in another hand in an attack. </cheese>
Definitely not what they intended, but this would probably get a DM sad or angry.
|
|
I had something else in mind...
You just had to reference McNinja, didn't you?.... If you somehow got blindsense, I'd allow it as a dm.
One of my very first posts here was about making a Duelist very similiar to what you described, it was met with similiar responses (http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz4xyk?FighterDuelist-Concept#1)
Basically the arguement goes as follows - Precise strike only works when you are attacking with one weapon, if you are two-weapon fighting and give up your offhand to parry precise strike still doesn't work because there shouldn't be an offhand attack to give up. It made me sad, as an offhand parry is such a very classic fencing style.
However - I still have hope for the duelist. The free-hand fighter into duelist is the easy way to build him.
The other way I've looked at was Monk 4/Ninja 4/Duelist X. Take the Flowing Monk Archetype, take a few vows Cleanliness and Truth are simple enough and don't really require too much sacrifice, maybe silence too. If you think cleanliness might be a problem then take a Magical Talent trait for Prestidigitation.
I've fleshed out a character to level 16, using a human as the base. Here was the build, 15 point buy (as it only can get better with a higher point buy).
14 str
18 dex (+2 human, +1 level 4)
12 Con (+1 level 16)
14 Int (+1 level 12)
14 Wis (+1 level 8)
7 Cha
(Feats)
Weapon Finesse (from Monk)
Combat Expertise
Crane Style
Crane Wing
Crane Riposte
Dodge
Greater Trip
Improved Trip
Mobility
Power Attack
(Bonous feats)
Combat Reflexes
Improved Unarmed Strike
Special Abilities of note from Monk
Ki Pool of 10
Redirection
Evasion
Unbalancing Counter (Possible to make people flat-footed with AoOs, allowing you to hit easier and gets your Sneak-Attack damage in)
Special Abilities of note from Ninja
More ki (see Monk)
Vanishing Trick (Yay invisibity)
Shadow Clone (Yay Mirror image)
Sneak Attack (2d6)
Uncanny Dodge
Ki Attack Speed
Special Abilities of note from Duelist
Int to AC
Precise Strike
Parry
Riposte
Elaborate Defense (Not normally that good, but realise this combined with Crane Style feats and Acrobatics you get a +5 AC when fighting defensively, for a mere -1 to hit, add another level to duelist and it becomes +6)
+4 Initiaive
With Haste (either from a friendly caster or boots of speed) and Ki Strike you get 3 attacks with full BAB.
Lets take a 1v1 in the best-case senario. You are going first in the round and you have haste up with Crane Style active.
Use the Ninja ki pool for an extra attack which you save for a parry, you still have 2 full BAB attacks with 2 more interatives. You are attacked. Crane Wing the first attack, then make an AoO with Crane Riposte, if they fail the save they are flat footed. Then use an immediate action Redirection to trip your opponent. If the trip works they are prone and sickened for at least 1 round. You take another AoO from your feat of Greater Trip if they fall, they need to make another reflex save if they made the last one. Hopefully now they are fighting prone with the sickened trait. If they continue to make an iterative attack against you take your parry (which will hopefully be easy to make with the negative mods from prone and sickened) and riposte against them which if it lands they will need to make another reflex save or become flat footed to your next turns attacks. Any remaining iterative attacks they have probably won't hit you do to defensive fighting and them being prone and sick.
Sounds like a fun 1 round to me
I won't get into a full breakdown of his gear unless you want me too - but anything that adds to int/dex/wisdom will add to his armor, agile enchant for damage, boots of speed for haste, bracers of armor.
I would note that alot of his defenses come from his class, and don't spend too much on AC to ignore damage completely. This character should be able to do both fairly well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, but based on that wording, you can't TWF and precise strike at in the same round. Some DMs might let you get away with it, but that's a house rule.We only needs to house rule it because nobody wants to write archetypes for the prestige classes. A twf duellist is just asking to be made into an archetype.
Really, one of these days, I'm going to have to do it myself. Just to give them the love they deserve.
It doesn't take an archetype, just a feat will do. Call it Maine Gouche, the rapier & dagger fighting style, and you have a weapon you can parry with without sacrificing attacks:
Maine Gouche
You use a sword and dagger fighting style as a duelist.
Prerequisites: Two Weapon Fighting, Parry class feature.
Benefit: You may use Two Weapon Fighting with a sword and dagger and retain all the duelist class features normally preculded, such as precise strike, so long as you only use the dagger to Parry blows.
Normal: A duelist not use use Two Weapon Fighting to attack or parry without sacrificing the Precise Strike class feature.
Job's a good 'un.
Sorry, but based on that wording, you can't TWF and precise strike at in the same round. Some DMs might let you get away with it, but that's a house rule.We only needs to house rule it because nobody wants to write archetypes for the prestige classes. A twf duellist is just asking to be made into an archetype.
Really, one of these days, I'm going to have to do it myself. Just to give them the love they deserve.
It doesn't take an archetype, just a feat will do. Call it Maine Gouche, the rapier & dagger fighting style, and you have a weapon you can parry with without sacrificing attacks:
Maine Gouche
You use a sword and dagger fighting style as a duelist.
Prerequisites: Two Weapon Fighting, Parry class feature.
Benefit: You may use Two Weapon Fighting with a sword and dagger and retain all the duelist class features normally preculded, such as precise strike, so long as you only use the dagger to Parry blows.
Normal: A duelist not use use Two Weapon Fighting to attack or parry without sacrificing the Precise Strike class feature.Job's a good 'un.
It's a start, but it's not done yet. First it's a feat that only applies to a PrC. I don't think that is typically done, if there is precedence with another feat then I'll take back this arguement. Secondly it still plays wierdly if you continue the TWF line. I'd add like the TWF line to give additional parries to the duelist, for a total of 3 possible parries, preferably with just one feat, as using 5+ feats to do so (!!!) seems exessive and a Duelist isn't that overpowered right now. It's practically ignored.
It's a start, but it's not done yet. First it's a feat that only applies to a PrC. I don't think that is typically done, if there is precedence with another feat then I'll take back this arguement. Secondly it still plays wierdly if you continue the TWF line. I'd add like the TWF line to give additional parries to the duelist, for a total of 3 possible parries, preferably with just one feat, as using 5+ feats to do so (!!!) seems exessive and a Duelist isn't that overpowered right now. It's practically ignored.
Well here's the thing, TWF was kept away from duelist for a reason, to stop it getting over-powered (yes, that may sound nuts). Giving the duelist in effect an extra attack - a parry - for the cost of two feats isn't going to be broken. Gaining extra parries over and above what the intended duelist could manage? You would be practically unhitable by the full attack of any single-weaponed attacker, and would still be able to reply with an effective full-attack yourself.
I wouldn't go there, myself, especially with riposte in the bargain.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Precise strike only works when you are attacking with one weapon, if you are two-weapon fighting and give up your offhand to parry precise strike still doesn't work because there shouldn't be an offhand attack to give up.
I don't follow the logic here.
If a duelist attacks once with a rapier, and elects not to attack with her second attack, which is granted by high BAB and could be made with her other hand, can she precise strike? Of course. It doesn't matter whether she could have attacked, it matters if she did attack.
If you elect not to take the attack, then you're not taking the attack. Precise Strike has nothing to do with the number of weapons or the number of attacks. All that matters is if the other hand does not attack (or use a shield).
Duelist has a prerequisite of +6 BAB, meaning any time she full-attacks, she has the option of making one of those attacks with her other hand. Making up crazy off-hand rules means a Duelist can never get precise strike when full attacking.
Precise strike only works when you are attacking with one weapon, if you are two-weapon fighting and give up your offhand to parry precise strike still doesn't work because there shouldn't be an offhand attack to give up.I don't follow the logic here.
I do, and I will try and explain.
If a duelist attacks once with a rapier, and elects not to attack with her second attack, which is granted by high BAB and could be made with her other hand, can she precise strike? Of course. It doesn't matter whether she could have attacked, it matters if she did attack.
However the important thing here is that she is NOT employing TWF, and she had an attack she could give up.
If you elect not to take the attack, then you're not taking the attack. Precise Strike has nothing to do with the number of weapons or the number of attacks. All that matters is if the other hand does not attack (or use a shield).
Yes, precise strike specifically DOES have a lot to do with the number of attacks and how you use them, it says so clearly in the description that you cannot use it if you make an attack with the weapon in your other hand. What this means is, you can't get extra attacks than those you would gain if you were only fighting with one weapon. If you have a BAB of +11, you can attack right hand/left hand/right hand at +11/+6/+1, and you are at each stage only getting one attack with one weapon - no extra attacks = no TWFing (this is the official ruling).
If you have TWF and BAB +11 and you use it, you attack for +9/+9/+4/-1. Those two attacks at +9 are where you are using your off-hand weapon to make an extra attack at the same time as your main-hand attack. THIS is what you can't do and still gain Precise Strike.
You have to have an attack in order to elect not to take it. So to get a parry with the off-hand you would still have to give up one of your main attacks (one of the +11/+6/+1 attacks in this example). If you are using the off-hand weapon to make an extra attack that you elect to give up in order to parry (like the second +9 attack in +9/+9/+4/-1), you are then using TWF and attacking with a weapon in your off hand. Doesn't matter that you then elect not to attack with it but to Parry, you still have to have that attack in order to give it up, and having that attack means you are TWFing.
Rule of thumb: if the -2 from TWF would apply to your attack bonus, you are TWFing, and if it doesn't, you aren't.
Duelist has a prerequisite of +6 BAB, meaning any time she full-attacks, she has the option of making one of those attacks with her other hand. Making up crazy off-hand rules means a Duelist can never get precise strike when full attacking.
There's nothing crazy about it. You have +6 BAB, so you get attacks at +6/+1. If you use TWF to gain an extra attack on top of this, Precise Strike goes out of the window. It doesn't matter what you do with that extra attack, you cannot have it and use Precise Strike.
However the important thing here is that she is NOT employing TWF, and she had an attack she could give up.
I don't see how TWF is relevant. Either you attacked with that hand or you didn't.
If you don't use TWF and elect not to attack with that hand, then you didn't attack with that hand.
If you used TWF and elected not to attack with that hand, then you didn't attack with that hand.
Either way, you could have attacked with that hand, but you chose not to, for whatever reason, and because you didn't attack with that hand, precise strike functions.
If you have TWF and BAB +11 and you use it, you attack for +9/+9/+4/-1. Those two attacks at +9 are where you are using your off-hand weapon to make an extra attack at the same time as your main-hand attack. THIS is what you can't do and still gain Precise Strike.
They're not at the same time. Even if they were, it's not relevant. If you don't attack with that hand, then you don't attack with that hand.
If you are using the off-hand weapon to make an extra attack that you elect to give up in order to parry (like the second +9 attack in +9/+9/+4/-1), you are then using TWF and attacking with a weapon in your off hand.
This is untrue. If you use TWF and you make your +9/+4/-1 attacks with your rapier, and you elect not to take the +9 dagger attack, then you did not attack with that hand. That hand never made an attack. There was no attack roll, the dagger never jabbed at anyone, it just sat there. That hand didn't do anything.
Doesn't matter that you then elect not to attack with it but to Parry, you still have to have that attack in order to give it up, and having that attack means you are TWFing.
This doesn't make sense.
Yes, you have to have an attack available to you in order to not take it so you can parry.
Electing not to take the attack is not making an attack. It is specifically not attacking.
If you use TWF to gain an extra attack on top of this, Precise Strike goes out of the window.
So TWF with a rapier and boot-blade means no precise strike, even though you have a completely free and unused hand the entire time?
Say a wizard has a readied action to cast Invisibility on you as soon as the goblin you are fighting dies. You full attack the goblin, using TWF, taking TWF penalties. You stick it with your rapier three times (+9/+4/-1 per your example), and it dies. The invisibility spell goes off. You elect not to take your off-hand dagger attack so you can parry with it later. You elected not to take that attack. You did not attack. Why would invisibility break?
It doesn't matter what you do with that extra attack, you cannot have it and use Precise Strike.
The ability to make an attack is not the same as making an attack.
You guys are hung up on making precise strike dependent on what you could have done, instead of what you do. TWF makes an extra attack available to you, but you don't have to take it.
Grick - You are preaching to people that really really want it to work the way you suggesting, but it's simply not the case.
However, speak with your GM as I hear many GMs will let you run it that way (as it's completely sensible in my opinion). If you speak to your GM you can probably get them to agree and houserule it. Great there are many houserules that make good sense, but just realize it's not rules as worded or rules as intended.
However the important thing here is that she is NOT employing TWF, and she had an attack she could give up.I don't see how TWF is relevant. Either you attacked with that hand or you didn't.
Yes it is relevant, and here is why: The question was asked originally, if you have a weapon in each hand but elect to attack with normal iterative attacks, rather than gain an extra attack (such as with BAB +6, attack with +6 BAB against a target with one hand, and at +1 BAB as my next attack on that target with the weapon in my other hand) then do you need Two Weapon Fighting, and do you suffer any penalties if you do this. Their answer was No and No. As long as you did not try and get an extra attack with the off-hand, you did not need TWF and you did not suffer a penalty.
So whether or not you are using TWF is hugely relevant, because it is TWF that grants the extra attack.
Now taking the example of the duelist and precise strike, a literal interpretation would say that if you elect to make ANY attack with the off hand weapon, even if not TWFing, you should lose the precise strike feature. However that would raise the spectre that if you attacked with your main hand and used precise strike, then changed your mind and hit with the off hand (but not using TWF) would this mean you couldn't do damage with the precise strike in the first attack?
A more sensible interpretation is that as long as you are not trying to use TWF and gain an extra attack in any way, you can use precise strike for the round. This is where your parry with the off-hand runs afoul, because you still have to plan to take the attack at the start of the round and take the penalty to hit, hence you are doing TWF.
If you don't use TWF and elect not to attack with that hand, then you didn't attack with that hand.
Correct.
If you used TWF and elected not to attack with that hand, then you didn't attack with that hand.
Incorrect. If you do not make an attack with that hand, you are not TWFing at all, and you suffer no attack penalty. You are either prepared to make an attack role with your off-hand, or you are not.You either planned ahead to use TWF, or you didn't.
Either way, you could have attacked with that hand, but you chose not to, for whatever reason, and because you didn't attack with that hand, precise strike functions.
Incorrect. If you prepared to attack with that hand, you were still doing something with it. You had to plan ahead to make the attack in order to give up the attack later.
If you have TWF and BAB +11 and you use it, you attack for +9/+9/+4/-1. Those two attacks at +9 are where you are using your off-hand weapon to make an extra attack at the same time as your main-hand attack. THIS is what you can't do and still gain Precise Strike.They're not at the same time. Even if they were, it's not relevant. If you don't attack with that hand, then you don't attack with that hand.
Look, you either have +11/+6/+1 without TWFing or +9/+9/+4/-1 with TWFing. There's no magical middle ground. You either take the extra attack or you don't. If you don't take the attack, you are not TWFing. If you do take the attack, and then give up the attack to parry, you are still TWFing and you still do not get precise strike because you planned to make the attack. It's not rocket science.
If you are using the off-hand weapon to make an extra attack that you elect to give up in order to parry (like the second +9 attack in +9/+9/+4/-1), you are then using TWF and attacking with a weapon in your off hand.This is untrue.
Oh but it IS true.
If you use TWF and you make your +9/+4/-1 attacks with your rapier, and you elect not to take the +9 dagger attack, then you did not attack with that hand. That hand never made an attack. There was no attack roll, the dagger never jabbed at anyone, it just sat there. That hand didn't do anything.
If the hand didn't do anything, and you were not prepared for it to do something, then you attacked as if you didn't have TWF and it can't parry because it has no attack to give up. See:
Parry (Ex): At 2nd level, a duelist learns to parry the attacks of other creatures, causing them to miss. Whenever the duelist takes a full attack action with a light or one-handed piercing weapon, she can elect not to take one of her attacks. At any time before her next turn, she can attempt to parry an attack against her or an adjacent ally as an immediate action. To parry the attack, the duelist makes an attack roll, using the same bonuses as the attack she chose to forego during her previous action. If her attack roll is greater than the roll of the attacking creature, the attack automatically misses.
Emphasis mine. So to make a parry YOU HAVE TO MAKE AN ATTACK. If you do not make an attack roll with that off-hand weapon, you don't parry. If you make a TWF attack roll, then you do not get Precise Strike in that round because you are using your off hand to make an attack.
You are not disputing that if you make the +9/+4/-1 attacks first, then make the second +9 attack with the off hand weapon, you should get the first three attacks with the advantage of Precise Strike because you hadn't made the attack with the off hand weapon yet. The order of the attacks does not matter, it's the fact you are prepared to make them that counts. Same applies if you delay your attack to parry with later.
Doesn't matter that you then elect not to attack with it but to Parry, you still have to have that attack in order to give it up, and having that attack means you are TWFing.This doesn't make sense.
It makes perfect sense. You either prepared to make TWF attacks, in which case you cannot precise strike, or you didn't. Whether you attacked or parried with the extra attack isn't the issue, it's that you were prepared to use it.
Yes, you have to have an attack available to you in order to not take it so you can parry.
Correct.
Electing not to take the attack is not making an attack.
If it isn't making an attack, how can you have an attack to give up?
It is specifically not attacking.
Yes it is attacking - it is then giving up the attack to make the parry which as it happens is an attack roll as well. You are still rolling the dice and making an attack.
If you use TWF to gain an extra attack on top of this, Precise Strike goes out of the window.So TWF with a rapier and boot-blade means no precise strike, even though you have a completely free and unused hand the entire time?
Here's what they say:
Blade Boot
Blade boots come with a spring-mounted knife that pops out when triggered with the right combination of toe presses.
Benefit: You can use a blade boot as an off-hand weapon.
Action: Releasing the knife is a swift action; rearming it is a full-round action.
Drawback: When the blade is extended, you treat normal terrain as difficult and difficult terrain as impassable.
That's a question for the devs, but I would imagine so, yes as it is specifically used as an off-hand weapon. You can ask it, and see what they say though. Can't see you parrying with one, though...
Say a wizard has a readied action to cast Invisibility on you as soon as the goblin you are fighting dies. You full attack the goblin, using TWF, taking TWF penalties. You stick it with your rapier three times (+9/+4/-1 per your example), and it dies. The invisibility spell goes off. You elect not to take your off-hand dagger attack so you can parry with it later. You elected not to take that attack. You did not attack. Why would invisibility break?
Nice try, but unfortunately invisibility does not labour under the same restrictions as precise strike. Precise strike cares about what you intend to do ahead of time, invisibility doesn't.
Parry is making an attack, but choosing to delay making that attack until a later stage in the round. It's like a readied action: you still lose the standard action whether you take it or not, and it still detracts from the activities you can perform in the round in which you ready an action. You still had to plan ahead to make the off-hand attack in the round in order to give it up later to parry with it, and that's what Precise Strike cares about.
In this case, preparing a parry by dropping an attack is still doing something with your off-hand - you are preparing a parry with it, which is an attack in and of itself (it involves an attack roll, see above). Therefore you lose the precise strike feature. Like I said above, no-one disputes that if you TWF but take the off hand attack last, you should get precise strike on the first attacks, and only lose it on the last one - you were still doing so within the round, and your round effectively lasts until your next round starts. You readied a parry, and that's the same as an attack. If you didn't need to use it, too bad.
The invisibility isn't like precise strike, it doesn't care what you might do in a moment's time, so it works until you make that attack roll with the parry. If you don't make the parry you stay invisible, but like a readied action that you don't take you still lose on what you could do in the round in which you readied it.
In the same way, if you were fighting with just one weapon and dropped one attack to have a parry later, it doesn't matter if the parry wasn't used - you lost the attack regardless. If you were using TWF to get the extra attack to drop in order to get the parry, you were still prepared to parry with your off hand, making an attack with it. Ergo, no precise strike.
It doesn't matter what you do with that extra attack, you cannot have it and use Precise Strike.The ability to make an attack is not the same as making an attack.
Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. If I ready an attack to hit somebody if they do not surrender, I may or may not make the attack, but I still lose a standard action from my turn to ready the action.
You guys are hung up on making precise strike dependent on what you could have done, instead of what you do. TWF makes an extra attack available to you, but you don't have to take it.
No, I think you are getting hung up on not being allowed to do the trick that you thought got around the rules for precise strike and parry, but it turns out that it doesn't.
If you plan ahead not to take the extra attack, you are not TWFing. If you plan to take it, you are TWFing and can't use precise strike. If you plan to take it and use it to parry, you are still TWFing, still planning to take it and still can't use precise strike. It really is that simple.
You can go ask the devs if you like, they may rule differently, but I doubt they will.
I believe that this has been explained as best as it can be.
One additional note. I think that the Duelist's capstone level 10 ability should have been fient as a swift action, and allow this to count towards Greater Feint as if Improved Fient had been taken. Just fits the flavor of a classical fencer so much more, Feint, Riposte, Parry, good times. Anyway this is the rules forum not the homebrew forum so I'll leave it at that.
Me too. People are free to house rule of course, or ask the devs, but I think it's pretty settled.
The question was asked originally, if you have a weapon in each hand but elect to attack with normal iterative attacks, rather than gain an extra attack (such as with BAB +6, attack with +6 BAB against a target with one hand, and at +1 BAB as my next attack on that target with the weapon in my other hand) then do you need Two Weapon Fighting, and do you suffer any penalties if you do this. Their answer was No and No. As long as you did not try and get an extra attack with the off-hand, you did not need TWF and you did not suffer a penalty.
That's not anywhere near the original question.
gnomersy asked "If a duelist has two weapon fighting how do the two abilities interact?
After sacrificing the off hand attacks for parrying do the primary hand attacks gain the precise strike bonus, since technically you are not attacking with the offhand?"
The answer is yes, since you are not attacking with the other hand, you get precise strike.
Now taking the example of the duelist and precise strike, a literal interpretation would say that if you elect to make ANY attack with the off hand weapon, even if not TWFing, you should lose the precise strike feature.
Yes, that's the rule. If you attack with a weapon in your other hand, for any reason, you can't use precise strike.
However that would raise the spectre that if you attacked with your main hand and used precise strike, then changed your mind and hit with the off hand (but not using TWF) would this mean you couldn't do damage with the precise strike in the first attack?
Just like TWF, using precise strike locks you into not attacking with your other hand.
A more sensible interpretation is that as long as you are not trying to use TWF and gain an extra attack in any way, you can use precise strike for the round.
This is clearly against the rule.
If you attack with your rapier (BAB+6) then attack with your dagger (BAB+1) then you're attacking with a weapon in your other hand, so you can't use precise strike.
When making a precise strike, a duelist cannot attack with a weapon in her other hand. That's exactly what the rule says.
If Precise Strike was supposed to only not work with TWF but did work if you attacked with your other hand, the rule would have to be written completely different. Perhaps it would say "cannot attack with a weapon in her off-hand" which would limit it to TWF.
But it doesn't. See post 6. Other hand always applies to your other hand, while off-hand only applies when TWF.
If you do not make an attack with that hand, you are not TWFing at all, and you suffer no attack penalty.
Wrong. You choose when you begin the action if you are TWF or not. See This FAQ for details. If you make a full attack and decide to use TWF, then the goblin dies after your first hit and you have no targets for the rest of your attacks, you still took the TWF penalties even though you never made an attack with your off-hand.
You are either prepared to make an attack role with your off-hand, or you are not.You either planned ahead to use TWF, or you didn't.
Correct. None of which matter to Precise Strike. Precise Strike only cares if you actually make the attack. 'Being prepared' to make an attack and choosing not to take that attack does not mean you attacked.
If you do take the attack, and then give up the attack to parry, you are still TWFing and you still do not get precise strike because you planned to make the attack.
This is not what the rule says.
So to make a parry YOU HAVE TO MAKE AN ATTACK. If you do not make an attack roll with that off-hand weapon, you don't parry.
A duelist (BAB+6/+1) is standing alone in the middle of the field with one weapon. She takes a full attack action and takes one attack against the empty square beside her. She gives up one attack to Parry. The next round, nothing attacks her.
She never rolls that second attack. It never happened, because nothing attacked her to trigger the parry.
You only make the attack roll when you actually parry the incoming attack, not when you give up the attack for a parry that may or may not happen.
If you make a TWF attack roll, then you do not get Precise Strike in that round because you are using your off hand to make an attack.
Yes, because you don't make the roll until you make an attack. And you don't make the parry attack until you actually parry something. Which is a different action.
You might be having issues with the timing of the limitation in precise strike. This was addressed in post 10, but I'll repeat it:
If the limitation on Precise Strike is on a per-attack basis, then it has no meaning, because you don't make attacks simultaneously.
If the limitation is on a timed basis, the ability doesn't specify how long. Your turn? The entire round? The whole combat? That day?
The only reasonable way to apply the limitation on Precise Strike is by limiting it to the action in which the relevant attack is made. This means if you take a full-attack action and want to use Precise Strike, you cannot make an attack with a weapon in your other hand. If you make an attack with a weapon in your other hand in a different action, before or after the full-attack, that doesn't break PS.
Whether you attacked or parried with the extra attack isn't the issue
It's exactly the issue, because it's exactly what the rule says.
Yes it is attacking - it is then giving up the attack to make the parry which as it happens is an attack roll as well. You are still rolling the dice and making an attack.
Not as part of the same action.
Like I said above, no-one disputes that if you TWF but take the off hand attack last, you should get precise strike on the first attacks, and only lose it on the last one - you were still doing so within the round, and your round effectively lasts until your next round starts.
I dispute that completely. "When making a precise strike, a duelist cannot attack with a weapon in her other hand".
Your example there involves making a precise strike and still making an attack with a weapon in your other hand as part of the same action. This breaks the rules.
Here's how it works:
The Duelist wants to attack the goblin. First she declares the type of action: Full round. Then the specific action: Full-attack. Then she decides if she wants to use Two-Weapon Fighting to gain an extra attack with her off-hand, which locks her into the main-hand off-hand limitation and penalties. At this point, if she elects not to take one of her attacks to activate Parry, and the attack she gives up is her off-hand, then she no longer will be making an attack with that hand during that action. She can then make her attacks with her main hand, still taking the TWF penalties, but gaining Precise Strike because she is not attacking with the weapon in her other hand.
Then, in a completely different action, if something attacks her, she can use the attack she gave up to Parry, this is where she makes the attack with her dagger, as an immediate action in response to an incoming attack.
If you plan ahead not to take the extra attack, you are not TWFing.
You choose if you are going to use TWF before you make any attacks on your turn. Once you choose this, you are locked into your choice. Whether you actually make that extra attack or not, you still are locked into the format and penalties.
If you plan to take it, you are TWFing and can't use precise strike.
Precise Strike is limited by making an attack with that hand. TWF with unarmed strike (kick) or boot blade or barbazu beard or armor spikes all leave a hand free, so all of them can work with Precise Strike.
gnomersy asked "If a duelist has two weapon fighting how do the two abilities interact?
After sacrificing the off hand attacks for parrying do the primary hand attacks gain the precise strike bonus, since technically you are not attacking with the offhand?"
The answer is yes, since you are not attacking with the other hand, you get precise strike.
Sorry but this is wrong.
When making a precise strike, a duelist cannot attack with a weapon in her other hand. That's exactly what the rule says.If Precise Strike was supposed to only not work with TWF but did work if you attacked with your other hand, the rule would have to be written completely different. Perhaps it would say "cannot attack with a weapon in her off-hand" which would limit it to TWF.
But it doesn't. See post 6. Other hand always applies to your other hand, while off-hand only applies when TWF.
It applies to TWF. You can not parry with a boot-blade either. I don't think boot blades even existed when the core book was written.
Dabbler wrote:
If you do not make an attack with that hand, you are not TWFing at all, and you suffer no attack penalty.
Wrong. You choose when you begin the action if you are TWF or not. See This FAQ for details. If you make a full attack and decide to use TWF, then the goblin dies after your first hit and you have no targets for the rest of your attacks, you still took the TWF penalties even though you never made an attack with your off-hand.
This part is correct.
If you attack with your rapier (BAB+6) then attack with your dagger (BAB+1) then you're attacking with a weapon in your other hand, so you can't use precise strike.
You can't do this at all, period. You are using twf. Your +6/+1 must be made with the same weapon, either the rapier or the dagger, you can choose at the start but can't change it mid-way through the attack.
You don't choose which attack to give up for a parry at the start and this is part of the problem. An 11/6/1 iterative duelist attacks a goblin and kills it with the first two attacks, even if nothing else is in range the final +1 attack can be sacrificed to parry something that might be coming before the duelist next turn.
Here is one other way to look at it-
While you might plan on parrying with your offhand, you haven't until you actually reach that attack. On your first attack precise strike could or could not function since the parry hasn't been taken, and you CAN attack with your offhand even if you think you won't, but you don't KNOW until you get there. Hence no Precise Strike.
Dabbler wrote:
Like I said above, no-one disputes that if you TWF but take the off hand attack last, you should get precise strike on the first attacks, and only lose it on the last one - you were still doing so within the round, and your round effectively lasts until your next round starts.
I dispute that completely. "When making a precise strike, a duelist cannot attack with a weapon in her other hand".
Your example there involves making a precise strike and still making an attack with a weapon in your other hand as part of the same action. This breaks the rules.
I actually agree with you Grick. Dabbler is wrong several times in this point and I'm not even sure where he is going with this.
Dabbler wrote:
If you plan to take it, you are TWFing and can't use precise strike.
Precise Strike is limited by making an attack with that hand.
TWF with unarmed strike (kick) or boot blade or barbazu beard or armor spikes all leave a hand free, so all of them can work with Precise Strike
Doesn't work that way. TWF = no precise strike. That is the intent.
Fine, let's FAQ it.
By a strict reading of RAW (and that is what belongs in Rules Question forums) Grick is correct. The wording of the ability checks to see if an attack was made or not.
That is the intent.
Pardon me, but what makes you an authority on intent? Do you have a quote from a developer talking about what the intent was?
Except that:
1) You have to have an attack (precluding precise strike) in order to give up an attack, which implies that you are attacking with the off-hand weapon, and
2) to make a parry you make an attack roll in any event.
So the question is, does being able to make an attack, and then later in the round making an attack roll in order to parry, constitute attacking with the off-hand weapon? There is nothing else I can find in the rules where you make an attack roll and that doesn't constitute an attack (striking an object, doing a maneuver etc).
Further, consider this: if you have a level of monk, or the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, you can argue that you are technically not attacking with a weapon, so can you therefore attack with your free hand as TWFing and still gain Precise Strike with your main hand weapon? It's hair-splitting, but I think that's the level at which you are having to go to argue that parrying with the off-hand weapon using TWFing is legal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You don't need to delve into the realm of implications. It is really as simple as: Did you attack? No? Then you qualify.
By a strict reading of RAW (and that is what belongs in Rules Question forums) Grick is correct. The wording of the ability checks to see if an attack was made or not.
That is the intent.Pardon me, but what makes you an authority on intent? Do you have a quote from a developer talking about what the intent was?
My very first post ever was asking this EXACT question (realize that I want this to be true). I love fencing, and when I read Duelist it had a huge appeal to me. I've done hours and hours of reading on this class, looking up builds other people have done and looking specificly for TWF builds. I've built several interesting builds up from scratch (see above for one). This is not something that I am saying lightly, but rather after far more hours of reading and analyizing than I probably should have :).
When determining intent it's important to consider the interaction with other feats and skills. An example is why would duelist work great with TWF but suck with it's improved versions, if that were true it is clunky at best, a terrible design at worst. This is a huge red flag to me in determining intent.
Another thing is Hero Lab seems to agree that you can't TWF and use precise strike. It's not a prefect program, but outside of developer comment it's the best rules validation program for Pathfinder that I know of.
It is also worth noting that this was in the core book and as far as I know the Duelist has never had errata. Some things aren't as clear as they should be. I mean look at some recent uproar over Monks with flurry now needing two weapons if they aren't doing unarmed strikes. There was a huge thread recently about actions and AOOs and number of provocations from actions, all of this comes from the core book and things are still trying to be clarified.
You don't need to delve into the realm of implications. It is really as simple as: Did you attack? No? Then you qualify.
Can you name one circumstance in which making an attack roll does not constitute making an attack?
You don't need to delve into the realm of implications. It is really as simple as: Did you attack? No? Then you qualify.
Well here is another problem, how does your first attack see into the future. Your first attack happens before your offhand does, you can't give up the attack until you reach it.
You can not parry with a boot-blade either.
Why not?
You're making a full-attack with a light or one-handed weapon and you elect not to take one of your attacks.
You can't do this at all, period. You are using twf.
If you attack with your rapier (BAB+6) then attack with your dagger (BAB+1) then you're attacking with a weapon in your other hand, so you can't use precise strike.
You're only TWF if you're using the TWF style to gain an extra attack. If not, then you're not TWF and iterative attacks can be made with any weapon. BAB +6/+1 with rapier and dagger is completely legal and not TWF. See this FAQ for details.
You don't choose which attack to give up for a parry at the start and this is part of the problem.
You don't have to, but you can. If you don't commit to not taking your off-hand attack when TWF then you won't get PS on your other attacks.
While you might plan on parrying with your offhand, you haven't until you actually reach that attack. On your first attack precise strike could or could not function since the parry hasn't been taken, and you CAN attack with your offhand even if you think you won't, but you don't KNOW until you get there. Hence no Precise Strike.
Which is why, just like with 'activating' TWF, you have to choose at the beginning. Since you can take your off-hand before your main hand attacks, you start by electing not to take your off-hand attack to parry. Once that's committed, you can no longer attack with your off-hand, so PS works for the rest of your main hand attacks.
TWF = no precise strike. That is the intent.
If true, then the 'intent' is completely different from what was written. For what Dabbler wants, the words "other hand" must be replaced with "off-hand" in the Precise Strike rules.
Your first attack happens before your offhand does, you can't give up the attack until you reach it.
So start with your off-hand, elect not to take it, then PS with the rest. Once you've elected to not take your off-hand attack, you can't make another attack with it because you're locked into the TWF formula.
Attacks of Opportunity and actually Parrying the incoming blow are all different actions (see the timing issue, above).
You don't need to delve into the realm of implications. It is really as simple as: Did you attack? No? Then you qualify.Can you name one circumstance in which making an attack roll does not constitute making an attack?
This is a timing issue. You don't make the parry attack roll in the same action as your full-attack. It's a different action, and usually taken in a different turn.
The parry attack roll is not taken as part of the full-attack action, so Precise Strike doesn't care. Otherwise, you could fight normally, not TWF, use one weapon only, then make an AoO before the next turn with your other hand which would retroactively invalidate the Precise Strike damage you dealt. The only reasonable way to interpret the timing of the 'other hand' limitation of Precise Strike is within that same action.
If you take a single AoO with one hand, you can get Precise Strike, because in that action you did not attack with a weapon in your other hand. It doesn't matter which hand you use, or which hands you used earlier in the game. Only within the action in which precise strike happens.
Likewise, if you take that AoO with a two-handed weapon, you can't get precise strike, because in that action you used your other hand.
This is a timing issue. You don't make the parry attack roll in the same action as your full-attack. It's a different action, and usually taken in a different turn.You don't need to delve into the realm of implications. It is really as simple as: Did you attack? No? Then you qualify.Can you name one circumstance in which making an attack roll does not constitute making an attack?
Except it isn't part of a different action, it's part of your actions for the round.
It's like Power Attack or Combat Expertise or Two Weapon Fighting: you have to declare it at the start of your initiative, and it effects all your actions for the entire round. If you declare Power Attack at the start of your round, it also affects your attacks of opportunity for the round. If you declare Combat Expertise, your bonus to AC and penalty to hit last until your next turn. If you declare TWF then your attacks are made at -2 to hit for your full attack and for any attacks of opportunity you take before the start of your next turn.
The parry attack roll is not taken as part of the full-attack action, so Precise Strike doesn't care. Otherwise, you could fight normally, not TWF, use one weapon only, then make an AoO before the next turn with your other hand which would retroactively invalidate the Precise Strike damage you dealt. The only reasonable way to interpret the timing of the 'other hand' limitation of Precise Strike is within that same action.
But you have to declare the intention to attack with TWF at the start of your turn. Then you have an extra attack to parry with, and you can parry. BUT because your intention was to use it you don't get Precise Strike. You can't change your mind about using TWF later, you have to do it or not do it at the start of your round before you make any attacks at all.
If you take a single AoO with one hand, you can get Precise Strike, because in that action you did not attack with a weapon in your other hand. It doesn't matter which hand you use, or which hands you used earlier in the game. Only within the action in which precise strike happens.
That depends on what you did in your actions. If you (for example) TWfed on your turn, the effects of using your off-hand weapon will last from the start of your declaration to use TWF until your next turn. If you did anything during your action to preclude using precise strike, you lose it until the start of your next turn.
Likewise, if you take that AoO with a two-handed weapon, you can't get precise strike, because in that action you used your other hand.
If you started the turn with a two handed weapon, you wouldn't get Precise Strike at any point during the turn, if you didn't you don't get to change to it after your declared actions end. If you had a different weapon in hand at the start of your turn, and you declared your attacks with it, then that's what you are using until the start of your next turn. The only exception is if you have a weapon in your off hand you did not attack with, you can in theory make an attack of opportunity with that weapon with BAB as if you were holding your main hand weapon, because you are not TWFing.
The use of TWF has to be declared at re the start of your turn, declaring the use of your extra attack, or not. That's the point at which the loss of precise strike happens. What you DO with the attack you have declared (take it, parry with it, whatever) doesn't matter - you have to declare at the start of your turn that you are using it, and the effect of doing that declaration lasts until; your next turn.