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.
This part is a little weird. If you start the turn with a two-hander you can easilly drop it and draw a rapier for precise strike, it doesn't matter what weapon you have at the start of the turn, only matters what weapon (or weapons) you use during your attack.
I do agree with the rest you have to say and it is the intent. If you use TWF the intent is you attack with your other weapon.
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.This part is a little weird. If you start the turn with a two-hander you can easilly drop it and draw a rapier for precise strike, it doesn't matter what weapon you have at the start of the turn, only matters what weapon (or weapons) you use during your attack.
Let me explain it like this:
It's your initiative and you have your actions. You full attack with your two handed weapon, doing whatever you do. Initiative goes to the next person, and you have an opening for an attack of opportunity. However, you realise that your big weapon isn't ideal, but your rapier is. However, you cannot change weapon. Dropping your two-hander is a free action, but even with Quickdraw taking out a new weapon is a swift action, and you are now out of initiative sequence, so you can only take free and immediate actions. You can either attack with your two-hander, or not.On the flip side, if at the end of your attack you dropped your two-hander and drew your rapier (a swift action with Quickdraw, a move action without), THEN you can take the attack of opportunity with your rapier. However, if you were Power Attacking with your two-hander, for example, you are still Power Attacking.
I do agree with the rest you have to say and it is the intent. If you use TWF the intent is you attack with your other weapon.
Exactly so. You have to intend to attack with the off-hand weapon to gain the extra attack, and this denies the precise strike. You can then use the off-hand weapon to parry later - it makes no difference, because the declaration of TWF occurred at the start of the round and lasts until your next action.
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.This part is a little weird. If you start the turn with a two-hander you can easilly drop it and draw a rapier for precise strike, it doesn't matter what weapon you have at the start of the turn, only matters what weapon (or weapons) you use during your attack.Let me explain it like this:
It's your initiative and you have your actions. You full attack with your two handed weapon, doing whatever you do. Initiative goes to the next person, and you have an opening for an attack of opportunity. However, you realise that your big weapon isn't ideal, but your rapier is. However, you cannot change weapon. Dropping your two-hander is a free action, but even with Quickdraw taking out a new weapon is a swift action, and you are now out of initiative sequence, so you can only take free and immediate actions. You can either attack with your two-hander, or not.On the flip side, if at the end of your attack you dropped your two-hander and drew your rapier (a swift action with Quickdraw, a move action without), THEN you can take the attack of opportunity with your rapier. However, if you were Power Attacking with your two-hander, for example, you are still Power Attacking.
I do agree with the rest you have to say and it is the intent. If you use TWF the intent is you attack with your other weapon.Exactly so. You have to intend to attack with the...
That I all agree with.
Can you name one circumstance in which making an attack roll does not constitute making an attack?
I can name several: Crit confirmation, Aid Another and Shield of Blades (from the Cavalier's Order of the Blue Rose). I could probably find more if I tried. Does this suffice?
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.
I fail to see the relavance of any of this. I think you are over-complicating it. It is as simple is: Did you attack? No? Then you qualify. Attacks do not need to see into the future. And anyway... verbs do not have eyes.
If you use TWF the intent is you attack with your other weapon.
First you claim to know the intent of the developers then you claim to know the intent of the players? Man, can you hook me up with some of that ESP you got? I can think of some pretty nice uses for it. (/snark)
Seriously though... whether you intend to attack with it or not is not relavent to qualify for precise strike. Simply whether you do actually attack or not.
As an example: if you intended to attack an enemy cleric with your off hand who has Sanctuary active on him but fail to overcome your Will save to be able to do so and lose your attack this does not bar you from using precise strike if he provokes an attack from you during your turn and you use your AoO against him.
It doesn't say "attempt to attack", it doesn't say "intended on attacking", it simply says "attack". If you didn't attack then you qualify.
Except it isn't part of a different action, it's part of your actions for the round.
Making a full-attack is a full round action.
Using Parry to avoid an incoming blow is an immediate action.
They are different actions and can happen at different times.
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.
Not true. The TWF penalties only apply when TWF, which is only when taking a full-attack (and doing so to gain an extra attack). When that action is over, so are the penalties.
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.
The rules don't say intention. They say you can't attack. If you use Precise Strike, you can't attack with a weapon in your other hand during that action. You can do so before that action, and after that action, but during that action you can't make the attack with your other hand.
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.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.
Nope. TWF only affects TWF, not other attacks in the round.
During the attack of opportunity you are not Two-Weapon Fighting. You are also not attacking with a weapon in your other hand. So you get Precise Strike.
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.
This doesn't make any sense either. So you started the turn with a greatsword. Did you attack with it? If not, then no problem. Drop it (free action) quick draw a rapier (free action) attack with it. Get Precise Strike.
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.
Also not true. Start with greatsword. Drop it. Quick Draw rapier. Attack. Drop rapier. Quick Draw spear. Make AoO (if any) with spear.
The use of TWF has to be declared at re the start of your turn, declaring the use of your extra attack, or not.
This is correct. If you declare TWF, and elect not to take your off-hand attack, then you get precise strike for the rest of the action, because you're not making an attack with your other (off-) hand.
It doesn't matter what order.
If you declare TWF, then start with an attack with your main hand, if you take Precise Strike damage with it, then you can not make an attack with your other hand. You're still taking the TWF penalties, because you declared TWF at the start of your turn.
Dropping your two-hander is a free action, but even with Quickdraw taking out a new weapon is a swift action, and you are now out of initiative sequence, so you can only take free and immediate actions.
Drawing a weapon with the Quick Draw feat is a free action, not a swift action.
You cannot take free actions outside your turn unless that action explicitly states so. (like speaking, or drawing ammunition with Snap Shot)
Can you name one circumstance in which making an attack roll does not constitute making an attack?I can name several: Crit confirmation, Aid Another and Shield of Blades (from the Cavalier's Order of the Blue Rose). I could probably find more if I tried. Does this suffice?
I'm unfamiliar with Shield of Blades, but the first two are in fact part of an attack action. The first is part of your own attack action, the second becomes part of someone else's attack action. So no, I don't think that does suffice.
Except it isn't part of a different action, it's part of your actions for the round.Making a full-attack is a full round action.
Using Parry to avoid an incoming blow is an immediate action.
They are different actions and can happen at different times.
If that is so, why do you have to give up an attack in the full round action in order to take the parry later?
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.Not true. The TWF penalties only apply when TWF, which is only when taking a full-attack (and doing so to gain an extra attack). When that action is over, so are the penalties.
Sorry, you are right about that one, my bad.
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.The rules don't say intention. They say you can't attack. If you use Precise Strike, you can't attack with a weapon in your other hand during that action. You can do so before that action, and after that action, but during that action you can't make the attack with your other hand.
Perfectly reasonable, but if you aren't making an attack in that action, you don't have an attack to give up in order to parry later.
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.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.Nope. TWF only affects TWF, not other attacks in the round.
During the attack of opportunity you are not Two-Weapon Fighting. You are also not attacking with a weapon in your other hand. So you get Precise Strike.
Grey area. I would say that because you made an attack in that turn that precluded precise strike, you don't - the way you don't lost the bonus to AC from combat expertise after your turn has ended. However, I can see why you disagree.
I stand corrected on Quick Draw also - I think we largely in agreement on how combat progresses, it's just the hair-splitting about whether an off-hand attack used to parry is attacking with an off hand weapon or not.
I'm unfamiliar with Shield of Blades, but the first two are in fact part of an attack action. The first is part of your own attack action, the second becomes part of someone else's attack action.
The attack action is a single attack made as a standard action.
When you score a critical threat, you roll another attack roll to confirm the critical hit. This second attack roll is not another attack.
If you rule that every attack roll is an attack, then you can only get a critical hit during a full attack, which is clearly not the case. Thus, an attack roll is not the same as making an attack.
If that is so, why do you have to give up an attack in the full round action in order to take the parry later?
Making a full-attack is a full round action.Using Parry to avoid an incoming blow is an immediate action.
They are different actions and can happen at different times.
When you say "If that is so" does that mean you disagree that an immediate action is not the same as a full-round action?
You give up the attack because the rule says so.
I would say that because you made an attack in that turn that precluded precise strike, you don't - the way you don't lost the bonus to AC from combat expertise after your turn has ended.
Combat Expertise explicitly says "The effects of this feat last until your next turn."
it's just the hair-splitting about whether an off-hand attack used to parry is attacking with an off hand weapon or not.
Which I believe stems from confusion on what an attack is.
The attack is separate from the action.
For example, a full-attack is one action, but within that action you can perform many attacks.
An effect, such as Feint, that specifies "your next attack" will apply to the next actual attack you make, not the next action that has the word "attack" in its name.
To parry, you elect not to take one of your attacks. Yes, you must have an attack available in order to give one up. But by electing not to take that attack, you're not taking it.
When you say "If that is so" does that mean you disagree that an immediate action is not the same as a full-round action?If that is so, why do you have to give up an attack in the full round action in order to take the parry later?
Making a full-attack is a full round action.Using Parry to avoid an incoming blow is an immediate action.
They are different actions and can happen at different times.
What I mean is, if your actions in your turn have no effect on immediate actions taking during your turn, as you argue, then to parry you would not have to give up an attack from your full attack to spend later, after your full attack has ended. Obviously, in at least some circumstances
To parry, you elect not to take one of your attacks. Yes, you must have an attack available in order to give one up. But by electing not to take that attack, you're not taking it.
But if you do not TWF in your round, you don't have an extra attack to give up in order to parry with your off hand. If you do have an attack to give up, then you have an attack and cannot precise strike. To have the attack to give up, you need to invoke TWF; invoking TWF means you are attacking with a weapon in your off hand.
It's OK, I know you disagree, Grick, but what you are proposing looks a lot more like a loophole in the rules than their use as intended.
What I mean is, if your actions in your turn have no effect on immediate actions taking during your turn, as you argue
This is not what I argue. I explained how making the attack roll to parry an incoming blow is a different action than the full round action in which you gave up that attack. You stated that it isn't a different action, and I corrected you.
But if you do not TWF in your round, you don't have an extra attack to give up in order to parry with your off hand.
Yes, TWF lets you make an extra attack. Having that option is not the same as taking advantage of that option.
If you do have an attack to give up, then you have an attack and cannot precise strike.
Precise Strike does not say "cannot have an attack to give up".
It says "cannot attack with a weapon in her other hand".
invoking TWF means you are attacking with a weapon in your off hand.
That is not what it means. Two-Weapon Fighting is a way of fighting in which you can get one extra attack with your off-hand.
If you never make that attack, then that attack never happens.
By using TWF to gain the ability to make an extra attack, you have the option to elect not to take that extra attack. By electing not to take that extra attack, you can use Precise Strike.
what you are proposing looks a lot more like a loophole in the rules than their use as intended.
Barring any other information, our best guess as to what is intended is what is written.
What I mean is, if your actions in your turn have no effect on immediate actions taking during your turn, as you argueThis is not what I argue. I explained how making the attack roll to parry an incoming blow is a different action than the full round action in which you gave up that attack. You stated that it isn't a different action, and I corrected you.
It's what I was referring to - your actions during your turn define what you can and cannot do between the point where your turn ends and your next turn begins.
But if you do not TWF in your round, you don't have an extra attack to give up in order to parry with your off hand.Yes, TWF lets you make an extra attack. Having that option is not the same as taking advantage of that option.
Two-Weapon Fighting (Combat)
You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands. You can make one extra attack each round with the secondary weapon.
Prerequisite: Dex 15.
Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6. See Two-Weapon Fighting in Chapter 8.
Normal: If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. When fighting in this way you suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand. If your offhand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light.
Two weapon fighting grants you an extra attack. Not an option, not a possibility, an attack. If you are invoking TWF to get an extra attack, that's what you get.
If you do have an attack to give up, then you have an attack and cannot precise strike.Precise Strike does not say "cannot have an attack to give up".
It says "cannot attack with a weapon in her other hand".
Which is exactly what you are doing by the text of TWF, above.
invoking TWF means you are attacking with a weapon in your off hand.That is not what it means. Two-Weapon Fighting is a way of fighting in which you can get one extra attack with your off-hand.
I cannot see the that in the text above for TWF. It says you gain an attack. End of.
If you never make that attack, then that attack never happens.
Agreed - except that in that case, you are not two weapon fighting and have no attack to give up in order to parry.
By using TWF to gain the ability to make an extra attack, you have the option to elect not to take that extra attack. By electing not to take that extra attack, you can use Precise Strike.
The option to abort an attack certainly exists. However, if you declared a TWF full attack, took your -2 penalty on your first attack, scored a critical hit and killed the only foe you could reach, you could abort your remaining attacks, certainly - but even though you never attacked with your off-hand, you still invoked TWF and took a penalty on your first attack.
In the same way, while the option to give up an attack in order to parry later also exists for the duelist, he has to have the attack available in order to give it up. Like the TWF penalty, the effect of taking that attack doesn't disappear just because you opt to do something else with it after you have invoked it. In the case of the duelist, the additional effect of taking the attack (even though you then give it up before you take it) other than the -2 penalty, is losing precise strike.
what you are proposing looks a lot more like a loophole in the rules than their use as intended.Barring any other information, our best guess as to what is intended is what is written.
That's exactly what I am doing - look above to the description of Two Weapon Fighting: there is no talk there of options, and the penalty to hit is invoked with the intention to take that attack. Aborting the attack has no effect on this, just as opting to parry with it rather than attack conventionally has no effect on losing precise strike.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Two weapon fighting grants you an extra attack. Not an option, not a possibility, an attack. If you are invoking TWF to get an extra attack, that's what you get.
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."
Note the word "can." That means it's optional.
If you don't use TWF (style, not feat) then you don't have that option. If you do, then you have that option.
The penalty is unrelated to making the attack. You take the penalty when you decide to use TWF, regardless of making the attack or not.
The option to abort an attack certainly exists. However, if you declared a TWF full attack, took your -2 penalty on your first attack, scored a critical hit and killed the only foe you could reach, you could abort your remaining attacks, certainly - but even though you never attacked with your off-hand, you still invoked TWF and took a penalty on your first attack.
Correct. Sadly, the TWF penalty is not relevant to precise strike, other whether you make an attack or not.
Two weapon fighting grants you an extra attack. Not an option, not a possibility, an attack. If you are invoking TWF to get an extra attack, that's what you get.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."
Note the word "can." That means it's optional.
Well of copurse using TWF is optional - you can choose not to TWF.
If you don't use TWF (style, not feat) then you don't have that option. If you do, then you have that option.
Actually, you do, your penalty to do is just a lot worse.
The penalty is unrelated to making the attack. You take the penalty when you decide to use TWF, regardless of making the attack or not.
We are agreed on this, but just as you take a penalty when you start using TWF, you lose precise strike as well because you now have an off-hand attack.
The option to abort an attack certainly exists. However, if you declared a TWF full attack, took your -2 penalty on your first attack, scored a critical hit and killed the only foe you could reach, you could abort your remaining attacks, certainly - but even though you never attacked with your off-hand, you still invoked TWF and took a penalty on your first attack.Correct. Sadly, the TWF penalty is not relevant to precise strike, other whether you make an attack or not.
Actually it is relevant in that it shows that a decision you make about your attacks at the start of your turn effects everything you do in your turn, even before you have actually made any attacks at all. It shows that you have to commit to an action and suffer the consequences in advance of receiving the benefits of that action.
Hence to get the bonus attack from TWF, you have to commit to using TWF and receive the penalty of attacking with your off hand even if you then choose not to use your off hand when the time comes.
Now the description of precise strike says that you do not gain precise strike if you attack with a weapon in your other hand. This means one of two things, either:
a) If you are making a simultaneous strike with the weapon in your other hand, you do not get the benefit of precise strike. This means that you can claim that you are making your attack sequentially, and always get precise strike, so it clearly isn't this.
b) In any round in which you choose to make an off-hand attack with a weapon in your other hand, you lose precise strike benefits for that round. This makes much more sense, and I don't think that you disagree from what you have said so far.
In the event of (b), this means that your first attack, presumably with your primary weapon, will be effected by the loss of precise strike whether or not you actually continue on to attack with your other hand.
In the same way, to parry with your off hand, you have to be TWFing. You incur the penalty for TWFing, but even before you opt to give up the attack, you have lost precise strike. This is what I mean by 'you have to have an attack in order to give up an attack'.
Taking our example of our duelist attacking at +11/+6/+1, his turn would work like this:
Start of turn
Declare full attack, using TWF. At this stage he is attacking with a weapon in his other hand as per the description in TWF, and loses precise strike on all his attacks in the round, as described above.
Make attack #1 at +9.
Opt to drop attack #2 at +9 in order to parry with it. It does not matter that he has chosen to 'not take the attack' at this point, precise strike was lost when he opted to have this attack in order to drop it.
Make attack #3 at +6
Make attack #4 at +1
End of turn
Later he can make an attack roll at +9 to parry an incoming attack. This however is dependent on his giving up the attack during his full attack. It's nature is like that of a held action, not an attack of opportunity.
just as you take a penalty when you start using TWF, you lose precise strike as well because you now have an off-hand attack.
That's not what the rule says.
"cannot attack with a weapon in her other hand"
is not
"cannot have an attack available with a weapon in her other hand"
Now the description of precise strike says that you do not gain precise strike if you attack with a weapon in your other hand. This means one of two things, either:
False Dichotomy. Those are not the only two interpretations, and both are incorrect or incomplete.
a) If you are making a simultaneous strike with the weapon in your other hand, you do not get the benefit of precise strike.
While true, the only way to make a simultaneous strike is using both hands on the same weapon. And, while that is also not compatible with precise strike, it's not the point we're arguing, and isn't exhaustive anyway.
b) In any round in which you choose to make an off-hand attack with a weapon in your other hand, you lose precise strike benefits for that round.
You almost had it right.
First, remove "off-hand" because that's not in the rules for Precise Strike. Since "off-hand" only applies when TWF, that would mean any set of attacks you make when not TWF, even with two-handed weapons, could get precise strike, which is clearly not the case.
Next, you added a timing limit that is not in the rules. Precise Strike does not care about the round, or the minute, or the campaign. The only reasonable way to limit precise strike is by the action.
that gets us to:
c) In any action in which you choose to make an attack with a weapon in your other hand, you lose precise strike benefits.
That's a fairly accurate rewording of the actual rule, which is "When making a precise strike, a duelist cannot attack with a weapon in her other hand or use a shield."
In the same way, to parry with your off hand, you have to be TWFing.
This is technically correct, since the only way to have an off-hand is to be TWFing.
However, I suspect your intent was to write "to parry with your other hand, you have to be TWFing" which is incorrect.
Declare full attack, using TWF. At this stage he is attacking with a weapon in his other hand as per the description in TWF, and loses precise strike on all his attacks in the round, as described above.
Not correct.
You declare full attack, using TWF. You have not yet made any attacks.
You start with the off-hand attack granted by TWF, and elect not to take that attack.
You still have not attacked. No attacks have been made. If you were invisible, it would not be broken.
Next, you take a main hand attack. In the course of this full-round action, you can not attack with your off-hand. You are not able to, because you are locked into the format of TWF. You had the opportunity, and you elected not to.
By electing not to take that off-hand attack, you cannot attack with a weapon in your off-hand.
I don't really see much point in continuing to argue this, and I doubt anyone else has bothered to read the last part of the thread. If you do want to keep going, would you mind restating your position on the entirety of the ability? Meaning, do you still believe you can Precise Strike with a two-handed weapon? What about iterative attacks made with different arms (like BAB +6 rapier +1 dagger)? What about attacks of opportunity made the turn after you've done either of those? Or AoOs the turn after you've used TWF? If we've made progress, I don't mind going on, but if you're still of the opinion that PS works for everything but TWF, then I don't think that's going to change. I don't mean to be insulting or condescending in any way, I appreciate the discussion, but I think I've run out of ways to explain.