| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's start with the lead designer's opinion on the matter
Page 139 of the Beta, first paragraph. It states that you must take your attacks in order from highest to lowest, and that if you are wielding two weapons, you can choose which ones to attack with first. That makes it seem to me like you cannot swap back and forth between hands, and must choose one to attack with first, going from highest to lowest, before repeating this with the other hand.
That said, I am not really sure this is absolutely necessary.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Now let's look at what it says in the final product.
If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first.
And just for reference, here is a FAQ from Sean Reynolds concerning this
"Multiple Weapons, Iterative Attacks, and Two-Weapon Fighting (page 202): If I have iterative attacks from a high BAB, can I make attacks with different weapons and not incur a two-weapon fighting penalty?
Yes. Basically, you only incur TWF penalties if you are trying to get an extra attack per round.
Let's assume you're a 6th-level fighter (BAB +6/+1) holding a longsword in one hand and a light mace in the other. Your possible full attack combinations without using two-weapon fighting are:
(A) longsword at +6, longsword +1
(B) mace +6, mace +1
(C) longsword +6, mace +1
(D) mace +6, longsword +1
All of these combinations result in you making exactly two attacks, one at +6 and one at +1. You're not getting any extra attacks, therefore you're not using the two-weapon fighting rule, and therefore you're not taking any two-weapon fighting penalties.
If you have Quick Draw, you could even start the round wielding only one weapon, make your main attack with it, draw the second weapon as a free action after your first attack, and use that second weapon to make your iterative attack. As long as you're properly using the BAB values for your iterative attacks, and as long as you're not exceeding the number of attacks per round granted by your BAB, you are not considered to be using two-weapon fighting, and therefore do not take any of the penalties for two-weapon fighting.
The two-weapon fighting option in the Core Rulebook specifically refers to getting an extra attack for using a second weapon in your offhand. In the above four examples, there is no extra attack, therefore you're not using two-weapon fighting.
Using the longsword/mace example, if you use two-weapon fighting you actually have fewer options than if you aren't. Your options are (ignoring the primary/off hand penalties):
(A') primary longsword at +6, primary longsword at +1, off hand mace at +6
(B') primary mace at +6, primary mace at +1, off hand longsword at +6
In other words, once you decide you're using two-weapon fighting to get that extra attack on your turn (which you have to decide before you take any attacks on your turn), that decision locks you in to the format of "my primary weapon gets my main attack and my iterative attack, and my off hand weapon only gets the extra attack, and I apply two-weapon fighting penalties."—Sean K Reynolds, 11/04/11
Jason seems to think this is pretty straight forward. However, I don't think the actual rules can support his position. Notice how it mentions getting multiple attacks from a high BAB. TWF doesn't use a high BAB to get its attacks. BUT, for the time being, let's say it applies anyway. It then says that the attacks are made from highest to lowest bonus. Though it is easy to infer, it does NOT say highest to lowest BAB, simply bonus. BUT, for the time being, let's say it does say that. Then it says that when using two weapons, you may choose which to attack with first. It makes no mention of which attacks second, or third, or so on. It doesn't need to because the prior sentence has decided for you. You must use the next highest bonus. But, since twf doesn't affect your BAB, instead merely applying a penalty to your full BAB, any and all off hand attacks will be at full BAB and would then need to be made prior to any iterative attacks. However, if the sentence is to be taken literally, and means highest to lowest bonus, not BAB, then the attack order is still set for you.
In this case, you could have some very weird combinations of attacks, if say you had a +5 weapon in your primary hand and a normal one in the offhand. First of all, choosing the offhand to attack with would automatically violate attacking from highest to lowest bonus, and if you chose your primary first, you would be in a position of a tie for the next attack between the iterative and the offhand as the bonus would be the same. So it must be that attacking from highest to lowest bonus is not in reference to two weapon fighting. Which makes sense, since the sentence goes out of its way to specify BAB. It does apply to using two weapons without gaining any additional attacks. Though, without the need to choose a primary or offhand, it is rather unnecessary to say anything at all about which weapon you can or can't attack with in what order, especially since it still neglects a 3rd or 4th attack. That statement then, must still apply to two weapon fighting.
Here, its only purpose seems to be to allow you to attack with an offhand first if you wish. Meaning that, when you twf, you select which hand is which and then which one attacks first. But since SKR states that we are allowed to switch weapons for iterative attacks, why would that change when two weapon fighting? As long as at least one attack is made with the primary hand, and the extra attack made with the offhand, would that not be in accordance with the rules?
So, since it seems the rule is not at all a restriction to the attack order, but actually an allowance to attack in whatever order you choose, we are still at a position that either arbitrarily assigns attacks based on overall bonus, or requires an order of BAB meaning offhand attacks must come before iterative attacks (all that pondering for nothing).
Given a a 20th level fighter with all 3 twf feats, we have attacks with a BAB of 20(p), 15(p), 10(p), 5(p), 20(o), 20(o-5), 20(o-10) and an attack order that would be(adjusted for TWF penalties):
18(p or o)/18(o or p)/13(o)/8(o)/13(p)/8(p)/3(p)r
If bonus doesn't mean BAB:
18(p or o)/18(o or p)/13(p)/13(o)/8(p)/8(o)/3(p)
which would then have to be adjusted for feats, enhancement, etc.
Accounting for SKR's ruling on allowing multiple weapons it could be:
18(p)/18(o)/13(o)/13(o)/8(o)/8(o)/3(o)
correct?
Well, guys, what is it?
--------
I'd like to discuss the non rules aspects of this for a moment. It seems to me that, flavor-wise, two weapon fighting is about being able to attack more rapidly with two heads working in succession that one alone. When I visualize a fighter with two weapons, they are working in concert. He doesn't make 4 attacks with his right hand and then three with his left.
I also want to mention that I think the solution to this is simple. Clarify that iterative attacks are made highest to lowest BAB not just bonus, and then adjust the twf feats so that they are iterative attacks. Boom, done.
"If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest."
You're positing that "bonus" (in italics above) refers to overall attack bonus, not the base attack bonus/iterative-penalty that granted the attack. Correct?
Lets remove TWF from the example to make it simple. Level 6 fighter (BAB +6/+1) using a Khopesh (non-proficiently) in one hand which is also wearing a buckler, and using a +5 longsword in the other.
If the order of his attacks (both of which in this example are granted by high BAB) must be made in order of total attack bonus, then he is forced to use the longsword first.
Khopesh attack: +1 (BAB+6, NonProficient-4, buckler-1)
Longsword attack: +6 (BAB+1, Enhancement+5)
So even though the khopesh is the attack granted by highest/full BAB, the longsword attack must be attempted first.
That doesn't make much sense. It seems equally valid to read "bonus" as referring to the base attack bonus mentioned earlier in the sentence, which then is easier to calculate, and actually makes sense. (Your BAB+6 attack goes before your BAB+1 attack)
"If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first."
The reading of this clearly infers (yes, infers, but doesn't actually state) that the "highest bonus to lowest" refers to the "base attack bonus" earlier in the same sentence. It's a common writing practice, especially when you're concerned about exceeding a word count.
So, that should be interpreted as "highest base attack bonus to lowest base attack bonus". It would have been unwieldy to actually write it that way.
Multiple Weapons, Iterative Attacks, and Two-Weapon Fighting (page 202): If I have iterative attacks from a high BAB, can I make attacks with different weapons and not incur a two-weapon fighting penalty?
"In other words, once you decide you're using two-weapon fighting to get that extra attack on your turn (which you have to decide before you take any attacks on your turn), that decision locks you in to the format of "my primary weapon gets my main attack and my iterative attack, and my off hand weapon only gets the extra attack, and I apply two-weapon fighting penalties."
So, this is meant to infer that your Primary Weapon is the one with the lesser TWF Penalty (from the "Table: Two-Weapon Fighting Penalties" in the Two-Weapon Fighting Section of the Combat chapter). You will note that if you have the feat "Two-Weapon Fighting", the penalties are the same.
"Light: A light weapon is used in one hand. It is easier to use in one's off hand than a one-handed weapon is, and can be used while grappling (see Combat). Add the wielder's Strength modifier to damage rolls for melee attacks with a light weapon if it's used in the primary hand, or half the wielder's Strength bonus if it's used in the off hand. Using two hands to wield a light weapon gives no advantage on damage; the Strength bonus applies as though the weapon were held in the wielder's primary hand only.
One-Handed: A one-handed weapon can be used in either the primary hand or the off hand. Add the wielder's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with a one-handed weapon if it's used in the primary hand, or 1/2 his Strength bonus if it's used in the off hand. If a one-handed weapon is wielded with two hands during melee combat, add 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls."
Therefore, each round you would choose which is Primary and which is Secondary. The Primary weapon uses your standard iterative attacks and gets to add their full Str bonus to damage.
Your Off-hand weapon gets the bonus attacks from the TWF feats and only adds half their Str bonus to damage.
Now, as for order: It indicates that you would attack with all your Primary attacks in iterative order, then your bonus attacks from TWF (also in iterative order, if you get multiple bonus attacks).
However, I don't think anyone would have a problem with the following (and, in fact, this is how I performed it when playing my Two-Weapon Fighter):
Highest attack with Primary
Highest attack with Secondary
Next-highest attack with Primary
Next-highest attack with Secondary
It's logical that you would be alternating attacks with the weapons, as that's how it would work in real life.
"If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest."
You're positing that "bonus" (in italics above) refers to overall attack bonus, not the base attack bonus/iterative-penalty that granted the attack. Correct?
Lets remove TWF from the example to make it simple. Level 6 fighter (BAB +6/+1) using a Khopesh (non-proficiently) in one hand which is also wearing a buckler, and using a +5 longsword in the other.
If the order of his attacks (both of which in this example are granted by high BAB) must be made in order of total attack bonus, then he is forced to use the longsword first.
Khopesh attack: +1 (BAB+6, NonProficient-4, buckler-1)
Longsword attack: +6 (BAB+1, Enhancement+5)So even though the khopesh is the attack granted by highest/full BAB, the longsword attack must be attempted first.
That doesn't make much sense. It seems equally valid to read "bonus" as referring to the base attack bonus mentioned earlier in the sentence, which then is easier to calculate, and actually makes sense. (Your BAB+6 attack goes before your BAB+1 attack)
I discussed this.
Though it is easy to infer, it does NOT say highest to lowest BAB, simply bonus. BUT, for the time being, let's say it does say that. Then it says that when using two weapons, you may choose which to attack with first. It makes no mention of which attacks second, or third, or so on. It doesn't need to because the prior sentence has decided for you. You must use the next highest bonus. But, since twf doesn't affect your BAB, instead merely applying a penalty to your full BAB, any and all off hand attacks will be at full BAB and would then need to be made prior to any iterative attacks.
I agree with you that in terms of full attacking, it seems to go from highest to lowest BAB was the intent, though this isn't entirely clear in the actual wording. But, this is IS about two weapon fighting.
While it's technically valid that offhand attacks come before primary attacks, it seems to me to be rather unintuitive. Anyone who wanted to attack with their preferred weapon first would have to designate it as being in their offhand, which would then allow it only half strength to damage. So, the weaker attacks come first? That just doesn't seems right.
Now, as for order: It indicates that you would attack with all your Primary attacks in iterative order, then your bonus attacks from TWF (also in iterative order, if you get multiple bonus attacks).
The rule only applies to attacks granted by high BAB. Off-hand attacks are not granted by high BAB, so that rule does not apply to them.
Now, as for order: It indicates that you would attack with all your Primary attacks in iterative order, then your bonus attacks from TWF (also in iterative order, if you get multiple bonus attacks).The rule only applies to attacks granted by high BAB. Off-hand attacks are not granted by high BAB, so that rule does not apply to them.
In what order are two weapon fighting attacks made according to Grick? Say if, a 20th level fighter had GTWF?
But, this is IS about two weapon fighting.
Two-weapon fighting is completely irrelevant. TWF is getting attacks with your off-hand. It's not granted by high BAB, so the rule about making iterative attacks in (some kind of) order don't have anything to do with them.
As long as your iterative attacks are made in whatever order (bonus or BAB, however you read it) then all your other attacks can go whenever you want.
Anyone who wanted to attack with their preferred weapon first would have to designate it as being in their offhand
The only thing that happens in order are attacks granted by high BAB. These are your 'primary-hand' attacks. Whatever weapon you designate as your 'off-hand' is by definition not making iterative attacks, so all attacks made with that weapon (while two-weapon fighting) are not restricted by the rule about making iterative attacks in order.
In what order are two weapon fighting attacks made according to Grick?
In whatever order you want. The only time the rules mentions making attacks in order is the rule about attacks granted because your base attack bonus is high enough. This means for any attacks that are not granted because of a high BAB, the rule does not apply.
I guess you could argue that the extra off-hand attack granted by the Improved Two-Weapon Fighting feat should be made after the normal off-hand attack, since the feat says "you get a second attack with it" and that could imply that you can't make your second attack until you've made your first attack.
If that's the case, then all of the off-hand attacks must be made in order (TWF then ITWF then GTWF) in addition to the iterative attacks being made in order. But either of them can be made first, and I don't see any reason why you couldn't interlace them if you so wanted to.
In what order are two weapon fighting attacks made according to Grick?In whatever order you want. The only time the rules mentions making attacks in order is the rule about attacks granted because your base attack bonus is high enough. This means for any attacks that are not granted because of a high BAB, the rule does not apply.
So the attack order could be: 8o/13o/18o/18p/13p/8p/3p
Again, I suppose it's valid enough, but it doesn't really make sense. Why the restriction for primary attacks, but not offhand attacks? Why are the offhand attacks, which are made at full BAB, not subject to the requirement to come first in the event that you have an iterative attack?
Whoops, took me too long to write this.
I would suggest (only a suggestion) the following order (using just BAB, and no other mods) for a 20th level Fighter with all TWF Feats:
P +20 / O +20 (TWF) / P +15 / O +15 (ITWF) / P +10 / O +10 (GTWF) / P +5
It makes the most sense to me, and it's how I played it as a player, and would run it as a GM.
However, Grick is right, there is no indication of the order of the extra attacks from TWF.
For ease of play, you might just perform all of your Primary attacks in iterative order, and then the extra attacks (TWF, then ITWF, and GTWF last).
|
Ever since 3.0 came out we've been TWFing just like Weren Wu Jen:-
(extra P +20 from haste/speed)
P +20
O +20
P +15
O +15 (ImpTWF)
P +10
O +10(GrtTWF)
P +5
ImpTWF gets you a second off-hand attack at -5, indicating that, of all your off-hand attacks, this attack is taken second.
GrtTWF gets you a third off-hand attack at -10, indicating that, of all your off-hand attacks, this attack is taken third.
You choose at the start of each turn which of your weapons to designate the 'off-hand' weapon. This is the only weapon with which you can make your bonus off-hand attacks granted by TWF during this turn. All attacks made with this weapon this turn only add half Str bonus to damage (unless Double Slice), and (assuming the first TWF feat) TWF attack penalties are -4 unless the designated off-hand weapon is light, in which case those penalties are -2 instead.
Your normal (iterative) attacks may be made with any combination of weapons, except that none of those attacks may be made with your designated off-hand weapon.
The order in which you take your (primary) attacks is highest BAB to lowest. The order in which you take your off hand attacks is:-
Your extra off-hand attack granted by TWF, which is at your full BAB.
Your second extra attack, granted by ImpTWF, which is at your full BAB-5.
Your third extra attack, granted by GrtTWF, which is at your full BAB-10.
You choose at the start of your full attack which weapon to designate as 'off-hand', and that weapon attacks after your initial (normal) attack, as the extra attack is an extra attack, not an initial attack.
The consequence of taking attacks from higher BAB to lower is that your first off-hand attack (using your full BAB) is taken before your second normal attack (using your BAB-5), and so on down the chain, resulting in an interlacing attack pattern.
The fact that your off-hand attacks are not granted by your high BAB does not change the fact that they use your full BAB, your BAB-5, or your BAB-10 respectively, and all your attacks must be taken in order of higher BAB to lower.
|
I'm a little confused about why this is a Rules Question when the opening post contains a FAQ entry for how it works....
But, the Improved TWF and Greater TWF feats grant you a second and then third attack at the modifiers specified, which is fairly implicative of the order they should be taken in (i.e. Highest to lowest). So 8o/13o/18o wouldn't be a valid option. You couldn't gain a second off-hand attack at -5 if you haven't taken a first attack.
The fact that your off-hand attacks are not granted by your high BAB does not change the fact that they use your full BAB, your BAB-5, or your BAB-10 respectively, and all your attacks must be taken in order of higher BAB to lower.
This is incorrect.
"If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest."
"If" is a conditional, this means that the rule only applies when you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough. Further, "the attacks" is specifically the multiple attacks that you are able to make because your base attack bonus is high enough.
This means even if off-hand attacks must be made in the order they're granted, there's nothing preventing someone from making all of their off-hand attacks and then all of their primary attacks, or vice versa.
"If you have green bananas, you must put the bananas in a paper bag for a couple days before eating."
That doesn't mean you have to put all bananas in a paper bag, only the green ones.
|
|
The fact that your off-hand attacks are not granted by your high BAB does not change the fact that they use your full BAB, your BAB-5, or your BAB-10 respectively, and all your attacks must be taken in order of higher BAB to lower.This is incorrect.
"If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest."
"If" is a conditional, this means that the rule only applies when you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough. Further, "the attacks" is specifically the multiple attacks that you are able to make because your base attack bonus is high enough.
This means even if off-hand attacks must be made in the order they're granted, there's nothing preventing someone from making all of their off-hand attacks and then all of their primary attacks, or vice versa.
"If you have green bananas, you must put the bananas in a paper bag for a couple days before eating."
That doesn't mean you have to put all bananas in a paper bag, only the green ones.
I see where you're coming from, Grick, and I have to admit that if the rules were absolutely clear, then this thread wouldn't exist! It is not absolutely clear, therefore we must use our judgement, based on all the other stuff we know.
You can interpret it as taking all the attacks from one weapon before taking the first off-hand attack, and RAW doesn't stop you. You can interlace the attacks and RAW doesn't stop you.
Two-Weapon Rend leads me to think it reinforces the interlacing option. YMMV.
The requirements for taking the ImpTWF and GrtTWF feats include a BAB of 6+ and a BAB of 11+ respectively. I could only get these feats because 'my BAB is high enough'! : )
Somebody who wants to argue that following this behavior is a violation of the rules and MUST BE PREVENTED has forgotten everything important about social gaming.
Pardon? Are you referring to me? THis is not only how I play twfing, but how I said it most likely should be played. However the lead designer and the rules don't necessarily agree here, or with each other. And in fact they remain mostly silent on the issue, but there is enough said to cause some strange happenings.
However the lead designer and the rules don't necessarily agree here, or with each other.
That quote was from 2008 and he's speaking specifically about what the beta rules said at the time (and specifically that he was not sure it needed to be that way). Does anyone have a copy of the beta playtest and can verify if the exact wording changed between then and now?
Somebody who wants to argue that following this behavior is a violation of the rules and MUST BE PREVENTED has forgotten everything important about social gaming.Pardon? Are you referring to me?Only in as much as you started the thread and asked the question. Since I don't know the motivation behind the question, I don't know if the statement needed stating or not.
RAW serves to provide a framework for people to get together and have fun. When adhering to RAW becomes more important than the social entertainment that the RAW is supposed to support, the people making RAW that important have forgotten why the hobby exists in the first place.
The hobby is not about perfectly implementing RAW. It never has been. Heck, there are too many versions of RAW (because there are so many systems in use and being cross-utilized) to expect a perfect implementation of any specific system.
The hobby is about having mutually entertaining social interactions.
Are you handling the attack series in a fashion that accomplishes the point of the attack series within the system, while also encouraging everyone to keep enjoying themselves? If yes, then you are doing what needs to be done to support the social entertainment nature of the hobby. If not, you need to verify that you are approaching the situation in a fashion that those you game with regularly find acceptable. In a social entertainment setting, being right is not as important as keeping the entertainment value high.
You might note the bit about the opinion of the social group you game with being far more important than the opinion of anyone on this forum. They are the social group you are supposed to be working with to provide everybody in the group entertainment.
Not only is all of this irrelevant when it comes to organized play where the letter of the rules has to be accepted and where the ability to attack in certain orders makes things like firearms more powerful than they are intended, but this is also the "Rules Questions" forum. Paizo saw fit to create a house rules/suggestions forum if you'd like to check it out. They also saw fit to make a forum for discussing what the rules actually say. I have been at this a while, and am perfectly capable of implementing house rules, deviating from RAW and seeing to it that everyone has fun. I am not here because of an issue I have in play, and I was unaware that was a requirement for posting in this forum.
I posted this because I saw a very interesting and, what appeared to me to be, a flawed section of the rules. As someone who loves this game and loves playing it, I find it worth my time to discuss it both from an analytical point of view, and from a position of wanting the game to move forward and improve. Saying RAW be damned is neither of those things. That a problem can be house ruled does not mean there is no problem. I'm more interested in fixing problems, for the game as a whole not just myself and my group, than I am in putting patches on them to hold the whole thing together.
So, if your interest is only in assuring everyone knows the point of the game is to have fun, you have successfully preached to the choir. It's just that some of us have fun talking about the what the rules actually say. If you'd like to actually participate in a rules based discussion here in the rules forum, feel free to join in.