RSS Facebook Twitter Email
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions

Two Weapon Fighting Action: Full / Standard?

Rules Questions

Search Thread

Search this Thread:

Am I correct in reading that two-weapon fighting does not require a full attack action? My friends and I always played that you needed to take a full attack action, but as I'm reading the rules more carefully, I suddenly realize I can find nothing to support this.

Specifically, can I use two-weapon fighting for an extra attack with a standard attack action?

How does this interact with the charge action? Can I charge, make my "single melee attack" (with a +2 bonus), then make my extra attack with my off-hand without the bonus? I am inclined towards "no" on this one.
Scarab Sages
Riley Gibbs wrote:

Am I correct in reading that two-weapon fighting does not require a full attack action? My friends and I always played that you needed to take a full attack action, but as I'm reading the rules more carefully, I suddenly realize I can find nothing to support this.

Specifically, can I use two-weapon fighting for an extra attack with a standard attack action?

How does this interact with the charge action? Can I charge, make my "single melee attack" (with a +2 bonus), then make my extra attack with my off-hand without the bonus? I am inclined towards "no" on this one.

No, unless you have an archetype or ability that gives you the ability to make two attacks as a standard action (the Two-Weapon Warrior for example has his Doublestrike ability) you can only make one attack as a standard action.

Charging also only allows you a single attack, so you cannot make a second attack with your off-hand weapon on a charge.

Multiple Attacks: A character who can make more than one attack per round must use the full-attack action (see Full-Round Actions) in order to get more than one attack.

In order to get more than 1 attack, you must use the full-attack action. This includes two-weapon fighting as well as iterative attacks or multiple natural attacks.

The rule is in the Combat section, under the "Full Attack" header:

PRD wrote:

Full Attack

If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.

But honestly, this is a very good houserule and in my opinion one of the changes Paizo SHOULD have made to two-weapon fighting when they made Pathfinder to begin with >.<

Two-weapon wielders get screwed enough by having to pay for weapon enhancements twice over, having to take feats just to do their thing (at level 1 for non-humans non-Fighters that's the only feat most characters HAVE, and it gets worse with levels) and having to invest in Dexterity instead of Strength (which, in turn, frequently leads to Finesse builds, which costs ANOTHER feat and loses out on damage unless the character spends MORE money on Balanced weapons) and to top it all off they take a -2 penalty to hit whenever using both weapons at the same time.

Yeah, just go ahead and let the poor guys swing twice as a standard action. Won't break a thing. Might even help fix something.

@kyrt-ryder: If you do that would you give a Two-Weapon Warrior a different ability in place of Double Strike?

Would it be a Standard Attack Action or just a Standard Action? Maybe make the Two-Weapon Warrior change it from a Standard Action to a Standard Attack Action.
Grand Lodge

Basically, with out some kind of special ability(which are rare), you need to full-attack to ever get more than one attack.

That goes for everyone, wielding any weapon, or any number of weapons.
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Basically, with out some kind of special ability(which are rare), you need to full-attack to ever get more than one attack.

That goes for everyone, wielding any weapon, or any number of weapons.

Unless you have a class ability stating otherwise.

Grand Lodge
Azaelas Fayth wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Basically, with out some kind of special ability(which are rare), you need to full-attack to ever get more than one attack.

That goes for everyone, wielding any weapon, or any number of weapons.

Unless you have a class ability stating otherwise.

That's the special ability I mentioned. It matters not if it came from a class feature, racial ability, or whatever.

Sorry missed that part of your post... Opps...
Azaelas Fayth wrote:

@kyrt-ryder: If you do that would you give a Two-Weapon Warrior a different ability in place of Double Strike?

Would it be a Standard Attack Action or just a Standard Action? Maybe make the Two-Weapon Warrior change it from a Standard Action to a Standard Attack Action.

That could work. Vital Strike with two-weapon fighting just seems a little weird, the Archtype would open that up (along with Spring Attack and a few other things) while the normal two-weapon-wielders would just benefit from improved mobility compared to core.

Spring Attack wouldn't work with even that change...

Just as Vital Strike doesn't
Ssalarn wrote:
Riley Gibbs wrote:

Am I correct in reading that two-weapon fighting does not require a full attack action? My friends and I always played that you needed to take a full attack action, but as I'm reading the rules more carefully, I suddenly realize I can find nothing to support this.

Specifically, can I use two-weapon fighting for an extra attack with a standard attack action?

How does this interact with the charge action? Can I charge, make my "single melee attack" (with a +2 bonus), then make my extra attack with my off-hand without the bonus? I am inclined towards "no" on this one.

No, unless you have an archetype or ability that gives you the ability to make two attacks as a standard action (the Two-Weapon Warrior for example has his Doublestrike ability) you can only make one attack as a standard action.

Charging also only allows you a single attack, so you cannot make a second attack with your off-hand weapon on a charge.

Multiple Attacks: A character who can make more than one attack per round must use the full-attack action (see Full-Round Actions) in order to get more than one attack.

Ah, I knew it was in there somewhere. Thanks for finding it for me! Glad to know I haven't been doing it wrong all these years. :-)

Azaelas Fayth wrote:

Spring Attack wouldn't work with even that change...

Just as Vital Strike doesn't

Gosh dammit Paizo >.< I was going off the 3.5 Spring Attack text in my head. Lets try this then.

Quote:

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. Furthermore, you can attack with two weapons as an Attack Action or at the end of a Charge.

Then the Archtype would change it to a simple

Revised Doublestrike wrote:
Any time you would make an attack during your own turn, you have the option of attacking with two weapons at a -2 penalty.
Grand Lodge

No. That complicates it further.

Meh, I'm going to bow out of this now :P In my campaigns I don't even have that archtype, two-weapon fighting isn't a feat and instead an option at -2 penalty to hit whenever someone gets an attack.

My "Basic PbP Handbook".

A lot of people seem to be posting links to google docs that require approval lately. (Not so much here, since I've been off these boards for months, but online in general.)

There is one, minor exception. That exception is the 5 foot step.

My Doc should be open now.

As long as you're modifying Vital Strike, you should strongly consider merging the feat chain into a single feat that improves with BAB.

Every game I've played in has ruled it as a standard actions to fight with two weapons, I've only recently realized that RAW says otherwise.

Is not enough of a sacrifice that you're required to use weapons with a small damage die and you take a -2 on both attacks? In my experience playing with this rule hasn't adversely affected the game in any way.

That was the change I forgot to carry over! Sorry it is supposed to be a scaling Feat... Should be fixed now.
Big Lemon wrote:

Every game I've played in has ruled it as a standard actions to fight with two weapons, I've only recently realized that RAW says otherwise.

Is not enough of a sacrifice that you're required to use weapons with a small damage die and you take a -2 on both attacks? In my experience playing with this rule hasn't adversely affected the game in any way.

Well, the small damage die is almost a non-issue. Greatsword is 2d6, two shortswords are 2d6, etc.

But paying a feat (and more feats down the line), and a feat with a notable dexterity requirement (hefty requirement further down the line) at that, is a pretty big deal.
Grand Lodge

That's the price you pay for extra attacks.

That's how it works. Trade one thing for another.

Power Attack trades bonus to hit, for damage.

Two-weapon fighting trades bonus to hit, for extra attacks.

It is known as balance.

Different people have differing opinions on balance BBT. In my games, two weapon fighting is a simple option at -4 penalty requiring a minimum of 12 dexterity, that can be used with any attack except an Attack of Opportunity.

The Two-Weapon Fighting feat cuts the penalty in half and allows double-shots on AoO's.

I have yet to experience any problems with it, nor have any of my players felt any urge to use it. (I've had three two-weapon wielders out of something like twelve martial characters in the time since I implemented it. One Rogue, one Ranger, and a 'rapier and pistol' Bard.

EDIT: I neglected to mention the above is an off-hand light weapon. If the off-hand is one-handed, the penalty is 50% higher (-6 without the feat, -3 with it)
Grand Lodge

I am not sure how I feel about that houserule. I would need to reflect.

As a rule of thumb, it's full attack, or one attack.

It kind of hurts the Ranger as they basically get locked into a smaller Feat Selection for their Bonus Feats. It also removes their Status as being one of the Best TWF Classes behind the Rogue/Ninja.
Grand Lodge

Yeah, I don't like that houserule.

I often have to remind some players that wielding two weapons doesn't give them a bunch of free attacks, every time they attack.

As I said above, the rule of thumb, which I repeat like a mantra to such players "it's full attack, or one attack".

To each their own I suppose. Two-weapon fighting never really fit as a Ranger thing to me anyway. An option they can take, sure, but not really a defining Ranger thing.
Grand Lodge
kyrt-ryder wrote:

To each their own I suppose. Two-weapon fighting never really fit as a Ranger thing to me anyway. An option they can take, sure, but not really a defining Ranger thing.

Perhaps in your experience.

The Ranger is one of the best at a strength based two weapon PC build.

The truly classic Drow Ranger Drizzt was a two weapon fighting Ranger.

It spurned tons of twin Scimitar wielding Drow PCs, created by Drizzt fan-boys/girls.

Alternatively, the 'truly classic Drow Ranger Drizzt' spurned the Ranger classes' two-weapon traits.

I've heard it both ways, I don't know the history from experience.

Actually Drizzt was created AFTER the Ranger got TWF Combat Style.

The TWF Combat Style was actually created to allow Gimli's Fighting style.

Originally, the Combat Styles were introduced in a OD&D/AD&D supplement that allowed certain options without the need for Pre-Requisites.

Since the original TWF was usable simply by having a high enough DEX that meant I could create a Warrior or Ranger that didn't use DEX but could still TWF.
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Two Weapon Fighting Action: Full / Standard? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Rules Questions