Is this TWF combination legal?


Rules Questions

501 to 550 of 788 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
I don't even understand your question. The rules are what they are.

His question was because your bullet points revolved around the bonus damage from 2H wielding. Not around wielding a 2H-only greatsword/polearm/etc per se. That ties back into how this relates to Double Weapons, if 2WF is precluding the 2H STR damage bonus, or what. This does really feel like it should be Errata, although a FAQ is great for the moment.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree with Ilja.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Does this apply to creatures with more than two arms?

Liberty's Edge

It's good to know that TWF does have something to do with hands...like it says it does in the rules...like I've said it does...even when BBT was pretty much inferring that I'm an idiot by saying that you can't use a greatsword and kick...but you could if you had some kind of equipment that allowed it...like a boot blade...


blade boot doesn't say anything about using it with 2 handed weapons while 2WF'ing.
why would that be different?

BBT was going off the RAW, which never speaks about main-hand damage apart from standard combat rules. The current FAQ fully applies to somebody with even 3 hands, so not having an extra hand to spare is not really the issue.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Does this apply when using a Double weapon?


What if you have four hands and two longspears?

Grand Lodge

Gishou wrote:
What if you have four hands and two longspears?

Then nothing in this thread is relevant to you. Having said that, you have one longspear wielded in your primary hand and your off-hand, the other wielded in two off-hands. Continue logically from there.

Grand Lodge

blackbloodtroll wrote:
Does this apply when using a Double weapon?

That is a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. It's worth asking though and I think the same answer would apply - you are two-weapon fighting and both your hands are occupied.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

What hand am I wielding my Dwarven Boulder Helmet in?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Starglim wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Does this apply when using a Double weapon?
That is a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. It's worth asking though and I think the same answer would apply - you are two-weapon fighting and both your hands are occupied.

Meaning, can I attack with one end of a double weapon, then Armor Spikes as an off-hand attack?


I think that might depend on if you are getting the bonus damage from two handing the double weapon or not.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Can you choose not to get extra damage?


I think that with double weapons you can use it as a two handed with the damage bonus but if you do that you can not use the other side with two weapon fighting, sadly I do not remember if that is pathfinder or something from 3.0 that I am not remembering right.


Just found it on the prd it says in equipment "Double Weapons: Dire flails, dwarven urgroshes, gnome hooked hammers, orc double axes, quarterstaves, and two-bladed swords are double weapons. A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons, but he incurs all the normal attack penalties associated with two-weapon combat, just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon.

The character can also choose to use a double weapon two-handed, attacking with only one end of it. A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can't use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round." don't know if that helps.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Hell if I know anymore.

You can two weapon fight using only your skull, but not with the old bat and shoulder check.

Liberty's Edge

blackbloodtroll wrote:
If I attack with a greatsword, but opt to not gain the extra damage, I can still attack with a non-hand associated weapon, as an off-hand attack?

I think the fact that you have two hands on the weapon, you're getting that extra damage. If you don't want the extra damage, don't two-hand your weapon.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Oh, but I can two hand a light weapon, and gain no extra damage.

Does that still prevent an attack with a non-hand weapon as an off hand attack?

SKR implied it was this damage that prevented it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Nope. By putting two hands on your 1H or 2H weapon, you're giving up any extra attacks you'd get if you were using a 1H weapon and using two-weapon fighting. Doesn't matter if you're trying to make punches, kicks, headbutts, knees, or whatever, the game is giving you a choice:

• fully commit to one attack with two hands for extra damage, or
• make an extra attack with TWF at the cost of not getting the extra damage from using two hands on one attack.

And this was in the rules?!? Gaining the extra damage for using a two-handed weapon precludes making attacks with other limbs? Why? I don't see any justification derived from the rules.

Grand Lodge

blackbloodtroll wrote:
Starglim wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Does this apply when using a Double weapon?
That is a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. It's worth asking though and I think the same answer would apply - you are two-weapon fighting and both your hands are occupied.
Meaning, can I attack with one end of a double weapon, then Armor Spikes as an off-hand attack?

You can, as long as you're using the double weapon as double, not two-handing it.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Why not just have the two handed weapon only deal x1 strength to damage when two weapon fighting?

That makes more sense, and balances, well, whatever they felt needed balancing.

Liberty's Edge

So it turns out that using a weapon in a hand precludes using that hand for other attacks with a different weapon. . . Who would've ever thought.

*walks away whistling*

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShadowcatX wrote:

So it turns out that using a weapon in a hand precludes using that hand for other attacks with a different weapon. . . Who would've ever thought.

*walks away whistling*

Er...no actually!

According to the new rules introduced in this FAQ, it is only forbidden while TWFing.

If you are not, then you can attack with a sword in your right hand at +6, drop it and Quick Draw a mace and attack with that using the same right hand, at +1.

According to the new FAQ, TWF now magically prevents doing this when using the extra attacks granted by TWF, but not for the iteratives in the same full attack.

This new FAQ hasn't been thought through.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:

So it turns out that using a weapon in a hand precludes using that hand for other attacks with a different weapon. . . Who would've ever thought.

*walks away whistling*

Er...no actually!

According to the new rules introduced in this FAQ, it is only forbidden while TWFing.

If you are not, then you can attack with a sword in your right hand at +6, drop it and Quick Draw a mace and attack with that using the same right hand, at +1.

According to the new FAQ, TWF now magically prevents doing this when using the extra attacks granted by TWF, but not for the iteratives in the same full attack.

This new FAQ hasn't been thought through.

No, while you are TWFing, you can still drop a weapon and quickdraw a second weapon for iterative attacks. What you can't do is use a hand on both a primary and off hand attack.


I can't remember, but when this was addressed by PFS, didn't they specifically rule that Armor Spikes DID require a free arm/hand to use, and that was the basis of their ruling re: 2Hvweapon/2WF? Because although that isn't in the RAW, it is a coherent line of reasoning to the end point... If Paizo ruled the same for the official FAQ, adding a 'free arm' requirement to Armor Spikes (and Gauntlets) it would be pretty clear.

But SKR's follow up post made it seem more like they were making another FAQ-as-Errata ruling that 2WF's main-hand attacks may not benefit from 2-hand dmg bonus... That is kind of new rules being written, but if they're doing that, it's not clear why they must ban 2handed weapons completely, as compared to just enforce 1x STR on main-hand. They could of course bar 2handed weapons as main-hand attacks with their FAQ-as-Errata/new rules, but they haven't really indicated they are doing that, they just issued a 'No' answer.

The issue of 2WF and 2Handed damage bonus has been raised before with Double Weapons specifically, I never saw an answer from the Paizo rules team there... Per RAW, there is no penalty on the main-hand damage (2WF doesn't modify damage at all for the main-hand), and since the weapon is being wielded in two hands, you should plausibly still qualify for the damage bonus on the main-hand (the rules for off-hand say you 'only' apply 0.5xSTR, which should over-ride any other STR modifier).

I don't care what the end result is in terms of the ruling, it's just that the FAQ itself is incredibly vague, and doesn't seem to have any support from the RAW. If they're changing RAW (by FAQ or not), I don't have a fundamental problem with that, but they need to make clear that the ruling is not just something derivable from RAW but their own invention.

Liberty's Edge

What is RAW but your own interpretation of the written rules.


If you TWF with a double weapon, you wield it as a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. One hand goes to each, so you'd get STR bonus with one and 1/2 STR bonus with the other. You're not wielding it as a two-handed weapon at that point, so you shouldn't get the higher STR bonus.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
fretgod99 wrote:
If you TWF with a double weapon, you wield it as a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. One hand goes to each, so you'd get STR bonus with one and 1/2 STR bonus with the other. You're not wielding it as a two-handed weapon at that point, so you shouldn't get the higher STR bonus.

Why couldn't they do this with the two handed weapon and Armor Spikes?

x1 strength to Primary, and x0.5 strength to off hand.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.
The PDT wrote:

Armor Spikes: Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?

No.
Edit: Likewise, you couldn't use an armored gauntlet to do so, as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks.

Wait a minute! 'Likewise, you couldn't use an armored gauntlet to do so, as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks.'

So, the reason you can't TWF with 2H+spiked gauntlet is that your off hand is unavailable, and this is 'likewise' with the 'no' for armour spikes? But with armour spikes the off hand is available, because it didn't do anything!

How is this 'likewise'?

They said 'no' to armour spikes, giving no reason. Later, the add an edit to say that spiked gauntlets don't work either, and give a reason that cannot have been the same reason for armour spikes, but write 'likewise' as if it was the same reason!

What was the reason for the 'no' to armour spikes?


HangarFlying wrote:
What is RAW but your own interpretation of the written rules.
2WF rules nowhere discuss how you wield the main-hand weapon, nor (STR) damage multipliers for that attack.
2WF wrote:
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.

2WF is presented as way to get something 'extra' in addition to your regular attack. If 2WF is not enunciating any further restriction, what basis is there to assume that we can't do everything we can with a regular attack?

Armor Spikes nowhere mention using a hand or even an arm to wield.

What part of RAW do you point to to support a reading to the contrary?

--------------------------------------------------------------------

fretgod99 wrote:
If you TWF with a double weapon, you wield it as a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. One hand goes to each, so you'd get STR bonus with one and 1/2 STR bonus with the other. You're not wielding it as a two-handed weapon at that point, so you shouldn't get the higher STR bonus.

Not really. The 2WF/Double Weapon rules state that you:

Quote:
make an extra attack with the off-hand end of the weapon as if you were fighting with two weapons. The penalties apply as if the off-hand end of the weapon was a light weapon.

Not that you are wielding it as two separate weapons IN GENERAL, but that the extra (off-hand) attack is resolved as if you were 'fighting with two weapons'. There are no 'penalties' to damage for main-hand attacks from the 2WF rules, it never mentions main-hand damage.

Equipment Chapter Double Weapon rules (not to confuse you or anything) wrote:
A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons, but he incurs all the normal attack penalties associated with two-weapon combat, just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon.

Again, talking about 'fighting with' not addressing your status of how you are wielding it per se. It specifically refers to 'attack penalties' for the main-hand, which does not affect damage, and again, the normal 2WF rules don't apply any 'penalty' to main-hand damage.

If you want to claim the intent is otherwise, FEEL FREE. At least with archetypes like 2WF/Mobile Fighter, I think that is a good idea to enforce 1x STR on main-hand (without those archetypes, I don't really see a problem, personally). But if we are supposed to derive official function from the RAW, I don't see a basis for your claim. If there is Errata issued, or a FAQ specifying a new rule that over-rides the RAW, that can change things, but until then the RAW for 2WF including Double Weapons doesn't seem to care about how you wield the main-hand attack, or the STR damage multiplier on that attack.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:


What was the reason for the 'no' to armour spikes?

You cannot use two-handed fighting and two-weapon fighting at the same time.

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 20 people marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
What was the reason for the 'no' to armour spikes?

Because the game has an unwritten rule which essentially states the following:

• A 1st-level standard-race PC can either make one melee attack without TWF or you can make two melee attacks with TWF.

• The most damage you can do without TWF is using a 1H or 2H weapon in two hands for x1.5 Str damage, and the most damage you can do with TWF is x1 in the main hand and x.5 in the off-hand (for a total of x1.5 Str added to your weapons), so optimally you're getting no more that x1.5 Str no matter which attack mode you choose.

• While the game doesn't explicitly limit your attacks to "hands," that's the basic assumption, and you shouldn't be able to pile on additional attacks per round just because you can think up additional or alternative body parts to attack with.

• Because if one character uses 2H weapon and is NOT allowed to make an additional attack with armor spikes or a metal gauntlet because his hands are occupied by his 2H weapon, and a different character uses a 2H weapon and IS allowed to make an additional attack with a metal boot because he's not using his hand, that second character is gaining a game mechanics advantage simply by changing the flavorful description of his extra attack's origin from, and that is not good game design.

There is a hard (but not-explicity-stated-in-the-rules) limit to what a standard-race PC should be able to do in one round of combat. Even though it's not stated in the rules, it is a real limit (in the same way that there's no printed rule that says "don't make a first-tier feat that gives more than +3 to one skill for a 1st-level character," or "don't make a first-tier feat that gives more than a +1 to attack rolls with one type of weapon," but it's still a rule we follow), and you shouldn't be allowed to break that limit.


This is the situation where I break out statistical information to determine the validity of any rule whining. As someone who actually fences and sword fights in reality (for fun, nothing serious or competitive) - realism often conflicts with rules systems - any rules systems. Since rules are designed around consistency and game balance, I look at the impact of the rules, rather than two people arguing day and night what they think 'is possible.'

In this example, lets analyze a few assumptions. At some point, your strength will become 20, and likely higher. Lets also assume you take Double Slice at some point. So eventually, the following points are valid, regardless of when:

Longsword (Main Hand, 1h) : 1d8+5 (6 - 13 Damage)
Spiked Gauntlet (Off Hand) : 1d4+5 (6 - 9 Damage)

This is the perfectly legal choice, by the 'rules' as they appear or the intent applied previously in this post. As questioned, the two-handed swapping approach:

Longsword (Main Hand, 2h) : 1d8+7 (8 - 15 Damage)
Spiked Gauntlet (Off Hand) : 1d4+5 (6 - 9 Damage)

Ultimately, what needs to matter here, is how it compares to what is otherwise possible, such as wielding a Longsword and Shortsword, a higher damaging off-hand weapon:

Longsword (Main Hand, 1h) : 1d8+5 (6 - 13 Damage)
Shortsword (Off Hand, 1h) : 1d6+5 (6 - 11 Damage)

At the indicated assumptions, the Longsword wielded 2h, and switching to Spiked Gauntlet as an off-hand has a better minimum damage and the same maximum damage as the legal Longsword + Shortsword. This implies the balance is broken.

As a DM, my solution is easy: I would say this is a certainly valid choice, since the immediate ramifications are only affecting minimum damage - but with a catch. Power Attack would only yield 1h version of its bonus damage when applied to the Longsword. In addition, I would count the off-hand weapon as far as TWF penalties go (-4/-4) instead of -2/-2. With a 10% drop in accuracy, the minimum damage increase is paid for. In addition, when your strength acclimates beyond 20, that extra damage will be paid for compared to dual-wielding two longswords via the normal rules.

Just my two cents. Then again, I play many, many different game systems, many of which the entirety of mechanics focus around bending the rules and putting flavor ahead of balance. In the case of wanting a spiked gauntlet offhand, with all its drawbacks, you are giving up (by the normal rules) extra damage for flavor. This slight rules infraction helps alleviate that penalty.

Liberty's Edge

Ahhhhh...it feels so good to hear all of that, SKR. YOU DA MAN!


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
What was the reason for the 'no' to armour spikes?

Because the game has an unwritten rule which essentially states the following:

• A 1st-level standard-race PC can either make one melee attack without TWF or you can make two melee attacks with TWF.

• The most damage you can do without TWF is using a 1H or 2H weapon in two hands for x1.5 Str damage, and the most damage you can do with TWF is x1 in the main hand and x.5 in the off-hand (for a total of x1.5 Str added to your weapons), so optimally you're getting no more that x1.5 Str no matter which attack mode you choose.

• While the game doesn't explicitly limit your attacks to "hands," that's the basic assumption, and you shouldn't be able to pile on additional attacks per round just because you can think up additional or alternative body parts to attack with.

• Because if one character uses 2H weapon and is NOT allowed to make an additional attack with armor spikes or a metal gauntlet because his hands are occupied by his 2H weapon, and a different character uses a 2H weapon and IS allowed to make an additional attack with a metal boot because he's not using his hand, that second character is gaining a game mechanics advantage simply by changing the flavorful description of his extra attack's origin from, and that is not good game design.

There is a hard (but not-explicity-stated-in-the-rules) limit to what a standard-race PC should be able to do in one round of combat. Even though it's not stated in the rules, it is a real limit (in the same way that there's no printed rule that says "don't make a first-tier feat that gives more than +3 to one skill for a 1st-level character," or "don't make a first-tier feat that gives more than a +1 to attack rolls with one type of weapon," but it's still a rule we follow), and you shouldn't be allowed to break that limit.

Thanks for the explanation, Sean.

As I suspected this invalidates a lot of "classic" builds and quite a few guides will have to be updated.

So basically this means "you cannot get more than damage comparable to 2HF, regardless whether that is from TWF or THF". I can work with that.
I really wish that was more explicit in the rules, it would have prevented a lot of misunderstandings.

What happens if you have double slice and thus get 2xStr damage per round?

I guess this also means not only armor spikes but also off-hand attacks with unarmed strikes (knee-kicks etc.) in combination with a 2H weapon are out, because that would net you 2xStr damage (1.5xStr damage from main-hand, 0.5xStr damage from off-hand) or even 2.5xStr damage in the case of a monk two-handing a temple sword and attacking with unarmed strike in a flurry (which is like TWF and full Str bonus applies)?
What happens if I attack once per round 2H with a 1H-weapon and then only attack with it in 1H (e.g. when I have 3 main-hand and 2 off-hand attacks) - would that be legal because I am not breaking the limit, or is using the 2HW 1/round already enough to disallow 2WF then?

I am honestly unsure how this works out here. Before my understanding was simple: TWF (including flurry) basically just means extra attacks, whatever way you get them, typically imposing some disadvantages (e.g. you cannot wield a shield while using 2H weapons etc.) and some advantages (e.g. 2HF allows feats such as furious focus).
Now there are additional restrictions about whose effects I am not sure :-(

Finally, does this have any effect on threatening and attacks of opportunity, e.g. when I used a longspear to attack in a round, can I still threaten with unarmed strikes and make attacks into adjacent fields?

Thanks in advance :-)

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Sangalor wrote:
As I suspected this invalidates a lot of "classic" builds and quite a few guides will have to be updated.

Well, it might invalidate it for a few levels, but once your character gets an iterative attack, the "attack once with a 2H weapon, attack again with my iterative attack using armor spikes or whatever" technique is perfectly valid under the rules.

Sangalor wrote:
What happens if you have double slice and thus get 2xStr damage per round?

Double Slice has a mechanical cost (you have to pay a feat for it), so that's not just flavor giving you better mechanical results.

Sangalor wrote:
I guess this also means not only armor spikes but also off-hand attacks with unarmed strikes (knee-kicks etc.) in combination with a 2H weapon are out, because that would net you 2xStr damage (1.5xStr damage from main-hand, 0.5xStr damage from off-hand) or even 2.5xStr damage in the case of a monk two-handing a temple sword and attacking with unarmed strike in a flurry (which is like TWF and full Str bonus applies)?

Yes (barring monks, who break the rules in their own ways).

Sangalor wrote:
What happens if I attack once per round 2H with a 1H-weapon and then only attack with it in 1H (e.g. when I have 3 main-hand and 2 off-hand attacks) - would that be legal because I am not breaking the limit, or is using the 2HW 1/round already enough to disallow 2WF then?

Perhaps because it's after midnight, but I don't understand your question. Can you give a more specific, detailed example?

Sangalor wrote:
Finally, does this have any effect on threatening and attacks of opportunity, e.g. when I used a longspear to attack in a round, can I still threaten with unarmed strikes and make attacks into adjacent fields?

I don't think this ruling has any effect on that; AOOs are outside the normal sequence of actions you can perform on your turn.


You can get two more arms at level 10 as a summoner with aspect. so how does this ruling mess with this?


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:


• A 1st-level standard-race PC can either make one melee attack without TWF or you can make two melee attacks with TWF.

• The most damage you can do without TWF is using a 1H or 2H weapon in two hands for x1.5 Str damage, and the most damage you can do with TWF is x1 in the main hand and x.5 in the off-hand (for a total of x1.5 Str added to your weapons), so optimally you're getting no more that x1.5 Str no matter which attack mode you choose.

• While the game doesn't explicitly limit your attacks to "hands," that's the basic assumption, and you shouldn't be able to pile on additional attacks per round just because you can think up additional or alternative body parts to attack with.

• Because if one character uses 2H weapon and is NOT allowed to make an additional attack with armor spikes or a metal gauntlet because his hands are occupied by his 2H weapon, and a different character uses a 2H weapon and IS allowed to make an additional attack with a metal boot because he's not using his hand, that second character is gaining a game mechanics advantage simply by changing the flavorful description of his extra attack's origin from, and that is not good game design.

There is a hard (but not-explicity-stated-in-the-rules) limit to what a standard-race PC should be able to do in one round of combat. Even though it's not stated in the rules, it is a real limit (in the same way that there's no printed rule that says "don't make a first-tier feat that gives more than +3 to one skill for a 1st-level character," or "don't make a first-tier feat that gives more than a +1 to attack rolls with one type of weapon," but it's still a rule we follow), and you shouldn't be allowed to break that limit.

1.) Just confirming, but I'm assuming Boulder Helm/Blade Boot (but not Barbazu Beard) get the same treatment as Armor Spikes/Gauntlet in regards to use with a TWF with a 2-hander?

2.) It seems that "hands" available as well as total strength added per turn is a factor with why using TWF with a 2hander is not allowed. What about the use of 1-hander + shield + armor spikes/boulder helm/etc.? Still only x1.5 Str, but using more limbs than available. Obviously, the use of TWF shield bash is already an option (which is located on the same "limb" as the shield, unlike the others), but it seems like this would be a simple way to bypass the usual feats required to make that worthwhile.

3.) If the answer to question 2 was "No", is there a mechanical purpose of "no-slot" weapons, besides a back-up/hidden weapon (as the advantage that they are not located on a standard limb doesn't really change anything)?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Well, the reasoning put forth by SKR was not hands.


Thank you for the quick replies :-)

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

...

Sangalor wrote:
I guess this also means not only armor spikes but also off-hand attacks with unarmed strikes (knee-kicks etc.) in combination with a 2H weapon are out, because that would net you 2xStr damage (1.5xStr damage from main-hand, 0.5xStr damage from off-hand) or even 2.5xStr damage in the case of a monk two-handing a temple sword and attacking with unarmed strike in a flurry (which is like TWF and full Str bonus applies)?

Yes (barring monks, who break the rules in their own ways).

Ah, so the monk has a few mechanical advantages or at least more options. That should make some people more satisfied with the monk :-)

Sean K Reynolds wrote:


Sangalor wrote:
What happens if I attack once per round 2H with a 1H-weapon and then only attack with it in 1H (e.g. when I have 3 main-hand and 2 off-hand attacks) - would that be legal because I am not breaking the limit, or is using the 2HW 1/round already enough to disallow 2WF then?

Perhaps because it's after midnight, but I don't understand your question. Can you give a more specific, detailed example?

...

What I meant with this is the following: Suppose you have a BAB of +11 and thus 3 attacks and you have 2 extra attacks from TWF. Let's say you have quick-draw or the improved unarmed strike feat and you are wielding a longsword.

For the first attack at +11 you use both hands on your longsword, thus getting 1.5x damage on it. For the +6 and +1 attack you only use one hand (free action to release the grip) and only get 1xStr bonus on it. Then you do your extra attacks with unarmed strikes or with a quick-drawn dagger, getting 0.5x Str bonus on it each time. In total you haven't had more than 1.5xStr damage in the round, but you could of course benefit from extra feats bonuses such as furious focus for your first attack.
In spirit this would be OK I guess, but would it be OK rules-wise?
I can see a few cinematic fighting style implementations done this way for one thing, and I also want to understand how strictly the 1.5xStr limitation per round and/or this "limbness" works out in such a case :-)

Liberty's Edge

blackbloodtroll wrote:
Well, the reasoning put forth by SKR was not hands.
SKR wrote:
While the game doesn't explicitly limit your attacks to "hands," that's the basic assumption, and you shouldn't be able to pile on additional attacks per round just because you can think up additional or alternative body parts to attack with.

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

Ah, you're talking about higher-level options. I'm specifically talking about low-level options and limitations. The unwritten "x1.5 Str per round" limit is a way to manage expectation for low-level characters; it quickly goes away once you have iterative attacks, extra attacks from Improved TWF, and other options from being level 6 or higher.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Why not just change the damage, if that was the issue?


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Ah, you're talking about higher-level options. I'm specifically talking about low-level options and limitations. The unwritten "x1.5 Str per round" limit is a way to manage expectation for low-level characters; it quickly goes away once you have iterative attacks, extra attacks from Improved TWF, and other options from being level 6 or higher.

Thanks again for the quick reply :-)

Hm, I am not sure what to make of this now. You say you're referring specifically to low-level options, and "it quickly goes away" at higher levels. I guess you do not mean that 2HF + TWF amor spikes (or unarmed strike or blade boot or ...) is disallowed at low levels but allowed at high levels, but you mean that this is true at all levels and that there are just more options to gain extra damage anyway, right?

Otherwise I would find it a bit difficult to understand what is correct rules-wise... :-(

Also, regarding my specific question with the longsword, I assume that would be OK then? I have a character in mind who does something like that... I don't mind if I have to wait to level 6 or 11 to do it, just want to make sure I can do it at all ;-)


How does the 'un-written rule' impact on, e.g. Tengu, who have Bite Attacks and can even start out with Bite/Claw/Claw?
Are they not supposed to be able to attack with all of those natural attacks at once?
(even if they're limited to only two at one time, it's still outside the baseline by not having attack penalty, and doing 2x STR total)
What if they substitute one Claw with UAS or weapon attacks, both at level 1 and when they have normal iteratives?
What if they want to 2WF with e.g. Punch/Kick? Is the baseline adjusted to THEIR baseline, so they could make 2 natural attacks on top?
Would that allow such Tengu to pull off a 2-Handed weapon/UAS(etc) 2WF setup, since the baseline is different?

501 to 550 of 788 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Is this TWF combination legal? All Messageboards