|
Ahh, true. That would seem to be less powerful though.The only problem is that your citation is about Spell Combat (Ex) while he is speaking of Spellstrike (Su).
By strict reading of the rules using spellstrike (but not spell combat) a magus can cast a touch range spell and then deliver it using a weapon gripped in two hands.
It is a small reason to make a strength based magus that use a bastard sword.
Sadly to take EWP you need a BAB of +1 and level 1 for a human magus is the only level at which you can spend a feat that way without feeling that you are wasting it.I would have liked to make a bastard sword wielding magus, even if it is weaker than other versions (less critics).
|
TWF is good with Smite Evil, sure, but I only have two per day, not all enemies are evil and my Smite target may fall in two-rounds, so that's not a whole lot of advantage in a campaign. I'll try to use it wisely, but it's nowhere near as universally useful as the barbarian's rage.Ok, so what is the reason you didn't take the Oath of Vengeance then? Unless you're already an archetype that is not compatible, I think all Paladins should take it.
Excellent question!
To take Oath of Vengeance you must have a specific patron god, and for story reasons my patron is Shelyn, and so I don't have access to that Oath.
My original (now deceased) PC worshipped Shelyn, and she was established in-game as the family patron. My paladin is her cousin.
During the creation process I considered Abadar (so I could get Perception as a class skill and move 30-feet in heavy armour!), but the party is Chaotic Good, and I wanted to avoid being a total a&&!@$#$; much harder to do when worshipping Abadar! We actually enshrined the River Freedoms into our constitution, so worshipping a Neutral Good deity lets it all make sense.
After all my research, I decided to go with vanilla paladin; no archetypes. The other players are fairly new to pathfinder and aren't optimised (as we understand the term on these threads!) apart from the barbarian (and he got there by trying cool stuff and got lucky!), so although I'm well designed I'm nowhere near optimised.
If I cant do the main attack two-handed then it would turn into a poorly thought out PC, and since I can't see anything in the rules which makes it illegal I'd be miffed if I lost out on those 2 points of damage while watching the barbarian do 3d6+16 per hit.
|
0.o I guess you're thinking that you slice with the sword then go in for a punch with your fist still clenching the handle? Meh if your GM allows it. Does not seem all that different from people allowing the greatsword for magus spellstrike.Not the same, as the greatsword is explicitly not allowed for a Magus without a house rule:
To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic components), while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand.Which is lame, because I'd love to have a Glaive Magus.
That said, spiked armor or a blade boot would work with a Greatsword and two-weapon fighting. Heck, the bladeboot explicitly allows it. Some races can use weapons on their tails as well.
not to encourage cheese but you could use a halfing glaive as a one handed right?
Dear Pathfinder Design Team,
Is it a legal Two-Weapon Fighting combination to use a longsword in two hands (to get 1.5 x Str bonus to damage) as my main weapon, and a spiked gauntlet as my off-hand weapon?
If you are going to do that, you may as well just wield a great sword or other two handed weapon.
I'd laugh you out of a campaign if you tried it.
I'd laugh you out of a campaign if you tried it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't be able to point to a particular page number and say "this is legal" but I think there's enough similar almost-precedents that I'd allow it as a GM, but with one caveat.
The almost-precedents are the thing with spiked armour (which allows TWF with a 2 handed weapon) and the releasing grip on a 2 handed weapon and re-gripping as free actions. Taking these together, as a GM, I'd say allowing a character to punch and use their sword 2 handed was ok. it does less damage than armour spikes, and they definitely are legal.
Of course, the PC in question would take the -2 for TWF on all attacks, so they'll hit less often than a pure 2 handed fighter. They'll be doing less damage than a 2handed armour-spiker and hitting less often than a straight 2 hander. So really, I can't see this as an optimization thing. I see it more as a "I have such a cool image in my head for the way this guy fights!" thing, and the player is ok losing a bit of damage for it. I love it when players go less than optimal for flavour and/or roleplaying something. Credit to Malachi.
EDIT: kinda ninja'd by Lemmy. :-)
Also, although the character is gaining the x1.5 damage, they are losing damage for having such a cruddy off-hand weapon.
absolutely this. it's not crazy optimized or game breaking. I think it's an awesome idea for a knight to slash someone with their sword and then backfist someone afterwards.
Multiple times in a round? Sure! at this point, he's worked it into his fighting style well enough that he can do it more than once
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Iteratives and TWF have to go in a specific order. You can't take all your attacks with one weapon, then the other.
That's not really known to be true. The rules state that attacks must be made from highest attack bonus to lowest, but it isn't at all clear if that is PER WEAPON, or for ALL WEAPONS.
Take a high level rogue with a rapier and a a dagger, for example. While dual-wielding, his highest attack is +15 and he gets two-off-hand attacks.
Nobody seems to know if his attack sequence should rightfully go like this:
+15 rapier, +10 rapier, +5 rapier THEN +15 dagger, +10 dagger
...or like this:
+15 rapier, +15 dagger, +10 rapier, +10 dagger, +5 rapier.
It is entirely possible that both iterations are entirely legal, and it's up to player choice at the time of the full attack.
EDIT: As it turns out, the FAQ seems to indicate it may well be the first option.
|
|
Dear Pathfinder Design Team,
Is it a legal Two-Weapon Fighting combination to use a longsword in two hands (to get 1.5 x Str bonus to damage) as my main weapon, and a spiked gauntlet as my off-hand weapon?
If you are going to do that, you may as well just wield a great sword or other two handed weapon.
I'd laugh you out of a campaign if you tried it.
Would you laugh me out of your campaign because it's too weak or too strong? Legal or not?
Although I was confident I could do this with a greatsword as my main attack, the family has a history of studying the fighting styles from the city of Restov, which is limited to longswords and Aldori dueling swords. My first (dead) PC used an Aldori dueling sword.
|
|
Iteratives and TWF have to go in a specific order. You can't take all your attacks with one weapon, then the other.That's not really known to be true. The rules state that attacks must be made from highest attack bonus to lowest, but it isn't at all clear if that is PER WEAPON, or for ALL WEAPONS.
Take a high level rogue with a rapier and a a dagger, for example. While dual-wielding, his highest attack is +15 and he gets two-off-hand attacks.
Nobody seems to know if his attack sequence should rightfully go like this:
+15 rapier, +10 rapier, +5 rapier THEN +15 dagger, +10 dagger
...or like this:
+15 rapier, +15 dagger, +10 rapier, +10 dagger, +5 rapier.
It is entirely possible that both iterations are entirely legal, and it's up to player choice at the time of the full attack.
According to the devs, both ways are definately legal.
All you need to do is make sure that for each individual attack (main and off-hand) that the attacks take place (for that weapon) in iterative order, but you can mix your main and off-hand attacks (and bonus attacks for haste any way you like.
Iteratives and TWF have to go in a specific order. You can't take all your attacks with one weapon, then the other.That's not really known to be true. The rules state that attacks must be made from highest attack bonus to lowest, but it isn't at all clear if that is PER WEAPON, or for ALL WEAPONS.
Take a high level rogue with a rapier and a a dagger, for example. While dual-wielding, his highest attack is +15 and he gets two-off-hand attacks.
Nobody seems to know if his attack sequence should rightfully go like this:
+15 rapier, +10 rapier, +5 rapier THEN +15 dagger, +10 dagger
...or like this:
+15 rapier, +15 dagger, +10 rapier, +10 dagger, +5 rapier.
It is entirely possible that both iterations are entirely legal, and it's up to player choice at the time of the full attack.
According to the devs, both ways are definately legal.
All you need to do is make sure that for each individual attack (main and off-hand) that the attacks take place (for that weapon) in iterative order, but you can mix your main and off-hand attacks (and bonus attacks for haste any way you like.
Do you have any developer quotes for that?
As it turns out, the FAQ lists an example, and only leaves you with two options:
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
Those appear to be the ONLY two options...
Excellent question!
To take Oath of Vengeance you must have a specific patron god, and for story reasons my patron is Shelyn, and so I don't have access to that Oath.
I don't think that's true. The deities listed are the suggested ones, not the required ones. I played an Oath of Vengeance Paladin of Saranrae before.
|
|
Iteratives and TWF have to go in a specific order. You can't take all your attacks with one weapon, then the other.That's not really known to be true. The rules state that attacks must be made from highest attack bonus to lowest, but it isn't at all clear if that is PER WEAPON, or for ALL WEAPONS.
Take a high level rogue with a rapier and a a dagger, for example. While dual-wielding, his highest attack is +15 and he gets two-off-hand attacks.
Nobody seems to know if his attack sequence should rightfully go like this:
+15 rapier, +10 rapier, +5 rapier THEN +15 dagger, +10 dagger
...or like this:
+15 rapier, +15 dagger, +10 rapier, +10 dagger, +5 rapier.
It is entirely possible that both iterations are entirely legal, and it's up to player choice at the time of the full attack.
According to the devs, both ways are definately legal.
All you need to do is make sure that for each individual attack (main and off-hand) that the attacks take place (for that weapon) in iterative order, but you can mix your main and off-hand attacks (and bonus attacks for haste any way you like.
Do you have any developer quotes for that?
As it turns out, the FAQ lists an example, and only leaves you with two options:
Those appear to be the ONLY two options...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
He's not suggesting anything about the order in which those attacks must be taken, just which attacks he can choose.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think that's true. The deities listed are the suggested ones, not the required ones. I played an Oath of Vengeance Paladin of Saranrae before.Excellent question!
To take Oath of Vengeance you must have a specific patron god, and for story reasons my patron is Shelyn, and so I don't have access to that Oath.
Er...okay!
Either way, my back story is established now. I can't see a burning desire for vengeance in it. The tree that killed my cousin is dead.
A person with Quick Draw can start a round with nothing in his hands, draw a series of daggers one by one and throw them WHILE USING two-weapon fighting to get the extra attacks.
If a person can draw a new weapon and dual-wield with it, he can most certainly remove a hand from an existing weapon and attack with another.
But a person with Quick Draw could not start a round with a greatsword in both hands, strike with it, then draw a shortsword for an off-hand attack. That's kind of how I see this situation. Personally, I'd allow it, because it has a good flavor to it, and isn't terribly powerful in comparison to some other builds. I'd also allow it for the OP casually dropping a Marillion reference like it ain't a thing.
But strictly speaking, I don't think it's rules-legal.
If you can make all your attacks with one weapon, then the other, you're not making your attacks in order from highest to lowest.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A person with Quick Draw can start a round with nothing in his hands, draw a series of daggers one by one and throw them WHILE USING two-weapon fighting to get the extra attacks.
If a person can draw a new weapon and dual-wield with it, he can most certainly remove a hand from an existing weapon and attack with another.
But a person with Quick Draw could not start a round with a greatsword in both hands, strike with it, then draw a shortsword for an off-hand attack. That's kind of how I see this situation.
...strictly speaking, I don't think it's rules-legal.
Provided he declared his intent at the start of the round and took the appropriate penalties, I don't see why he couldn't.
He could attack with his great sword, switch to holding it in one hand (rather than wielding it in two), draw out his short sword in his off-hand, and make the remaining attacks with that.
Unless he dropped one weapon or had a way to sheathe one as a swift/free action, he could not do this more than one round, however.
Disagree, please prove Double weapons don't get 1.5 Str at all times.Seems pretty clear.
Double: You can use a double weapon to fight as if fighting with two weapons, but if you do, you incur all the normal attack penalties associated with fighting with two weapons, just as if you were using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. You can choose to wield one end of a double weapon two-handed, but it cannot be used as a double weapon when wielded in this way—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.That said, there are lots of ways of using a two-handed weapon and another. Armor spikes is the most obvious.
Double weapons are decidedly lame.
Agreed, you get 1.5 Str.
Remember you only get attack penalties associated. Nothing else.The Str modifier isn't an attack penalty associated with two weapon fighting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am shaking my head at people who are choosing not to allow this. Considering it is allowable by RAW to attack with a two-handed weapon, release one hand as a free action, use quick draw to draw a dagger, and attack with that, then I can't see why fewer actions (release grip, punch with spikes) wouldn't be allowable.
My 2P:
I'd allow it. It's sub optimal as has been stated, and doesn't reek quite so much as some other combos(I've always hated Armor Spike TWfing with a Greatsword). A longsword alone is sorta low in terms of power(tho Iconic) and the gauntlets are even worse. So on that front I'm okay with it. More importantly his main hand is a weapon that can be wielded one handedly so it's not like he's "lowering his defenses" or anything goofy.
Flavor wise, this just reminds me of Nightmare from Soul Caliber who mid fight just punches you in the face with his clawed hand mid combo. Again, I'm totally okay with mental image.
I personally don't get why people have an issue with it. I mean it's a little weird in terms of action economy, free actions being what they may, but the cons out weigh the pros in my opinion and I'm all for more non-cookie cutter builds.
If you can make all your attacks with one weapon, then the other, you're not making your attacks in order from highest to lowest.Off-hand attacks aren't based on Bab in the first place. The rules state only that you need to make iterative attacks in order from highest BAB to lowest BAB. When you're two-weapon fighting, only your main-hand weapon gets iterative attacks and, by default, you get a single off-hand attack without restriction on where you can place it; and it just so happens that you make this off-hand attack at your highest BAB minus appropriate TWF penalty (based on classification of off-hand weapon and whether or not you have the TWF feat). ITWF and GTWF grant you, respectively, a "second" and "third" off-hand attack and just so happen to base them on BAB-5 and BAB-10 respectively which just so happens to mirror the iterative progression of your main-hand attacks; but off-hand attacks are not iterative attacks and BAB sequencing has no effect on them. The only thing restricting your off-hand attacks is that the one at BAB-5 is designated the "second" off-hand (meaning it must follow the first off-hand) and the one at BAB-10 is designated "third" (it must follow the second).
So, yes, you can make all your attacks with one weapon, then the other so long as your main-hand attacks follow BAB progression, the ITWF "second" off-hand happens after the first and the GTWF "third" off-hand happens after the second; not necessarily immediately after, but at some subsequent time over the duration of the full-attack (or, not at all if you don't choose to continue with the off-hand progression).
The off-hand attacks do go by BAB, otherwise your BAB would not factor into the to-hit bonus.
The TWF line of feats allow you additional attacks at that BAB so you do have to go primary, off hand, primary, off hand..
Disagree, please prove Double weapons don't get 1.5 Str at all times.Seems pretty clear.
Double: You can use a double weapon to fight as if fighting with two weapons, but if you do, you incur all the normal attack penalties associated with fighting with two weapons, just as if you were using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. You can choose to wield one end of a double weapon two-handed, but it cannot be used as a double weapon when wielded in this way—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.That said, there are lots of ways of using a two-handed weapon and another. Armor spikes is the most obvious.
Double weapons are decidedly lame.
Agreed, you get 1.5 Str.
Remember you only get attack penalties associated. Nothing else.
The Str modifier isn't an attack penalty associated with two weapon fighting.
That is incorrect Starbuck. The rules could have been written better but the rules have not changed since 3.5, and before the "this is not 3.5 even if the words are the same" argument comes up, the Pathfinder devs also disagree.
That is incorrect Starbuck. The rules could have been written better but the rules have not changed since 3.5, and before the "this is not 3.5 even if the words are the same" argument comes up, the Pathfinder devs also disagree.Disagree, please prove Double weapons don't get 1.5 Str at all times.Seems pretty clear.
Double: You can use a double weapon to fight as if fighting with two weapons, but if you do, you incur all the normal attack penalties associated with fighting with two weapons, just as if you were using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. You can choose to wield one end of a double weapon two-handed, but it cannot be used as a double weapon when wielded in this way—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.That said, there are lots of ways of using a two-handed weapon and another. Armor spikes is the most obvious.
Double weapons are decidedly lame.
Agreed, you get 1.5 Str.
Remember you only get attack penalties associated. Nothing else.
The Str modifier isn't an attack penalty associated with two weapon fighting.
Can you prove that? If you have the correct FAQ on it, please cite it. Otherwise Citation needed.
STREET THUG CR 1
XP 400
Human fighter 1/rogue 1
NE Medium humanoid
Init +2; Senses Perception +5
DEFENSE
AC 15, touch 12, flat-footed 13 (+3 armor, +2 Dex)
hp 16 (2 HD; 1d10+1d8+6)
Fort +3, Ref +4, Will +0
OFFENSE
Speed 30 ft.
Melee quarterstaff +4 (1d6+3) or quarterstaff +2/+2 (1d6+3/1d6+1) or dagger +4 (1d4+3/19–20) or sap +4 (1d6+3 nonlethal)
Ranged dagger +3 (1d4+3/19–20)
Special Attacks sneak attack +1d6
Now if you want to argue RAW I think you have a case that it should be changed, but when it say "as if two weapon fighting" it is saying you follow all of the TWF'ing rules...
I think the NPC Codex has an NPC or two that can also support this.
Can you prove that? If you have the correct FAQ on it, please cite it. Otherwise Citation needed.That is incorrect Starbuck. The rules could have been written better but the rules have not changed since 3.5, and before the "this is not 3.5 even if the words are the same" argument comes up, the Pathfinder devs also disagree.Disagree, please prove Double weapons don't get 1.5 Str at all times.Seems pretty clear.
Double: You can use a double weapon to fight as if fighting with two weapons, but if you do, you incur all the normal attack penalties associated with fighting with two weapons, just as if you were using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. You can choose to wield one end of a double weapon two-handed, but it cannot be used as a double weapon when wielded in this way—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.That said, there are lots of ways of using a two-handed weapon and another. Armor spikes is the most obvious.
Double weapons are decidedly lame.
Agreed, you get 1.5 Str.
Remember you only get attack penalties associated. Nothing else.
The Str modifier isn't an attack penalty associated with two weapon fighting.
Everyone(99%) knows this. It is D&D/Pathfinder 101. The RAI is clear. The burden of proof is on you to prove that "as if Two weapon fighting" ignores part of the TWF rules, and to show that the same words now have a different meaning in Pathfinder.
That dev was James Jacobs. I thought it was SKR so I won't bother with the quote, but the burden is still on you to show a rule change.
The TWF line of feats allow you additional attacks at that BAB so you do have to go primary, off hand, primary, off hand..
I'm pretty certain the FAQ claims otherwise. See my post above where I quote the relevant portions.
If your off hand is holding onto your primary weapon, it's not "off" -- therefore -- you can't also attack with it secondarily.
The TWF line of feats allow you additional attacks at that BAB so you do have to go primary, off hand, primary, off hand..I'm pretty certain the FAQ claims otherwise. See my post above where I quote the relevant portions.
i will get back to it. I have to show starbuck the 3.5. RAI first.
I am shaking my head at people who are choosing not to allow this. Considering it is allowable by RAW to attack with a two-handed weapon, release one hand as a free action, use quick draw to draw a dagger, and attack with that, then I can't see why fewer actions (release grip, punch with spikes) wouldn't be allowable.Except that it isn't allowable by RAW. The limb is already dedicated to the use of the two handed weapon, you can't gain any additional attacks with it. Otherwise people would be doing this with claws all the time.
Funny how the rules for natural attacks only seem to apply to natural attacks.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2lc6o?Double-Weapon-Damage#49 I will address. all questions as soon as I get home for everyone
That link doesn't seem to work, wraithstrike.
STREET THUG CR 1
XP 400
Human fighter 1/rogue 1
NE Medium humanoid
Init +2; Senses Perception +5
DEFENSE
AC 15, touch 12, flat-footed 13 (+3 armor, +2 Dex)
hp 16 (2 HD; 1d10+1d8+6)
Fort +3, Ref +4, Will +0
OFFENSE
Speed 30 ft.
Melee quarterstaff +4 (1d6+3) or quarterstaff +2/+2 (1d6+3/1d6+1) or dagger +4 (1d4+3/19–20) or sap +4 (1d6+3 nonlethal)
Ranged dagger +3 (1d4+3/19–20)
Special Attacks sneak attack +1d6Now if you want to argue RAW I think you have a case that it should be changed, but when it say "as if two weapon fighting" it is saying you follow all of the TWF'ing rules...
I think the NPC Codex has an NPC or two that can also support this.
Stat blocks from Paizo and Wotc are 90% filled with errors. Sometimes not even qualifying for their Prc.
Remember Jason even admitted the Ionic Fighter was errornous with Vital Strike preview (he says you can't charge but it did).| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am shaking my head at people who are choosing not to allow this. Considering it is allowable by RAW to attack with a two-handed weapon, release one hand as a free action, use quick draw to draw a dagger, and attack with that, then I can't see why fewer actions (release grip, punch with spikes) wouldn't be allowable.Except that it isn't allowable by RAW. The limb is already dedicated to the use of the two handed weapon, you can't gain any additional attacks with it. Otherwise people would be doing this with claws all the time.
The rules explicitly forbid doing this with natural weapons. This suggests that if there wasn't a rule explicitly forbidding it, you could do it. There's nothing in the RAW about limbs being 'dedicated' to one type of attack or another.
STREET THUG CR 1
XP 400
Human fighter 1/rogue 1
NE Medium humanoid
Init +2; Senses Perception +5
DEFENSE
AC 15, touch 12, flat-footed 13 (+3 armor, +2 Dex)
hp 16 (2 HD; 1d10+1d8+6)
Fort +3, Ref +4, Will +0
OFFENSE
Speed 30 ft.
Melee quarterstaff +4 (1d6+3) or quarterstaff +2/+2 (1d6+3/1d6+1) or dagger +4 (1d4+3/19–20) or sap +4 (1d6+3 nonlethal)
Ranged dagger +3 (1d4+3/19–20)
Special Attacks sneak attack +1d6Now if you want to argue RAW I think you have a case that it should be changed, but when it say "as if two weapon fighting" it is saying you follow all of the TWF'ing rules...
I think the NPC Codex has an NPC or two that can also support this.
This actually looks a little off -- doesn't the quarterstaff work as a two-handed weapon when you use it for a single attack? If so, shouldn't the STR bonus be 1.5x and the damage be 1d6+4? I agree that double weapons used for TWF shouldn't get 1.5x STR.
This actually looks a little off -- doesn't the quarterstaff work as a two-handed weapon when you use it for a single attack? If so, shouldn't the STR bonus be 1.5x and the damage be 1d6+4? I agree that double weapons used for TWF shouldn't get 1.5x STR.
STREET THUG CR 1
XP 400
Human fighter 1/rogue 1
NE Medium humanoid
Init +2; Senses Perception +5
DEFENSE
AC 15, touch 12, flat-footed 13 (+3 armor, +2 Dex)
hp 16 (2 HD; 1d10+1d8+6)
Fort +3, Ref +4, Will +0
OFFENSE
Speed 30 ft.
Melee quarterstaff +4 (1d6+3) or quarterstaff +2/+2 (1d6+3/1d6+1) or dagger +4 (1d4+3/19–20) or sap +4 (1d6+3 nonlethal)
Ranged dagger +3 (1d4+3/19–20)
Special Attacks sneak attack +1d6Now if you want to argue RAW I think you have a case that it should be changed, but when it say "as if two weapon fighting" it is saying you follow all of the TWF'ing rules...
I think the NPC Codex has an NPC or two that can also support this.
Exactly, you can't trust official Stat Blocks as examples. They are notorious for being erroronous like the Ionic Fighter V.
You don't get an off-hand attack because that +1/2 Strength to your two-hand attack is your off-hand attack. By the game's economy, you get one primary hand and one off-hand. You can either use them individually in TWF or combine them into a two-hand attack. You cannot do both.
This combination is not legal.
|
Heck, a Dwarven Longhammer and Dwarven Boulder Helmet combo is just something you could never disallow.
Even if you are a DM who randomly disallows things that are RAW, but do so anyways arbitrarily, without giving a reason, would be pressed to disallow this combo.
Then again, there are still the "need a free hand to kick" DMs out there.
This actually looks a little off -- doesn't the quarterstaff work as a two-handed weapon when you use it for a single attack? If so, shouldn't the STR bonus be 1.5x and the damage be 1d6+4? I agree that double weapons used for TWF shouldn't get 1.5x STR.
STREET THUG CR 1
XP 400
Human fighter 1/rogue 1
NE Medium humanoid
Init +2; Senses Perception +5
DEFENSE
AC 15, touch 12, flat-footed 13 (+3 armor, +2 Dex)
hp 16 (2 HD; 1d10+1d8+6)
Fort +3, Ref +4, Will +0
OFFENSE
Speed 30 ft.
Melee quarterstaff +4 (1d6+3) or quarterstaff +2/+2 (1d6+3/1d6+1) or dagger +4 (1d4+3/19–20) or sap +4 (1d6+3 nonlethal)
Ranged dagger +3 (1d4+3/19–20)
Special Attacks sneak attack +1d6Now if you want to argue RAW I think you have a case that it should be changed, but when it say "as if two weapon fighting" it is saying you follow all of the TWF'ing rules...
I think the NPC Codex has an NPC or two that can also support this.
I only cared about the twf part, but I can grab more stat blocks later. That is not an issue.
Ravingdork I will address your point last because we both agree on the main point of the thread. We just disagree on the order the attacks have to be made in, and I may have be incorrect about that.
I want to address the 1.5 strength mod first.
I know I said this earlier, but I think it bears restating:
A person wielding a weapon two-handed can still make secondary attacks with other body parts; for example, if a spiked gauntlet threatens, then a metal boot spike would as well.
Or are you seriously arguing that because the person is holding a sword two-handed, it negates their ability to kick someone? If so, then nearly every sword-based action movie ever would like to have a word with you, since kicking a foe in the gut after stabbing him in the side is nearly as common as swinging from a chandelier... :P
And if that's the case, what's really the point of barring them from punching with a spiked gauntlet instead? Especially since the rules don't seem to bar it (the natural attack ruling notwithstanding because it was called out specifically for natural attacks).
Double: You can use a double weapon to fight as if fighting with two weapons, but if you do, you incur all the normal attack penalties associated with fighting with two weapons, just as if you were using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. You can choose to wield one end of a double weapon two-handed, it cannot be used as a double weapon when wielded in this way—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.
That section means you wield in a manner that gives you 1.5 strength or you follow the TWF'ing rules.
The fact that it is a double weapon is not what gives you the 1.5 strength mod. You must must wield it as a two-handed weapon to get the modifier.
Two-Handed: Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively. Apply 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon.
Since the book specifically says double weapon or two-handed that means you can not get both.
Ravingdork I retract my previous statement. I remember that FAQ now because I was arguing for that interpretation around that time. When I go from getting a rule right to getting it wrong, it means the game has too many rules. :)