Is this TWF combination legal?


Rules Questions

101 to 150 of 788 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Starbuck_II wrote:
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Official NPC stat block wrote:


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.

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.
Exactly, you can't trust official Stat Blocks as examples. They are notorious for being erroronous like the Ionic Fighter V.

If I get ones made my Paizo(not freelancers), and they are all the same I don't see why not. Clearly if SKR or Jason writes a statblock they won't all have the exact same mistake.


Ravingdork wrote:

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.

Here you go Wraith.

Edit: Doh, ninja'd. Gracious of you!


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Vod Canockers wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

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.

Weak or strong is not the point. You are attempting to use the same hand for multiple uses. Just as you lose a Bucklers AC bonus while using that arm to wield a weapon, or cast a spell you can't use that arm to make multiple types of attacks.


Kairos Dawnfury wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

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.

Here you go Wraith.

Edit: Doh, ninja'd. Gracious of you!

That's referencing combination of weapons/attacks, not the order in which they are taken.


fretgod99 wrote:
Kairos Dawnfury wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

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.

Here you go Wraith.

Edit: Doh, ninja'd. Gracious of you!

That's referencing combination of weapons/attacks, not the order in which they are taken.

I am thinking that may be a possibility to Fretgod since never does specify order. I looked at the screen before and I did not see what I thought I saw.

There is also this..

"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"

That quote is from the FAQ. It is specifying the the offhand(second) weapon counts for an iterative attack.

Why does that matter?

Because the FAQ also says this " (an "iterative attack" is an informal term meaning "extra attacks you get from having a high BAB")."

That means those offhand attacks are affected by BAB which I said before so by my previous argument and by the logic of Kazaan, BAB based attacks which the 2nd attack is included in, according to the FAQ, have to be in that order.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
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. :)

That's what happens when you go up against the Ravingdork. ;P


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:

I am thinking that may be a possibility to Fretgod since never does specify order. I looked at the screen before and I did not see what I thought I saw.

There is also this..

"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"

That quote is from the FAQ. It is specifying the the offhand(second) weapon counts for an iterative attack.

Why does that matter?

Because the FAQ also says this " (an "iterative attack" is an informal term meaning "extra attacks you get from having a high BAB")."

That means those offhand attacks are affected by BAB which I said before so by my previous argument and by the logic of Kazaan, BAB based attacks which the 2nd attack is included in, according to the FAQ, have to be in that order.

I see the error in your thinking. You think that any weapon other than the first one used is an "off-hand" weapon. This is incorrect. I could have a Longsword, Dagger, Boot Blade on each foot, Improved Unarmed Strike, Boulder Helmet, Armor Spikes, and Barbazu Beard and, if I hypothetically had 8 iterative attacks from BAB, I could attack with each one once and all would be considered main-hand attacks; I'd incur no TWF penalty and there'd be no "off-hand" attack receiving 0.5x Str. The only time an attack counts as "off-hand" is when you declare using TWF to get more attacks than your BAB would normally allow. Off-hand attacks are not granted by high BAB, and thus are not subject to iterative sequencing from highest to lowest BAB.


Kazaan wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

I am thinking that may be a possibility to Fretgod since never does specify order. I looked at the screen before and I did not see what I thought I saw.

There is also this..

"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"

That quote is from the FAQ. It is specifying the the offhand(second) weapon counts for an iterative attack.

Why does that matter?

Because the FAQ also says this " (an "iterative attack" is an informal term meaning "extra attacks you get from having a high BAB")."

That means those offhand attacks are affected by BAB which I said before so by my previous argument and by the logic of Kazaan, BAB based attacks which the 2nd attack is included in, according to the FAQ, have to be in that order.

I see the error in your thinking. You think that any weapon other than the first one used is an "off-hand" weapon. This is incorrect. I could have a Longsword, Dagger, Boot Blade on each foot, Improved Unarmed Strike, Boulder Helmet, Armor Spikes, and Barbazu Beard and, if I hypothetically had 8 iterative attacks from BAB, I could attack with each one once and all would be considered main-hand attacks; I'd incur no TWF penalty and there'd be no "off-hand" attack receiving 0.5x Str. The only time an attack counts as "off-hand" is when you declare using TWF to get more attacks than your BAB would normally allow. Off-hand attacks are not granted by high BAB, and thus are not subject to iterative sequencing from highest to lowest BAB.

Actually I think an offhand attack is any attack that is not the primary weapon and grants an extra attack with TWF, but I also see the part I quoted was not referring to a TWF-based attack. That was my error.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nope, off-hand attacks only exist when you're using TWF. If you're not using TWF (declaring off-hand and taking TWF penalties), there are no "off-hand" attacks. The FAQ even states this as it says you can fight with any combo of Longsword and Mace up to your normal BAB limit and it's not TWF. Remember, there is no "handedness" in pathfinder; neither hand is, intrinsically, your "off-hand" or "main-hand".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Kazaan has the right of it.


Kazaan wrote:
Nope, off-hand attacks only exist when you're using TWF.

That is what I said when I said "Actually I think an offhand attack is any attack that is not the primary weapon and grants an extra attack with TWF"

edit: I should have said the offhand attack is made with a second(other) weapon but I think the point is clear now


Here is a quote from Jason during beta testing, and the wording has not changed since then so the ruling should be the same. So the Wraithstrike was wrong, and I can admit it. <shakes fist at RD and Kazaan> :)

Jason replying to weapon order wrote:

The order does not matter and Weapon Swap is being killed.

Woot.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Silver Crusade

Okay, there is no such thing as 'off-hand' unless TWFing, and getting the extra attack(s).

The rules for natural weapon attacks apply to natural weapons, and not to manufactured weapons. If they did, then they wouldn't be the rules for natural attacks, they would be the rules for attacks!

In any round where I'm not TWFing, there's nothing for us to discuss here. When I hit 6th level and get iteratives, then my first attack will be at +6 and may be either a longsword in two hands OR a spiked gauntlet. My second attack will follow at +1, and it can also be either my longsword in two hands OR my spiked gauntlet. The weapon I used to make the first attack has no bearing on my choice of weapon for my second attack. There is no 'off-hand' weapon, and I do my full Str bonus to damage when I attack with my spiked gauntlet (not 0.5 x) and 1.5 x Str with my longsword in two hands.

When I choose to TWF as a full attack, some things change. I designate one weapon as my 'off-hand' attack. There are several consequences to this choice. The attack I designated is the only attack I may use to take those extra 'off-hand' attacks granted by TWFing. If I get two or three off-hand attacks (from Improved/Greater TWF) I cannot use any old weapon; I'm limited to the one I declared to be that round's 'off-hand' attack. So, if I had armour spikes as well, I could declare those OR my spiked gauntlets as my 'off-hand' for that full attack (or my longsword, but that would be stupid). I cannot mix and match my off-hand attacks in the same way that I can with my iteratives.

Whatever attack I declared as my off-hand attack only gets 0.5 x Str bonus to damage, even if I declared my longsword used in two hands! Which is a very good reason not to declare the longsword. : )

If the declared off-hand attack is a light weapon, then it reduces my TWF attack penalties by 2, from -4 to -2. If the off-hand attack is NOT light, then I don't get a reduction in that penalty, so it stays at -4. This applies whenever the off-hand weapon is NOT light, so is true whether it's one-handed OR two-handed. Another good reason not to declare the longsword.

That's the sum total of the TWF rules. Note that my iteratives can be taken by absolutely ANY combination of weapons (that I can get into my hand), with the single exception that I cannot make an iterative attack with the weapon I declared as my off-hand attack.

Although the term 'off-hand' (and 'main' hand) seem to indicate the use of hands, there is no rule linking hands or arms to attacks, outside of the rules for natural attacks. The existence of several weapons that are neither held or worn by hands proves that, and dev comments confirm it. Armour spikes are in the CRB and were in the 3.5 PHB, so it's not some esoteric splatbook combination to use greatsword/off-hand TWF.

All this flexibility is fine, but not really feasible in most cases. I'm not going around with a golf bag of short swords to drop and Quick Draw! The gauntlets, being worn, facilitate this nicely, but at a cost. That cost is simply that they could be the worst 'off-hand' weapon out there, unless I'm trying to find a poor weapon! It's flexibility is the only reason to choose it (apart from the cool flavour!), and if it weren't for that then I'd choose armour spikes, which do more damage anyway!


That seems close enough for government work, Mala. One thing I'd note, is that while an off-hand attack gives you a 0.5x factor to Str damage, 2-h gives you a 1.5x factor to Str damage and I think they'd both function. However, not a straight up multiplication so it wouldn't be 0.5 * 1.5 = 0.75x Str Mod. You'd calculate it as you normally do multiple factors, take one in full then subtract 1 from all others and add. So, if you start with 0.5 + (1.5 - 1) = 0.5 + 0.5 = 1.0. Or, in other words, two-handing the weapon adds half your base Str mod and using it for an off-hand attack subtracts half your base Str mod, leaving you net zero change; your base Str mod of 1x. So if, for example, you made your main-hand attack with the spiked gauntlet at 1x Str, you'd make your off-hand attack with the Longsword in 2 hands (presuming you can double-dip hand use, if you can't, replace spiked gauntlet with armor spikes, boot blade, etc) at 1x Str, but they'd still be at -4/-4 since your off-hand isn't light.


Cyrad wrote:

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.

That would be a perfectly reasonable house rule, but it does not exist anywhere in the RAW.

Silver Crusade

To help my DM, can anyone quote any rule which says this TWF combination is not legal?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
To help my DM, can anyone quote any rule which says this TWF combination is not legal?

This combo is perfectly legal with the caveat that the DM can always so no to free actions used by limiting them. Since this only involves 2 of them, that seems pretty slim.

Liberty's Edge

If you don't wish to accept the precedent set by natural attacks in this exact same scenario, then I don't have any rules quotes off the top of my head.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShadowcatX wrote:
If you don't wish to accept the precedent set by natural attacks in this exact same scenario, then I don't have any rules quotes off the top of my head.

Natural attacks work on a different level than weapon attacks (-5 with weapon attacks, multiple attacks at BAB and no extra attacks based on high BAB), so a ruling on one may or may not effect the other.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

We've spent a whole lot of time proving this is legal. I feel there is a pretty good consensus when it comes to RAW.

The only people saying it isn't legal are just saying they wouldn't allow it via GM fiat, which I agreed with at first, but this thread has made it sound very reasonable.

Innocent until proven guilty, I say!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am certain it's legal and that nobody will find you a quote that states it's not legal.
And if for some obscure reason someone should: It would most certainly invalidate most of the armor spikes / blade boot / unarmed strike / whatever combinations used to optimize builds here. I would then wonder why it has not popped up before.
But as I wrote, I am sure it's legal :-P

Sczarni

At my table, I would say no. My logic is this.

1. The bonus gained from using two hands for one weapon is one of the benefits for not TWFing. (This would simply be one more +1 for STR based melee vs. the depraved DEX based melee)

2. That hand is already in use with the sword, and you cannot use it for something else since it's already been used. Enhanced BAB changes the story a bit because you can choose what you'll do each during each wave of main/off hand attacks.

3. If you use this, you'll have to allow bow users to to declare two weapon fighting, shoot at -2, quickdraw a handcrossbow, shoot again.... right.

4. As for rules quoting, this is the best I can find:

Buckler wrote:
In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you lose the buckler's Armor Class bonus until your next turn. You can cast a spell with somatic components using your shield arm, but you lose the buckler's Armor Class bonus until your next turn.

This idea goes back to my number 2, the hand is already occupied with another action, and you simply don't have the ability to use it for both in the same round. I am sure that this mechanic is buckler specific, but I feel the logic should apply all round.

NOTE: I'm not claiming I'm right RAW. I feel that this is the most reasonable approach.

Liberty's Edge

Here's a question for everyone who insists that this is legal. Why do you need the second weapon with this at all? If your off hand isn't dedicated to the attack, why is your main hand? Why not just go with another set of attacks, getting the 1.5x strength bonus for using 2 hands again?

graystone wrote:
Natural attacks work on a different level than weapon attacks (-5 with weapon attacks, multiple attacks at BAB and no extra attacks based on high BAB), so a ruling on one may or may not effect the other.

And if this situation involved any of those, you might be correct. However, it does not, so those differences have no effect on the situation.

Sangalor wrote:
And if for some obscure reason someone should: It would most certainly invalidate most of the armor spikes / blade boot / unarmed strike / whatever combinations used to optimize builds here. I would then wonder why it has not popped up before.

First, it won't invalidate the builds with armor spikes, bladed boot, unarmed strike, etc. because they do not need to use their off hand for their secondary attack.

Anyways, if everyone is so confident that they are correct, then prove it. Click the FAQ button on the first post. Let's get the developer's opinions on this. I've clicked it.


ShadowcatX wrote:

Here's a question for everyone who insists that this is legal. Why do you need the second weapon with this at all? If your off hand isn't dedicated to the attack, why is your main hand? Why not just go with another set of attacks, getting the 1.5x strength bonus for using 2 hands again?

graystone wrote:
Natural attacks work on a different level than weapon attacks (-5 with weapon attacks, multiple attacks at BAB and no extra attacks based on high BAB), so a ruling on one may or may not effect the other.

And if this situation involved any of those, you might be correct. However, it does not, so those differences have no effect on the situation.

Sangalor wrote:
And if for some obscure reason someone should: It would most certainly invalidate most of the armor spikes / blade boot / unarmed strike / whatever combinations used to optimize builds here. I would then wonder why it has not popped up before.

First, it won't invalidate the builds with armor spikes, bladed boot, unarmed strike, etc. because they do not need to use their off hand for their secondary attack.

Anyways, if everyone is so confident that they are correct, then prove it. Click the FAQ button on the first post. Let's get the developer's opinions on this. I've clicked it.

Well, the logic is pretty simple:

- There is no "handiness" definition in pathfinder. It's just that the term primary hand and off-hand attack involve the word "hand" - probably due to historic reason or because it describes the typical situation more adequately. Just try to find a definition of "handiness" in pathfinder - you will be about as successful as trying to find a "facing" definition for flanking ;-)
- Even if you do not wish to let the above statement count, consider the arguments that have been brought forth. They have so far been as such: "When you use a weapon two-handed you use both your primary and your off-hand, so you cannot use that". If that was true, using armor spikes would be impossible, because it limits the term to "hands". Looking at armor spikes you can see the definition:
Armor Spikes wrote:


Armor spikes deal extra piercing damage (see “spiked armor” on Table: Weapons) on a successful grapple attack. The spikes count as a martial weapon. If you are not proficient with them, you take a –4 penalty on grapple checks when you try to use them. You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case. (You can't also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.) An enhancement bonus to a suit of armor does not improve the spikes' effectiveness, but the spikes can be made into magic weapons in their own right.

That means if you consider "hands" to be important you kind of are saying armor spikes turn your chest into a "hand" and make your two real hands into one "primary" "hand" :-P

- Regarding "reusing the weapon": The definition of two-weapon fighting disallows reusing the weapon:
Two-Weapon Fighting wrote:

Prerequisite: Dex 15.

Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6. See Two-Weapon Fighting.

Normal: If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. When fighting in this way you suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand. If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light.

You cannot reuse the same weapon. This is actually what sparked the whole monk "flurry-of-blows works as two-weapon fighting - but they are using one weapon in examples?" where it was first ruled that they have to have two weapons and then was changed to two-handing one weapon is OK for them - meaning that a monk as a unique and powerful ability here that noone else has (two-handing and flurrying with the same temple sword for all attacks, for example).

- Note that you can *always* two-weapon fight, even without the feat, just with high penalties. And you also have your unarmed strike as a backup weapon for that - it's just that usually it provokes AoOs which you usually do not want.
- So basically if you do not let this count you either a) prohibit free actions in an IMO unreasonable way, you probably wouldn't let archers pull their ammunition then either; or b) you insist that "hands" is the decisive term and thus turn your foot or your chest or arm into another "hand" when you use TWF off-"hand"-attacks ;-)

Really, what TWF means is nothing more than "you get one (later more) attacks more than you would usually have according to your BAB and incur penalties for that". You can switch weapons and hands however you like. You can even use TWF with thrown weapons and quickdraw, no problem. And you are using more than "two" weapons after a certain level then. Really, the wording is unfortunate for the way it works :-)

I hope that clarifies the line of thought here :-)

Silver Crusade

ShadowcatX wrote:
If your off hand isn't dedicated to the attack, why is your main hand? Why not just go with another set of attacks, getting the 1.5x strength bonus for using 2 hands again?

Just to clarify: whichever weapon you designate as your 'off-hand' weapon for that round cannot take any attack that isn't an off-hand attack, and only the designated off-hand weapon can take the off-hand attacks for that round.

Other than that, your 'main' hand isn't restricted in any way at all. Your 'hand' isnt occupied with that weapon any longer than it takes to execute the attack. You could absolutely attack with the longsword, drop it then Quick Draw another for your next iterative. Why you'd want to is a different question! Why you'd want to leave a trail of long and short swords all over the battlefield is anyone's guess!


My ruling isn't just fiat, but is based off of the rules for a Buckler. You do not get the AC Bonus from wearing a Buckler if that arm is being used for another purpose (two-handed weapon, TWF, spell casting, etc.). This means that you can't use a limb for multiple things in the same round. Otherwise you could make your attacks, then as a Free Action, release let go of the weapon, and use the Buckler for its AC Bonus.

PRD wrote:
In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you lose the buckler's AC bonus until your next turn. You can cast a spell with somatic components using your shield arm, but you lose the buckler's AC bonus until your next turn.


Abadar wrote:

At my table, I would say no. My logic is this.

1. The bonus gained from using two hands for one weapon is one of the benefits for not TWFing. (This would simply be one more +1 for STR based melee vs. the depraved DEX based melee)

2. That hand is already in use with the sword, and you cannot use it for something else since it's already been used. Enhanced BAB changes the story a bit because you can choose what you'll do each during each wave of main/off hand attacks.

3. If you use this, you'll have to allow bow users to to declare two weapon fighting, shoot at -2, quickdraw a handcrossbow, shoot again.... right.

4. As for rules quoting, this is the best I can find:

Buckler wrote:
In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you lose the buckler's Armor Class bonus until your next turn. You can cast a spell with somatic components using your shield arm, but you lose the buckler's Armor Class bonus until your next turn.

This idea goes back to my number 2, the hand is already occupied with another action, and you simply don't have the ability to use it for both in the same round. I am sure that this mechanic is buckler specific, but I feel the logic should apply all round.

NOTE: I'm not claiming I'm right RAW. I feel that this is the most reasonable approach.

If an archer has the quickdraw feat, and has a loaded hand crossbow at his belt, I would not have an issue with him firing an arrow with a bow, letting go with one hand, quick-drawing a hand crossbow, and firing it, with a -2 penalty to both (or higher if lacking TWF feat). Ironically, RAW, you can't do this with rapid shot, since it says 'a ranged weapon' meaning singular.

I think we all agree that saying this doesn't work as a house rule is fine, but it's not in the rules.


Vod Canockers wrote:

My ruling isn't just fiat, but is based off of the rules for a Buckler. You do not get the AC Bonus from wearing a Buckler if that arm is being used for another purpose (two-handed weapon, TWF, spell casting, etc.). This means that you can't use a limb for multiple things in the same round. Otherwise you could make your attacks, then as a Free Action, release let go of the weapon, and use the Buckler for its AC Bonus.

PRD wrote:
In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you lose the buckler's AC bonus until your next turn. You can cast a spell with somatic components using your shield arm, but you lose the buckler's AC bonus until your next turn.

Obviously that's the idea behind the rule, but the exact rule has nothing to do with what your hands are doing at the time the attack against you is occurring, and simply whether you've used that hand to attack or cast spells this turn. If yes, then you lose the bonus, period.

We're arguing the rules as they are written, not what seems reasonable or what you think may have been intended. For instance, when a monk two-hands a temple sword and does a flurry of blows with it, he does not get 1.5x STR on it, but only 1x. Why? Because it says so in the flurry of blows rules.

As long as the player declares TWF before making a full attack, he can use both hands with one weapon, release that weapon as a free action (as defined in the FAQ), and attack with a different weapon, such as an unarmed strike, a quick-drawn dagger, or a spiked gauntlet, because there's no rule that says he cannot.


Vod Canockers wrote:

My ruling isn't just fiat, but is based off of the rules for a Buckler. You do not get the AC Bonus from wearing a Buckler if that arm is being used for another purpose (two-handed weapon, TWF, spell casting, etc.). This means that you can't use a limb for multiple things in the same round. Otherwise you could make your attacks, then as a Free Action, release let go of the weapon, and use the Buckler for its AC Bonus.

PRD wrote:
In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you lose the buckler's AC bonus until your next turn. You can cast a spell with somatic components using your shield arm, but you lose the buckler's AC bonus until your next turn.

Losing the AC bonus has nothing to with not being able to attack with a weapon. That is a reasonable interpretation, but it is still not a rule that has anything to do with a weapon.

In short you are stretching it to mean you can use the limb for other things, but the rules don't support that, and you could still not get the bucker AC by your example because the rules don't say "if you are holding the weapon". They say "if you use a weapon.." Even if you drop the weapon it was still used.

Silver Crusade

Vod Canockers wrote:
My ruling isn't just fiat, but is based off of the rules for a Buckler. You do not get the AC Bonus from wearing a Buckler if that arm is being used for another purpose (two-handed weapon, TWF, spell casting, etc.). This means that you can't use a limb for multiple things in the same round.

No it doesn't!

The rules for the buckler are the rules for the buckler. Your assumption about the reasons why are just that: assumptions.

We all know that if you make an assumption it makes an ass out of you and umption!

If you cast a quickened spell it takes a swift action. You still have a full round left, so there's nothing to stop you getting a full attack, even if you used one hand to form the somatic components of the spell. That hand isn't somehow 'used up' for the entire round. The reason you can't usually cast spells and attack with a weapon in the same round has nothing to do with hands being 'occupied' for the whole round, but simply that most spells use up your standard action and you don't have any action left with which to make a weapon attack.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh, just to stir things up a little...

I am using TWF and a Two-handed weapon as my main hand attack. My BAB is such that I get 3 iteratives plus 2 more off-hand attacks due to ITWF.

So, I make my 3 attacks with my main hand weapon.

Then as a free action, I remove my main hand from the weapon. Then as another free action, I place my main hand back on the weapon. I now make 2 attacks with my off-hand weapon which happens to be the exact same 2-hand weapon I have been using.

Definition of TWF: You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands. You can make one extra attack each round with the secondary weapon.

For the pedantic would this be legal by RAW? If I was using a 1-handed weapon with 2 hands to start, and then switched, would that make a difference? What if my off-hand attacks only used it 1-handed?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Holy crap, stop all this arguing over nonsense.

Swallow your pride and make the attack with Armor Spikes to end it--they're better than a gauntlet anyway!


Treesmasha Toothpickmaker wrote:

Oh, just to stir things up a little...

I am using TWF and a Two-handed weapon as my main hand attack. My BAB is such that I get 3 iteratives plus 2 more off-hand attacks due to ITWF.

So, I make my 3 attacks with my main hand weapon.

Then as a free action, I remove my main hand from the weapon. Then as another free action, I place my main hand back on the weapon. I now make 2 attacks with my off-hand weapon which happens to be the exact same 2-hand weapon I have been using.

Definition of TWF: You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands. You can make one extra attack each round with the secondary weapon.

For the pedantic would this be legal by RAW? If I was using a 1-handed weapon with 2 hands to start, and then switched, would that make a difference? What if my off-hand attacks only used it 1-handed?

*head asplode*

Silver Crusade

Treesmasha Toothpickmaker wrote:

Oh, just to stir things up a little...

I am using TWF and a Two-handed weapon as my main hand attack. My BAB is such that I get 3 iteratives plus 2 more off-hand attacks due to ITWF.

So, I make my 3 attacks with my main hand weapon.

Then as a free action, I remove my main hand from the weapon. Then as another free action, I place my main hand back on the weapon. I now make 2 attacks with my off-hand weapon which happens to be the exact same 2-hand weapon I have been using.

Definition of TWF: You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands. You can make one extra attack each round with the secondary weapon.

For the pedantic would this be legal by RAW? If I was using a 1-handed weapon with 2 hands to start, and then switched, would that make a difference? What if my off-hand attacks only used it 1-handed?

Nice try.

Just to clarify: whichever weapon you designate as your 'off-hand' weapon for that round cannot take any attack that isn't an off-hand attack, and only the designated off-hand weapon can take the off-hand attacks for that round.


Treesmasha Toothpickmaker wrote:

Oh, just to stir things up a little...

I am using TWF and a Two-handed weapon as my main hand attack. My BAB is such that I get 3 iteratives plus 2 more off-hand attacks due to ITWF.

So, I make my 3 attacks with my main hand weapon.

Then as a free action, I remove my main hand from the weapon. Then as another free action, I place my main hand back on the weapon. I now make 2 attacks with my off-hand weapon which happens to be the exact same 2-hand weapon I have been using.

Definition of TWF: You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands. You can make one extra attack each round with the secondary weapon.

For the pedantic would this be legal by RAW? If I was using a 1-handed weapon with 2 hands to start, and then switched, would that make a difference? What if my off-hand attacks only used it 1-handed?

Or go back to using quick draw...

All of your attacks with a greatsword, drop as a free action, draw a greatsword with your "off-hand" as a free action, take your extra attacks.

To me this seems like one of those corner cases that is probably against the spirit of the rules but is not called out explicitly. I'll admit I don't like it. It is in a vague area rules-wise and the image seems off to me. Controlling a sword's momentum with both hands (and arms, don't forget), then releasing for little "pot-shots?" But it's not my character (or my game). If it was my game, I would encourage you to just use armor spikes but could allow this if you just had to have it. It doesn't seem over-powered, just silly (in my opinion).

And just to add, I think you are getting accusations of "cheese" not because it looks over-powered but because it looks like rules-twisting.


Malachi, mostly I am being tongue in cheek on this, but can you site where "Just to clarify: whichever weapon you designate as your 'off-hand' weapon for that round cannot take any attack that isn't an off-hand attack, and only the designated off-hand weapon can take the off-hand attacks for that round." comes from?


Treesmasha Toothpickmaker wrote:
Malachi, mostly I am being tongue in cheek on this, but can you site where "Just to clarify: whichever weapon you designate as your 'off-hand' weapon for that round cannot take any attack that isn't an off-hand attack, and only the designated off-hand weapon can take the off-hand attacks for that round." comes from?

It's in the FAQ.


Btw, I am with Durngrun on this personally. I do not call what you are doing cheese, nor am I willing to say it is emphatically against RAW. However, if I were your GM I would not allow it, but I also do not allow TWF duel wielding shield builds, nor do I allow lances to be used on anything but a charge and then only for the first successful charge in which it is automatically dropped (left in the opponent).


Have a link bbangerter or can you be more specific as to which FAQ, sorry if I missed it above somewhere.

Btw, Durngrun brings up a solid point for TWF with 2 greatswords.


FAQ


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thank you bbangerter. The trouble is that the FAQ you linked to does not say what Malachi said. Rather is says, "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."


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Vod Canockers wrote:
My ruling isn't just fiat, but is based off of the rules for a Buckler. You do not get the AC Bonus from wearing a Buckler if that arm is being used for another purpose (two-handed weapon, TWF, spell casting, etc.). This means that you can't use a limb for multiple things in the same round.

No it doesn't!

The rules for the buckler are the rules for the buckler. Your assumption about the reasons why are just that: assumptions.

We all know that if you make an assumption it makes an ass out of you and umption!

If you cast a quickened spell it takes a swift action. You still have a full round left, so there's nothing to stop you getting a full attack, even if you used one hand to form the somatic components of the spell. That hand isn't somehow 'used up' for the entire round. The reason you can't usually cast spells and attack with a weapon in the same round has nothing to do with hands being 'occupied' for the whole round, but simply that most spells use up your standard action and you don't have any action left with which to make a weapon attack.

Please direct me to the "Quickened Two Weapon Fighting Feat."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Treemasha, I'm not sure what distinction you are trying to make between what Malachi said and what the FAQ says.


Treesmasha Toothpickmaker wrote:

Oh, just to stir things up a little...

I am using TWF and a Two-handed weapon as my main hand attack. My BAB is such that I get 3 iteratives plus 2 more off-hand attacks due to ITWF.

So, I make my 3 attacks with my main hand weapon.

Then as a free action, I remove my main hand from the weapon. Then as another free action, I place my main hand back on the weapon. I now make 2 attacks with my off-hand weapon which happens to be the exact same 2-hand weapon I have been using.

Definition of TWF: You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands. You can make one extra attack each round with the secondary weapon.

For the pedantic would this be legal by RAW? If I was using a 1-handed weapon with 2 hands to start, and then switched, would that make a difference? What if my off-hand attacks only used it 1-handed?

Or the OP could wielding his Longsword in two hands, simply release the primary hand from the hilt, and make his off hand attacks with the Longsword.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Treesmasha Toothpickmaker wrote:

Oh, just to stir things up a little...

I am using TWF and a Two-handed weapon as my main hand attack. My BAB is such that I get 3 iteratives plus 2 more off-hand attacks due to ITWF.

So, I make my 3 attacks with my main hand weapon.

Then as a free action, I remove my main hand from the weapon. Then as another free action, I place my main hand back on the weapon. I now make 2 attacks with my off-hand weapon which happens to be the exact same 2-hand weapon I have been using.

Definition of TWF: You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands. You can make one extra attack each round with the secondary weapon.

For the pedantic would this be legal by RAW? If I was using a 1-handed weapon with 2 hands to start, and then switched, would that make a difference? What if my off-hand attacks only used it 1-handed?

prd wrote:


Two-Weapon Fighting
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.

"That" weapon is the second weapon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vod Canockers wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Vod Canockers wrote:
My ruling isn't just fiat, but is based off of the rules for a Buckler. You do not get the AC Bonus from wearing a Buckler if that arm is being used for another purpose (two-handed weapon, TWF, spell casting, etc.). This means that you can't use a limb for multiple things in the same round.

No it doesn't!

The rules for the buckler are the rules for the buckler. Your assumption about the reasons why are just that: assumptions.

We all know that if you make an assumption it makes an ass out of you and umption!

If you cast a quickened spell it takes a swift action. You still have a full round left, so there's nothing to stop you getting a full attack, even if you used one hand to form the somatic components of the spell. That hand isn't somehow 'used up' for the entire round. The reason you can't usually cast spells and attack with a weapon in the same round has nothing to do with hands being 'occupied' for the whole round, but simply that most spells use up your standard action and you don't have any action left with which to make a weapon attack.

Please direct me to the "Quickened Two Weapon Fighting Feat."

Malachi is correct until you produce a rule saying a hand used for one thing can not be used for something else. The rule you are using is buckler specific.

You can reverse the order if you want.

If someone uses TWF first there is no reason they could not cast a quickened spell also. No matter which order you do it in, it is rules legal.

Now before you say the casting hand is hold a weapon-->Dropping a weapon is a free action.

Silver Crusade

Quote:
All of your attacks with a greatsword, drop as a free action, draw a greatsword with your "off-hand" as a free action, take your extra attacks.

Amusing, but impractical.

First, the 'off-hand' attacks only get 0.5 x Str bonus, no matter what they would be outside of TWF. (someone suggested they cancel out at x1, but I'm not convinced)

Second, how many greatswords would I have to carry in order to make this a viable long-term fighting style? How would I prevent my enemies from tracking me by following the trail of greatswords?

As for how silly it may be, I chose it because I think it reflects the cinematic fight choreography found in our genre. I think it's cool, certainly cooler than armour spikes, which would be a better weapon mechanically.

Lantern Lodge

Rameth the Delver wrote:

less cheesy than flurry of blows and TWF stacking

having that debate with someone in an online game right now. Sadly I can't find any dev post that says it does not stack so the argument continues. Kind of posting here to see if he is trolling me lol :) Hey my little goblin buddy!

If you look under monk's Flurry of Blows it counts and having TWF so having both does not grant you extra attacks,

Monks basicly get TWF ITWF GTWF all for free as they level with their Flurry.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

you can 2WF with greatsword and foot (unarmed strike)

greatsword and armor spikes

greatsword and bladed boot

greatsword and braid blade

greatsword and horned helmet

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You can also two weapon fight, without even having hands, or even arms.

101 to 150 of 788 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Is this TWF combination legal? All Messageboards