
Treesmasha Toothpickmaker |

Double Slice would give you full STR to the off-hand Malachi.
While not practical for the long term, it would be rather dramatic when you use it at BaB 11 to do 3 attacks with a great axe/sword using power attack then drop it, quick draw another and do 3 more attacks due to GTWF.
Shall my rogue use Butterfly Sting and pass long several auto crits to you as well?

![]() |

Double Slice would give you full STR to the off-hand Malachi.
While not practical for the long term, it would be rather dramatic when you use it at BaB 11 to do 3 attacks with a great axe/sword using power attack then drop it, quick draw another and do 3 more attacks due to GTWF.
Shall my rogue use Butterfly Sting and pass long several auto crits to you as well?
This paladin started the game as a 4th level PC, replacing my deceased PC. We've just hit 5th level, and I took Double Slice.
My feats so far:-
1st: Fey Foundling, Two-Weapon Fighting
3rd: Greater Mercy
5th: Double Slice
My plans for future feats:-
7th: Improved TWF (if I can get a belt of Dex+2)
9th: Ultimate Mercy (if I can get 10 uses of LOH to power it)
11th: Greater TWF (Dex again)
I might go for Improved Critical(longsword), and Extra LOH will fill any gaps.
Suggestions welcome. : )

Starbuck_II |

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.
Only in PF (they nerfed the Monk) so TWF doesn't help the Monk.
In 3.5, the Official FAQ said they can Flurry and TWF for extra stacks.
Sitri |

Sean K basically addressed this a long time ago except with a claw as the example. He called it cheesy several times and said it shouldn't happen. Although I don't think he came out and said it is outright against the rules, but there was a very negative emotional reaction to it.
TLDR: If you can't right-hand-sword/right-hand-sword-again, and you can't right-hand-claw/right-hand-claw-again, the free-action-drop-so-my-hand-is-now-free loophole shouldn't allow you to right-hand-sword/right-hand-claw. And trying to interpret the wording of the rules to allow right-hand-sword/right-hand-claw is cheese.
The thread is locked now, but here is the address if you want to read the full thing. http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n4k1&page=4?Claws-and-weapon-drop

![]() |

Sean K basically addressed this a long time ago except with a claw as the example. He called it cheesy several times and said it shouldn't happen. Although I don't think he came out and said it is outright against the rules, but there was a very negative emotional reaction to it.
Sean K. Reynolds wrote:TLDR: If you can't right-hand-sword/right-hand-sword-again, and you can't right-hand-claw/right-hand-claw-again, the free-action-drop-so-my-hand-is-now-free loophole shouldn't allow you to right-hand-sword/right-hand-claw. And trying to interpret the wording of the rules to allow right-hand-sword/right-hand-claw is cheese.The thread is locked now, but here is the address if you want to read the full thing. http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n4k1&page=4?Claws-and-weapon-drop
It should be noted that he's talking about natural attacks, which have their own rules...
I don't feel that my combination is cheesy. I see it as one hand being helped by the other to do more damage, but still essentially a right/left combination. I'm not one-handing the sword then using the same hand (still holding the sword) to punch with the gauntlet.
I still think that would be legal BTW, but that's not what I'm doing.

![]() |

Sitri wrote:Sean K basically addressed this a long time ago except with a claw as the example. He called it cheesy several times and said it shouldn't happen. Although I don't think he came out and said it is outright against the rules, but there was a very negative emotional reaction to it.
Sean K. Reynolds wrote:TLDR: If you can't right-hand-sword/right-hand-sword-again, and you can't right-hand-claw/right-hand-claw-again, the free-action-drop-so-my-hand-is-now-free loophole shouldn't allow you to right-hand-sword/right-hand-claw. And trying to interpret the wording of the rules to allow right-hand-sword/right-hand-claw is cheese.The thread is locked now, but here is the address if you want to read the full thing. http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n4k1&page=4?Claws-and-weapon-dropIt should be noted that he's talking about natural attacks, which have their own rules...
I don't feel that my combination is cheesy. I see it as one hand being helped by the other to do more damage, but still essentially a right/left combination. I'm not one-handing the sword then using the same hand (still holding the sword) to punch with the gauntlet.
I still think that would be legal BTW, but that's not what I'm doing.
The point wasn't necessarily that it was a natural weapon, but that the hand with the claw was otherwise occupied.
You may never find an actual rule that says that what you suggested is illegal, but it certainly goes against the spirit of what is intended to be allowed in the rules.

Sitri |

Sitri wrote:Sean K basically addressed this a long time ago except with a claw as the example. He called it cheesy several times and said it shouldn't happen. Although I don't think he came out and said it is outright against the rules, but there was a very negative emotional reaction to it.
Sean K. Reynolds wrote:TLDR: If you can't right-hand-sword/right-hand-sword-again, and you can't right-hand-claw/right-hand-claw-again, the free-action-drop-so-my-hand-is-now-free loophole shouldn't allow you to right-hand-sword/right-hand-claw. And trying to interpret the wording of the rules to allow right-hand-sword/right-hand-claw is cheese.The thread is locked now, but here is the address if you want to read the full thing. http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n4k1&page=4?Claws-and-weapon-dropIt should be noted that he's talking about natural attacks, which have their own rules...
I don't feel that my combination is cheesy. I see it as one hand being helped by the other to do more damage, but still essentially a right/left combination. I'm not one-handing the sword then using the same hand (still holding the sword) to punch with the gauntlet.
I still think that would be legal BTW, but that's not what I'm doing.
I am not making any sort of judgement on the "cheese" of your build, just directing to answers to questions posed in the OP. I would say that this thread pretty much answers it in totality.
It is not the intent that a hand be used for two different attack functions in one round (it is phrased several ways in the thread not limited to nat attacks) and the devs (or at least one) strongly look down upon it though it doesn't appear to be spelled out as illegal in the rules.
Edit: Actually spiked gauntlet is one of the examples in one of multiple posts talking about this in general terms outside of nat attacks.
...Yet, because of this free action drop loophole, the OP is suggesting that a character should be able to attack with the sword in his right hand, then drop that sword, then make another attack with that same right hand, whether a claw, unarmed strike, spiked gauntlet, whatever.

![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

The reason why this would be cheesy for natural attacks while not being cheesy for TWF is simple: you get as many attacks (in a full attack) as you have natural weapons, so the more natural attacks you have available, the more attacks you can make. This prompts players to cheese as many natural attacks as possible, and combine them with (manufactured) weapon attacks, by attacking with a sword, dropping the sword and using that same hand to claw.
The difference with TWF is that, no matter what weapons you could get in hand, you only get the attacks granted by your BAB and your feats! Even if I could get eighteen weapons in hand, I'd still only get one main and one off-hand at 5th, and when I get to 6th I'd still only get two main and one off-hand, and when I get ImpTWF then I'd still only get two main and two off-hand (which must both be taken with the same weapon).

Xaratherus |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

^This. Natural weapon <> TWF; natural weapon is, honestly, far more potent than TWF can dream to be (when you stack enough natural weapons, that is).
And broken record time: You can, by RAW, attack two-handed with a greatsword and make an 'off-hand' attack with your head, or your foot, and get 1.5 strength with the greatsword and off-hand damage on the other attack.
And since you can absolutely with 100% RAW surety do that, then why is it 'cheesy', unbalanced, or against RAW, to do it with a gauntlet?

Kolokotroni |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

I dont think the concept is cheesy, but it does, in opinion violate the combat rules. What the OP is missing is that while you can take free actions in the middle of it, a full attack action (required to two weapon fight) is a single action.
In order to two weapon fight, you must be weilding two weapons, specifically you must be weilding an additional weapon must be weilded in your off hand. You need to do this for the entire full attack action. If you are two-handing your longsword, you arent wielding your guantlet. At that point you arent meeting the requirements for two weapon fighting, and thus cant complete the action

Xaratherus |

I dont think the concept is cheesy, but it does, in opinion violate the combat rules. What the OP is missing is that while you can take free actions in the middle of it, a full attack action (required to two weapon fight) is a single action.
In order to two weapon fight, you must be weilding two weapons, specifically you must be weilding an additional weapon must be weilded in your off hand. You need to do this for the entire full attack action. If you are two-handing your longsword, you arent wielding your guantlet. At that point you arent meeting the requirements for two weapon fighting, and thus cant complete the action
Already discussed earlier in the thread, and this is not accurate.
TWF can be used with thrown weapons - specifically, drawing daggers to take advantage of TWF - setting two precedents: That you can definitely take actions between attacks that make up a full-attack action (throw a dagger, draw a dagger throw that dagger, etc.); and that you do not have to be wielding your off-hand weapon for the entirety of the full-attack action.

Kolokotroni |

Kolokotroni wrote:I dont think the concept is cheesy, but it does, in opinion violate the combat rules. What the OP is missing is that while you can take free actions in the middle of it, a full attack action (required to two weapon fight) is a single action.
In order to two weapon fight, you must be weilding two weapons, specifically you must be weilding an additional weapon must be weilded in your off hand. You need to do this for the entire full attack action. If you are two-handing your longsword, you arent wielding your guantlet. At that point you arent meeting the requirements for two weapon fighting, and thus cant complete the action
Already discussed earlier in the thread, and this is not accurate.
TWF can be used with thrown weapons - specifically, drawing daggers to take advantage of TWF - setting two precedents: That you can definitely take actions between attacks that make up a full-attack action (throw a dagger, draw a dagger throw that dagger, etc.); and that you do not have to be wielding your off-hand weapon for the entirety of the full-attack action.
I dont agree that this invalidates my point. Thrown weapons are an explicate exception laid out in the rules. Otherwise there wouldnt have needed to be an additional line in the two weapon fighting rules. The same reason that double weapons are explicately laid out as exceptions, a double weapon does not meet the normal requirements, but its laid out as an exception.

Gwen Smith |

I dont think the concept is cheesy, but it does, in opinion violate the combat rules. What the OP is missing is that while you can take free actions in the middle of it, a full attack action (required to two weapon fight) is a single action.
In order to two weapon fight, you must be weilding two weapons, specifically you must be weilding an additional weapon must be weilded in your off hand. You need to do this for the entire full attack action. If you are two-handing your longsword, you arent wielding your guantlet. At that point you arent meeting the requirements for two weapon fighting, and thus cant complete the action
I disagree. According to the rules, you can drop a weapon, quick draw another weapon AND take a five foot step in the middle of a full attack action, whether you are TWF or not. You can change targets. You can even take your first attack, then change your mind and move after the first attack. The "commitment" part is taking the penalties for the TWF starting with the first attack, no matter what.
I have a fighter with Improved TWF who wields dual wakizashis. She carries five different weapons (cold iron, mithral, adamantine, and 2 normal +1 wakizashis). She also has 2 adamantine cestuses for backup. Her full attack round could conceivably go like this:
Attack 1: Primary hand strike with +1 wakizashi. Damage bounces. Oops! Has DR of some kind.
Free action: Drop both wakizashis.
Free action: Quick draw cold iron in "main hand" and adamantine in "off hand".
Attack 2: "Off hand" strike adamantine wakizashi. Damage gets through. Woot!
Free action: Drop cold iron blade from main hand.
Free action: Switch adamantine blade to main hand.
Free action: Start rage (did I mention one level of barbarian?)
Attack 3: Primary hand, iterative attack with adamantine wakzashi. Yay, damage! Bad guy drops!
No action: Five foot step to bad guy #2.
Attack 4 on BG2: Off-hand iterative with adamantine cestus. A little bit of damage, but better than nothing.
This is an extreme example, but it stays within the general "no more than 5 free actions" rules, and technically doesn't violate the TWF rules. Most GMs roll their eyes at how long the turn takes, but as long as I declared my intentions up front, they allow it.

Gwen Smith |

The reason why this would be cheesy for natural attacks while not being cheesy for TWF is simple: you get as many attacks (in a full attack) as you have natural weapons, so the more natural attacks you have available, the more attacks you can make. This prompts players to cheese as many natural attacks as possible, and combine them with (manufactured) weapon attacks, by attacking with a sword, dropping the sword and using that same hand to claw.
The difference with TWF is that, no matter what weapons you could get in hand, you only get the attacks granted by your BAB and your feats! Even if I could get eighteen weapons in hand, I'd still only get one main and one off-hand at 5th, and when I get to 6th I'd still only get two main and one off-hand, and when I get ImpTWF then I'd still only get two main and two off-hand (which must both be taken with the same weapon).
I would allow it on one condition: Be very clear where the hand is at the end of your turn. Make sure you know whether attacks of opportunity are one-handed or two handed.
(This is my overall concern with dropping a hand from a two-handed weapon as a free action, not specific to what you're trying to do.)

![]() |

Kolokotroni wrote:
I dont think the concept is cheesy, but it does, in opinion violate the combat rules. What the OP is missing is that while you can take free actions in the middle of it, a full attack action (required to two weapon fight) is a single action.In order to two weapon fight, you must be weilding two weapons, specifically you must be weilding an additional weapon must be weilded in your off hand. You need to do this for the entire full attack action. If you are two-handing your longsword, you arent wielding your guantlet. At that point you arent meeting the requirements for two weapon fighting, and thus cant complete the action
I disagree. According to the rules, you can drop a weapon, quick draw another weapon AND take a five foot step in the middle of a full attack action, whether you are TWF or not. You can change targets. You can even take your first attack, then change your mind and move after the first attack. The "commitment" part is taking the penalties for the TWF starting with the first attack, no matter what.
I have a fighter with Improved TWF who wields dual wakizashis. She carries five different weapons (cold iron, mithral, adamantine, and 2 normal +1 wakizashis). She also has 2 adamantine cestuses for backup. Her full attack round could conceivably go like this:
Attack 1: Primary hand strike with +1 wakizashi. Damage bounces. Oops! Has DR of some kind.
Free action: Drop both wakizashis.
Free action: Quick draw cold iron in "main hand" and adamantine in "off hand".
Attack 2: "Off hand" strike adamantine wakizashi. Damage gets through. Woot!
Free action: Drop cold iron blade from main hand.
Free action: Switch adamantine blade to main hand.
Free action: Start rage (did I mention one level of barbarian?)
Attack 3: Primary hand, iterative attack with adamantine wakzashi. Yay, damage! Bad guy drops!
No action: Five foot step to bad guy #2.
Attack 4 on BG2: Off-hand iterative with adamantine cestus. A little bit of damage, but better than nothing.This is an extreme example, but it stays within the general "no more than 5 free actions" rules, and technically doesn't violate the TWF rules. Most GMs roll their eyes at how long the turn takes, but as long as I declared my intentions up front, they allow it.
I know you can drop and draw different weapons for your iterative attacks, but I'm fairly certain that once you commit to TWF, you're stuck with those weapons in your hands.

Sitri |

The reason why this would be cheesy for natural attacks while not being cheesy for TWF is simple: you get as many attacks (in a full attack) as you have natural weapons, so the more natural attacks you have available, the more attacks you can make. This prompts players to cheese as many natural attacks as possible, and combine them with (manufactured) weapon attacks, by attacking with a sword, dropping the sword and using that same hand to claw.
The difference with TWF is that, no matter what weapons you could get in hand, you only get the attacks granted by your BAB and your feats! Even if I could get eighteen weapons in hand, I'd still only get one main and one off-hand at 5th, and when I get to 6th I'd still only get two main and one off-hand, and when I get ImpTWF then I'd still only get two main and two off-hand (which must both be taken with the same weapon).
I am not sure what baffles me more, the fact that you completely ignored what was written since your last post and kept on arguing with a straw man or the fact that someone gave you a Favorite Post for it.

![]() |

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:I am not sure what baffles me more, the fact that you completely ignored what was written since your last post and kept on arguing with a straw man or the fact that someone gave you a Favorite Post for it.The reason why this would be cheesy for natural attacks while not being cheesy for TWF is simple: you get as many attacks (in a full attack) as you have natural weapons, so the more natural attacks you have available, the more attacks you can make. This prompts players to cheese as many natural attacks as possible, and combine them with (manufactured) weapon attacks, by attacking with a sword, dropping the sword and using that same hand to claw.
The difference with TWF is that, no matter what weapons you could get in hand, you only get the attacks granted by your BAB and your feats! Even if I could get eighteen weapons in hand, I'd still only get one main and one off-hand at 5th, and when I get to 6th I'd still only get two main and one off-hand, and when I get ImpTWF then I'd still only get two main and two off-hand (which must both be taken with the same weapon).
I'm not sure what you mean. Since this was my last post, by definition I didn't 'keep on arguing', straw man or not.
As to the 'favourite', the guy who did wrote the next post to explain why.

wraithstrike |

Sitri wrote:Malachi Silverclaw wrote:I am not sure what baffles me more, the fact that you completely ignored what was written since your last post and kept on arguing with a straw man or the fact that someone gave you a Favorite Post for it.The reason why this would be cheesy for natural attacks while not being cheesy for TWF is simple: you get as many attacks (in a full attack) as you have natural weapons, so the more natural attacks you have available, the more attacks you can make. This prompts players to cheese as many natural attacks as possible, and combine them with (manufactured) weapon attacks, by attacking with a sword, dropping the sword and using that same hand to claw.
The difference with TWF is that, no matter what weapons you could get in hand, you only get the attacks granted by your BAB and your feats! Even if I could get eighteen weapons in hand, I'd still only get one main and one off-hand at 5th, and when I get to 6th I'd still only get two main and one off-hand, and when I get ImpTWF then I'd still only get two main and two off-hand (which must both be taken with the same weapon).
I'm not sure what you mean. Since this was my last post, by definition I didn't 'keep on arguing', straw man or not.
As to the 'favourite', the guy who did wrote the next post to explain why.
I think he meant your last post before that one Malachi.
Sitri you should also list what is being ignored if you think someone is trying to intentionally ignore a point. I make it a point to repeat it at least twice, and ask the poster why they ignored point X.
If they still don't answer feel free to speak for them. :)

Sitri |

I think he meant your last post before that one Malachi.Sitri you should also list what is being ignored if you think someone is trying to intentionally ignore a point. I make it a point to repeat it at least twice, and ask the poster why they ignored point X.
If they still don't answer feel free to speak for them. :)
It was actually a conscious decision to not repeat myself in this case. I was trying to get away from this thread since it looks pretty open and shut. It was a Will save for half option for me.

Quantum Steve |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

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)
Actually, all of your attacks with a 2 handed weapon are 1.5 Str bonus no matter how you are using it according to the FAQ. Which specific ruling takes precedence, I wonder?
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?
Just 2, with weapon cords. Better yet, Gloves of Storing.
It's not a far step at all from Greatsword + Gauntlet to Greatsword + longsword, or Greatsword + Greatsword.
Heck, how about Longbow + Longbow?

![]() |

I have to say that the biggest, stinkiest cheese that I have ever seen is the abomination that is 'weapon cords'!
Specifically, the swift action to get the weapon back in hand.
In fencing the equivalent of the weapon cord is called a 'martingale'; a loop of leather that you thrust the first phalanges of your first three fingers through. It prevents your weapon from flying across the room when you let go of it for whatever reason. If this happens you aren't finishing your compound attack! It's a move action if it's anything!
I would have no problem if weapon cords let you recover and re-grip a weapon as a move action. Any rules should do their best to reflect reality, and the fact that the RAW of weapon cords results in gunslingers emptyimg several revolvers is just as absurd as two-weapon fighting with two greatswords on strings!
I chose the spiked gauntlet precisely because I could visualise it. This is not shared by my group. On Monday we played again. My DM had read this thread and agreed that it was legal, but he was still uncomfortable with it. He said that using a sword in two hands (in RL) requires greater distance between the combatants than a punch, and that he didnt think that a paladin of Shelyn would use a spiked gauntlet because of the wounds inflicted would increase the ugliness in the world. 'As opposed to an axe?' I asked, and he said it was more about him not being able to visualise it.
Anyway, the upshot was that he would ask the other players if they think I should be allowed to do it or not. : /
One player couldn't make it, so I don't know the result yet, but so far I think I'm losing 3 to 2.
I pointed out that, if it's true that this fighting style doesn't work, then it was always true, and I wouldn't have turned up with a character that didn't work! If the vote goes against me, I'll adjust my character to have the equipment he would have had, which would include masterwork spiked armour.
This gives me a very strange feeling. I've never had to have my character edited by the other players before!
Still, realism is important. It's only right that our sword-throwing, elk-riding, giant-raging party doesn't have a warrior with an unrealistic fighting style....

Rameth the Delver |

Alecak wrote: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.
Only in PF (they nerfed the Monk) so TWF doesn't help the Monk.
In 3.5, the Official FAQ said they can Flurry and TWF for extra stacks.
I pointed that out to him, but he says that it only acts "if" yo uhad it, so if you actually spend the feat for it, it stacks. Really I was hoping for a link that definitivly says they don't stack, because all my logic is lost on him, as is the fact that the vast majority of the forums say it does not stack.

Tragic Missile |

I know I'm late to the party here, But if using a greatsword to make an attack, then removing one hand to make a second attack is legal, wouldn't it render many of the other TWF rules pointless?
For example, wouldn't this then be possible?
1: Rogue has TWF feat and carries 2 short swords.
2: Rogue is disarmed of one sword.
3: Rogue attacks with main hand, then uses his free action to move his short sword to his other hand.
4: Rogue makes his off-hand attack with the same short sword.
Heck, if that were the case, but he were using a longsword, could he argue he doesn't get the full penalty on his first attack because at the time of the first attack he is technically wielding a light weapon (only his fist) in his off hand?
Personally, I wouldn't allow Swordpuncher of Fistblade Mountain in my game because the cheese factor is too high for my taste. Sure it,s great to watch a movie where a guy swings a sword then punches the bad guy -once-. But if that was his only move, it would get real tired real fast.

![]() |

I know I'm late to the party here, But if using a greatsword to make an attack, then removing one hand to make a second attack is legal, wouldn't it render many of the other TWF rules pointless?
For example, wouldn't this then be possible?
1: Rogue has TWF feat and carries 2 short swords.
2: Rogue is disarmed of one sword.
3: Rogue attacks with main hand, then uses his free action to move his short sword to his other hand.
4: Rogue makes his off-hand attack with the same short sword.Heck, if that were the case, but he were using a longsword, could he argue he doesn't get the full penalty on his first attack because at the time of the first attack he is technically wielding a light weapon (only his fist) in his off hand?
Personally, I wouldn't allow Swordpuncher of Fistblade Mountain in my game because the cheese factor is too high for my taste. Sure it,s great to watch a movie where a guy swings a sword then punches the bad guy -once-. But if that was his only move, it would get real tired real fast.
This post is a perfect example of why you need to read the thread before posting.

Tragic Missile |

This post is a perfect example of why you need to read the thread before posting.
I don't "need" to do anything. I read the first page, thought the post was kind of interesting, and read the last page. I then followed it up by asking a question. If the question was already answered earlier in the thread, no big deal. I guess you could say that after reading the first page, I "cut" through the middle and "punched" the link to the last page. See? I'm a man after your own style!
Jeez, no need to fistblade my throat for asking a question my swordpunchy friend.

Tragic Missile |

Dang boy!
You so clever!
Not trying to be, just making the observation. The forum's RAW doesn't seem to have anything on thread reading requirements. Looking over it, I'm pretty sure I could jump into the thread as a free action, skip to the end as another free action and reply as a move action. Heck, I think I could probably even start my own thread as a standard action and use another free action to take a sip of tea. (I have a straw, which reduces drinking from a move action to a free action).
If I took DTP (Dual thread posting) I could double it up and still take a 5-foot step! I'm not sure if it's in the spirit of the forum rules, but it's definitely possible.
;)

Kazaan |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
blackbloodtroll wrote:Dang boy!
You so clever!
Not trying to be, just making the observation. The forum's RAW doesn't seem to have anything on thread reading requirements. Looking over it, I'm pretty sure I could jump into the thread as a free action, skip to the end as another free action and reply as a move action. Heck, I think I could probably even start my own thread as a standard action and use another free action to take a sip of tea. (I have a straw, which reduces drinking from a move action to a free action).
If I took DTP (Dual thread posting) I could double it up and still take a 5-foot step! I'm not sure if it's in the spirit of the forum rules, but it's definitely possible.
;)
More like you rolled a natural 1 and fell off a cliff onto jagged rocks. If your intention was to make a competent and intelligent contribution to the discussion, yes, you need to comprehend the thread as the grievous error of logic you committed could have been easily avoided had you done so. If your intent was to make a complete fool of yourself, however... it was super effective.

Arkene |
I personally don't see why its even legal. When you declare the attack to use TWF surely you need to have a different weapon in each hand, thus TWO weapon fighting. Effectively you get the extra attack because you are attacking with both weapons at the same time. If you are holding a sword two handed then your 'off hand' isn't free to attack.

wraithstrike |

I personally don't see why its even legal. When you declare the attack to use TWF surely you need to have a different weapon in each hand, thus TWO weapon fighting. Effectively you get the extra attack because you are attacking with both weapons at the same time. If you are holding a sword two handed then your 'off hand' isn't free to attack.
Off-hand has nothing to do with actual hands. The rules only require that you be wielding a second weapon, not actually holding it in your hand.
Two-Weapon Fighting
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand....,
It would have to say "other hand" for you to be correct, and while the a two-handed weapon uses two hands there are no rules to say it also occupies the "off hand". If there are then nobody can find them anyway.

Darth Grall |

Darth Grall wrote:Another case of legal by RAW but goes against RAI.blackbloodtroll wrote:Well, an Alchemist can two-weapon fight with two greatswords.True, though that's certainly a corner case and a half.
True, but you're just trading -4/-4(since both are non-light weapons) for extra damage, like one usually trades Ab for damage. And give the high requirements(15 Dex, at least 1 feat) it's not over powered either imo. Well, not until you factor in the Mutagens then it's a bit of a gray area...

Vod Canockers |

Arkene wrote:I personally don't see why its even legal. When you declare the attack to use TWF surely you need to have a different weapon in each hand, thus TWO weapon fighting. Effectively you get the extra attack because you are attacking with both weapons at the same time. If you are holding a sword two handed then your 'off hand' isn't free to attack.Off-hand has nothing to do with actual hands. The rules only require that you be wielding a second weapon, not actually holding it in your hand.
Quote:It would have to say "other hand" for you to be correct, and while the a two-handed weapon uses two hands there are no rules to say it also occupies the "off hand". If there are then nobody can find them anyway.Two-Weapon Fighting
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand....,
Feel free to use your third hand to make an off hand attack then.

wraithstrike |

wraithstrike wrote:Feel free to use your third hand to make an off hand attack then.Arkene wrote:I personally don't see why its even legal. When you declare the attack to use TWF surely you need to have a different weapon in each hand, thus TWO weapon fighting. Effectively you get the extra attack because you are attacking with both weapons at the same time. If you are holding a sword two handed then your 'off hand' isn't free to attack.Off-hand has nothing to do with actual hands. The rules only require that you be wielding a second weapon, not actually holding it in your hand.
Quote:It would have to say "other hand" for you to be correct, and while the a two-handed weapon uses two hands there are no rules to say it also occupies the "off hand". If there are then nobody can find them anyway.Two-Weapon Fighting
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand....,
Well if the character has 3 hands that would legally be an "off hand" for the purpose of wielding a weapon..:)

![]() |

I personally don't see why its even legal. When you declare the attack to use TWF surely you need to have a different weapon in each hand, thus TWO weapon fighting. Effectively you get the extra attack because you are attacking with both weapons at the same time. If you are holding a sword two handed then your 'off hand' isn't free to attack.
A common misunderstanding regarding two-weapon fighting is that the 'main' attack and the 'off-hand' attack are simultaneous attacks. This then leads to the flawed logic that the two weapons in question must be able to be wielded simultaneously, thus making it impossible to use a two-handed weapon as the main attack if you need a hand to wield the off-hand weapon (assuming a wielder with only two hands).
As common as this impression is, it is simply not true.
Two-weapon fighting is simply a way to get an extra attack, and that attack must be made by a different weapon to the other attacks to which you are entitled. There is absolutely no requirement to wield these weapons simultaneously, and no suggestion that these attacks (main and off-hand) are taken at the same instant in time.
Usually, it's simply not practical to do anything other than have one weapon per hand. This is not the rule, it is simply logistics. You could attack two-handed with a greatsword then Quick Draw a shortsword and you've met all the criteria, but then you'd have to drop the shortsword sometime during the next round to enable you to do it again. This is not really a good long-term battle strategy!
The advantage of gauntlets (as well as spiked armour, boulder helmet, boot blades etc.) is that it takes care of these logistics for you. You don't need to drop these weapons in order to two-hand your main attack.
TWF attacks are taken one-at-a-time, just like any other full attack. You can attack with either weapon in any order you like, so long as each iterative attack is made in order from highest to lowest, and the extra off-hand attacks are made with the 'second' off-hand attack from ImpTWF coming after the first off-hand attack, and the third from GreaterTWF coming after the second.
The weapon designated (for that full attack) as your 'off-hand' weapon is the only weapon that can take any of your off-hand attacks in that full attack, and is the only weapon that cannot take any of your non-off-hand attacks. Meanwhile
your non-off-hand attacks can be taken with any combination of weapons that your are able to get into the required number of hands as the attack is executed, with the single exception of the weapon that you designated as your off-hand attack for that full attack.
As an example, a hasted fighter with a BAB of +16, all three TWF feats, and Quick Draw can start his round with no weapons in hand at all. Before he makes his first attack he must declare his use of TWF (if he wants to use it for this full attack) and designate his off-hand weapon for this full attack. This weapon can be any weapon, and it doesn't need to be in-hand (or even in his possession, though that would be wise!). The TWF penalty is then assessed: -4, unless the designated off-hand weapon is light, in which case the penalty is -2.
He can take his first attack with either his designated off-hand weapon (in which case it's his first off-hand attack), or any other weapon (in which case this is his main attack). If he designated his short sword as his off-hand weapon, then that is the only weapon that can take the extra attacks granted by the TWF feat tree this full attack, and that short sword cannot take any of his iterative attacks, main attack or bonus attack from haste. His main attacks and bonus haste attack can be taken with any weapon he can get in hand. He could Quick Draw a javelin for his first main attack, draw a longsword to make two of his other three iteratives, then drop either weapon to draw another javelin and throw it as his bonus haste attack. Finally, he could draw a kukri to take his last iterative.
A very flexible fighting style. However, it's not a free lunch. You've paid for it with a Dex of 19, spreading your wealth around several weapons and, crucially, spending at least four feats and having a BAB of 11+. These four feat choices could have been spent on four different combat feats; he's not getting something for nothing.

![]() |
It violates the basic idea of 2 weapon and comes off as cheese. why do people feel the need to see how far they can push things? One handed and light weapons are the clear intent so why keep looking for more? Is the next step going to be "can i weapon cord 2 greatswords and make an attack then dropit and attack with the other as TWF?"
People that do not see how far to push things are the people who don't invent airplanes when there is already cars. We are naturally innovators. Without innovation we would still be playing cowboys and Indians with sticks! Which by the way is awesome!

Crash_00 |
Arkene wrote:I personally don't see why its even legal. When you declare the attack to use TWF surely you need to have a different weapon in each hand, thus TWO weapon fighting. Effectively you get the extra attack because you are attacking with both weapons at the same time. If you are holding a sword two handed then your 'off hand' isn't free to attack.Off-hand has nothing to do with actual hands. The rules only require that you be wielding a second weapon, not actually holding it in your hand.
Quote:It would have to say "other hand" for you to be correct, and while the a two-handed weapon uses two hands there are no rules to say it also occupies the "off hand". If there are then nobody can find them anyway.Two-Weapon Fighting
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand....,
There is actually something that makes it clear that two-handed weapons occupy the off hand. It's squirreled away in the buckler description:
You can also use your shield arm to wield a weapon (whether you are using an off-hand weapon or using your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon)
Also the description of Two Weapon Fighting tells us:
You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands. You can make one extra attack each round with the secondary weapon.
You can make the argument that Two Weapon Fighting, as laid out in the combat section, allows for the "off hand" to be any second weapon, but the feat specifically applies to fighting with weapons in your hands. Similarly, we know from the buckler description that two handed weapons require the use of the off hand.
The feat specifically allows for using "a weapon" in each hand. Singular. In the OPs case he's using two weapons in one of his hands (he uses both on the sword and one on the spiked gauntlet, one hand has to be used on two weapons). This is not allowed by the feat.
So, it could arguably work with the Two Weapon Fighting rules, but no with the Two Weapon Fighting feat.

Demjing "The Mage Breaker" |

So, it could arguably work with the Two Weapon Fighting rules, but...
Thus It can be done RAW just with large attack penalties as if using two weapons without the TWF Feat. That seems elegant and fair to me. Its not constraining to the player options and allows for a sense of balance. Sacrificing accuracy for that extra strength push of 1.5x on the first strike.

Tragic Missile |

Tragic Missile wrote:More like you rolled a natural 1 and fell off a cliff onto jagged rocks. If your intention was to make a competent and intelligent contribution to the discussion, yes, you need to comprehend the thread as the grievous error of logic you committed could have been easily avoided had you done so. If your intent was to make a complete fool of yourself, however... it was super effective.blackbloodtroll wrote:Dang boy!
You so clever!
Not trying to be, just making the observation. The forum's RAW doesn't seem to have anything on thread reading requirements. Looking over it, I'm pretty sure I could jump into the thread as a free action, skip to the end as another free action and reply as a move action. Heck, I think I could probably even start my own thread as a standard action and use another free action to take a sip of tea. (I have a straw, which reduces drinking from a move action to a free action).
If I took DTP (Dual thread posting) I could double it up and still take a 5-foot step! I'm not sure if it's in the spirit of the forum rules, but it's definitely possible.
;)
Dang dude lighten up! We're talking about RPG's here and it was a joke in good fun. If I had known you would be so sensitive I wouldn't have typed it.
I'd say I would try and refrain from joking around on the forums...
but I'd probably fail my bluff check!

graystone |

wraithstrike wrote:Arkene wrote:I personally don't see why its even legal. When you declare the attack to use TWF surely you need to have a different weapon in each hand, thus TWO weapon fighting. Effectively you get the extra attack because you are attacking with both weapons at the same time. If you are holding a sword two handed then your 'off hand' isn't free to attack.Off-hand has nothing to do with actual hands. The rules only require that you be wielding a second weapon, not actually holding it in your hand.
Quote:It would have to say "other hand" for you to be correct, and while the a two-handed weapon uses two hands there are no rules to say it also occupies the "off hand". If there are then nobody can find them anyway.Two-Weapon Fighting
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand....,There is actually something that makes it clear that two-handed weapons occupy the off hand. It's squirreled away in the buckler description:
Quote:You can also use your shield arm to wield a weapon (whether you are using an off-hand weapon or using your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon)Also the description of Two Weapon Fighting tells us:
Quote:You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands. You can make one extra attack each round with the secondary weapon.You can make the argument that Two Weapon Fighting, as laid out in the combat section, allows for the "off hand" to be any second weapon, but the feat specifically applies to fighting with weapons in your hands. Similarly, we know from the buckler description that two handed weapons require the use of the off hand.
The feat specifically allows for using "a weapon" in each hand. Singular. In the OPs case he's using two weapons in one of his hands (he uses both on the sword and one on the spiked gauntlet, one hand has to be used on two weapons). This is not allowed by the feat.
So, it could arguably work with the Two Weapon Fighting rules, but...
"A barbazu beard can be used as an off-hand weapon that requires no hands to use; thus, a warrior could combine use of a barbazu beared with a two-handed weapon." So you don't need a hand to attack and a spiked gauntlet doesn't use the hand it's on.
You could kill a goblin with your gauntlet, pull out a dagger with that same hand and throw it at another goblin 10' away with two weapon fighting. (two weapons, one in the hand and one that doesn't need hands)

wraithstrike |

There is actually something that makes it clear that two-handed weapons occupy the off hand. It's squirreled away in the buckler description:
Quote:You can also use your shield arm to wield a weapon (whether you are using an off-hand weapon or using your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon)
That means the other hand can be the off hand. That does not mean it is always the offhand. Spiked armor is an example of that.
You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands. You can make one extra attack each round with the secondary weapon.
That says "can", not have to. If that was a requirement spiked armor would not work.
edit:With that aside these example have already been covered earlier in the thread.

![]() |

@Crash_00: the buckler description gives special rules for the buckler. If those were general combat rules then they'd be in the combat chapter. The very fact that they are 'squirreled away' in the buckler description is because they're an exception to the normal rules.
As to needing to hold weapons in hand, the very existence of armour spikes (which was in the 3rd ed PHB) shows that the creators of the game are happy with the 'main' attack being two-handed and the 'off-hand' attack not needing hands at all. The description of armour spikes specifically calls out the rules on fighting with two weapons:-
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.)
It's also a nice illustration of being unable to use more than one 'off-hand' weapon in any single full attack, 'off-hand' attacks only existing in the context of TWF.