Is this TWF combination legal?


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 788 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

19 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 3 people marked this as a favorite.

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?


I believe so, yes

Shadow Lodge

0.o I guess you're thinking that you slice with the sword then go in for a punch with your fist still clenching the handle? Meh if your GM allows it. Does not seem all that different from people allowing the greatsword for magus spellstrike.

Liberty's Edge

I don't think most GMs would allow it. Generally, if you are wielding the weapon two-handed, you are wielding the weapon two-handed for the entire round. Granted, letting go with one hand is a free action, so there is reason to argue that you could.

The developers seldom weigh in on rules questions.

The Exchange

3 people marked this as a favorite.

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?"

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

You cannot, but you could use Armor Spikes as your off-hand attack instead =)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
the Queen's Raven wrote:
0.o I guess you're thinking that you slice with the sword then go in for a punch with your fist still clenching the handle? Meh if your GM allows it. Does not seem all that different from people allowing the greatsword for magus spellstrike.

Would you rather he Armor spiked and greatsword? That is also legal.

Silver Crusade

This came up in my Kingmaker game on Monday.

To replace my dead PC I rolled up a paladin, giving him the TWF feat, and building him around this weapon combination.

It's not optimal for a paladin to TWF, but I'm going with it anyway.

Although a spiked gauntlet is a poor off-hand weapon compared to a shortsword (for example), the fact that I could use my main weapon two-handed was a bonus, especially if I have to move more than 5-feet. It's a free action to let go of my longsword with one hand, and a free action to replace it.

After a few sessions with little combat after the first week (when I used it), last week he said that I can't do it as my 'off-hand' had already been used on my longsword!

I know that a limb isn't restricted from only making one attack per round. I also know that a limb can use more than one weapon in the same full attack (Quick Draw thrown daggers, for example). Although the usual way of TWFing is to have one sword per hand, I see no rules preventing the combination I designed my paladin around.

To be honest, if I thought for a single moment that this was an illegal TWF combination then I'd have built him with armour spikes as my off-hand weapon! Nothing illegal about that!

...is there...?


The flavor is delicious, I love your idea, I would say when full attacking, just give up your extra half damage, but keep two handing when you have to move. That's a really awesome idea.

I agree that getting the extra damage AND extra attack is cheesing. If your damage suffers and you fall behind, talk with your DM again, but you'd have to be really lagging.

Liberty's Edge

Actually, throwing daggers is a totally different situation than using the same hand for wielding a two handed sword and then using it for a spiked gauntlet. Think about it as dedicating your hand to a series of attacks at the beginning of a round, you either dedicate it to your main weapon or you dedicate it as your off hand weapon. You can't use it as both. (Just as you would not be allowed to TWF with thrown daggers using only one hand.)

As to the spiked armor / 2HF, yes it is legal. I personally find it distasteful, but to each their own.

Silver Crusade

Kairos Dawnfury wrote:

The flavor is delicious, I love your idea, I would say when full attacking, just give up your extra half damage, but keep two handing when you have to move. That's a really awesome idea.

I agree that getting the extra damage AND extra attack is cheesing. If your damage suffers and you fall behind, talk with your DM again, but you'd have to be really lagging.

What I gain on the swings, I lose on the roundabouts.

The 'price' for getting 1.5 x Str bonus to damage with my main weapon is that my off-hand weapon is terrible; it's worse than a dagger, which has a better threat range and can be thrown!

It's not a free lunch!

What I'm looking for (apart from the devs speaking up) are rules quotes, one way or another. Are there any?


This FAQ entry suggests a pretty good argument that it could be legal, though the specific example is for taking your hand off a two-handed weapon to cast a spell.

It does seem cheesy, but that's not what you're asking.


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!


Volaran wrote:

This FAQ entry suggests a pretty good argument that it could be legal, though the specific example is for taking your hand off a two-handed weapon to cast a spell.

It does seem cheesy, but that's not what you're asking.

Quote:
As with any free action, the GM may decide a reasonable limit to how many times per round you can release and re-grasp the weapon (one release and re-grasp per round is fair).

"One release and re-grasp". That's the most I'd ever allow. So, maybe simple TWF. But as soon as you got to iteratives, I'd tell you you're out of luck.

Probably legal from a purely technical standpoint, but I'd never let it fly.

Liberty's Edge

Volaran wrote:
This FAQ entry suggests a pretty good argument that it could be legal, though the specific example is for taking your hand off a two-handed weapon to cast a spell.

That post suggests nothing of the kind. If the post had been about a magus using a two handed weapon, then you would have an argument, but it wasn't. It was specifically about releasing and re-gripping a weapon, which no one argues against being a free action. The argument against this is that the limb is dedicated to a particular set of attacks at the start of the attack sequence. For an example of this being illegal look at using a two handed weapon and then trying to get natural attacks, claws are out because the limb is already used for the round.

Silver Crusade

That FAQ wrote:

Two-Handed Weapons: What kind of action is it to remove your hand from a two-handed weapon or re-grab it with both hands?

Both are free actions. For example, a wizard wielding a quarterstaff can let go of the weapon with one hand as a free action, cast a spell as a standard action, and grasp the weapon again with that hand as a free action; this means the wizard is still able to make attacks of opportunity with the weapon (which requires using two hands).

Natural weapons have different rules than manufactured weapons, and Two-Weapon Fighting has different rules than the monstrous feat Multi-Weapon Fighting.

Why would someone 'not let it fly' if it were legal?


Heh. It if helps, it isn't something I'd allow in a game anyway, ShadowcatX. I think you're right though. Malachi asked for any post or rules call that might support their position, and that entry was the only thing that even remotely came to mind though.

The natural attack comparison makes sense though, as far as the same limb not being involved in two types of attacks in the same round. You might be out of luck unless you have an extremely lenient GM, Malachi. If you mainly have the weapon combo for thematic purposes, maybe go the simpler route and use TWF or THF depending on which makes the most sense at the time.


PRD wrote:
Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM.

That's why I wouldn't allow it.

Free Action abuse to get 1.5 STR bonus on a two-handed attack, then to get to attack with that same hand again?

If you use a double weapon, but don't TWF, you get 1.5 STR bonus.

If you use a double weapon, but TWF, you get STR bonus on one and .5 STR bonus on the other.

This scenario is essentially the exact same thing as TWF with a double weapon, but you get an extra STR bonue. So, no. I wouldn't allow it.

I'll actually refine my earlier answer (in large part because of the natural weapon response above). I wouldn't allow it at all.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
That FAQ wrote:

Two-Handed Weapons: What kind of action is it to remove your hand from a two-handed weapon or re-grab it with both hands?

Both are free actions. For example, a wizard wielding a quarterstaff can let go of the weapon with one hand as a free action, cast a spell as a standard action, and grasp the weapon again with that hand as a free action; this means the wizard is still able to make attacks of opportunity with the weapon (which requires using two hands).

Natural weapons have different rules than manufactured weapons, and Two-Weapon Fighting has different rules than the monstrous feat Multi-Weapon Fighting.

Why would someone 'not let it fly' if it were legal?

So then would you allow someone to use a two-handed weapon but still get the benefit of the shield bonus from their buckler?

Same idea.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
That FAQ wrote:

Two-Handed Weapons: What kind of action is it to remove your hand from a two-handed weapon or re-grab it with both hands?

Both are free actions. For example, a wizard wielding a quarterstaff can let go of the weapon with one hand as a free action, cast a spell as a standard action, and grasp the weapon again with that hand as a free action; this means the wizard is still able to make attacks of opportunity with the weapon (which requires using two hands).

Natural weapons have different rules than manufactured weapons, and Two-Weapon Fighting has different rules than the monstrous feat Multi-Weapon Fighting.

Why would someone 'not let it fly' if it were legal?

First, as I pointed out, no one is arguing that releasing and re-gripping a weapon is a free action. You didn't have to post the FAQ to show that because it was already agreed to.

Now as to natural weapons and manufactured weapons having different rules, sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. For example, they have the same rules for how to roll for attack and damage, same rules about provoking attacks of opportunity, same rules about making attacks of opportunity and they have the same rules that say if a limb is dedicated to a specific series of attacks you can't turn and make additional attacks with it.

As to why it wouldn't fly if it were legal (and it isn't), that's simply because it is distasteful. TWF is obviously meant to be a weapon in each hand, and in exchange for getting a weapon in each hand, you give up a weapon in two hands and all the bonuses that entails. Now, however, there are other ways to go about TWF, the most common of which is a two handed weapon and spiked armor, which I pointed out that I personally find distasteful.

But seriously, you wanted to know if this is legal. It isn't. If you want to be legal, get armor spikes. If you want to put forth an argument to the DM that this isn't any stronger than using armor spikes and it is more flavorful, go for it. House rules are not bad things.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

A person with Quick Draw can start a round with nothing in his hands, draw a series of daggers one by one and throw them WHILE USING two-weapon fighting to get the extra attacks.

If a person can draw a new weapon and dual-wield with it, he can most certainly remove a hand from an existing weapon and attack with another.


Andrew R wrote:
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?"

For all the feats it uses, and the ability score requirements I don't know why it would come off as cheese. It probably still does less damage than using a two-handed weapon alone due to the penalties to hit

Dark Archive

If people are going to give you flack for using the same hand to attack with two different weapons, then go with Improved Unarmed Strike instead and use headbutts.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This has also come up several times, and the devs have never answered it. Even though my past stance was that it was not allowed I would allow it now, and I do think they will eventually say it is legal.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I could have sworn they already had, wraithstrike, though I suppose that was in regards to something like armor spikes and a two-handed weapon (rather than trying to use a hand that is currently in use).


I remember looking into two weapon fighting with pistols which you need a free hand to reload. Basically you do all your attacks with one pistol, drop it (weapon cord on both so retrieving is swift action), pick up the other pistol and do all those iterative attacks.

So you do all your two handed longsword attacks and then take your hand off for the spiked gauntlet attacks.

I don't have any quotes or anything unfortunately. But I really want to build a character like this.


Ravingdork wrote:
I could have sworn they already had, wraithstrike, though I suppose that was in regards to something like armor spikes and a two-handed weapon (rather than trying to use a hand that is currently in use).

People have used the 3.5 FAQ which supports it, but Paizo has not said anything yet.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
It's not optimal for a paladin to TWF, but I'm going with it anyway.

Actually, it's one of the most optimal routes--Smite Evil adds tons of damage per hit, so more attacks means more smite damage.

I would suggest its easily on par with a Two-Handed Paladin just because the Two Hander only needs to spend 1 feat on fighting (Power Attack), though both are definitely behind the Archer Paladin.

Of course, the combination of weapons is a strange one. Most TWF Paladins use a shield.

I think the spiked gauntlet pushes the rules to their limit and armor spikes deal more damage anyway, so I'd suggest that route instead. And really, there's no reason not to use a true two-hander, unless you're sacrificing 2.5 damage per hit to the flavor gods.

Silver Crusade

fretgod99 wrote:
PRD wrote:
Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM.

That's why I wouldn't allow it.

Free Action abuse to get 1.5 STR bonus on a two-handed attack, then to get to attack with that same hand again?

If you use a double weapon, but don't TWF, you get 1.5 STR bonus.

If you use a double weapon, but TWF, you get STR bonus on one and .5 STR bonus on the other.

This scenario is essentially the exact same thing as TWF with a double weapon, but you get an extra STR bonue. So, no. I wouldn't allow it.

I'll actually refine my earlier answer (in large part because of the natural weapon response above). I wouldn't allow it at all.

A 16th level fighter with Quick Draw and Rapid Shot can draw and throw 5 daggers per round. This is not in any doubt, rules wise.

He has to put his hand on the hilt (free action) 5 times, draw it (free action with Quick Draw) 5 times, and let go of it (to throw it) 5 times.

The idea that any more than one grip and one re-grip should be disallowed by the DM as 'unreasonable' borders on absurdity.

What's more, when I get iteratives I can take all my longsword attacks, let go with one hand, take all my off-hand attacks, re-grip. One of each, no problem.

Silver Crusade

ShadowcatX wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
That FAQ wrote:

Two-Handed Weapons: What kind of action is it to remove your hand from a two-handed weapon or re-grab it with both hands?

Both are free actions. For example, a wizard wielding a quarterstaff can let go of the weapon with one hand as a free action, cast a spell as a standard action, and grasp the weapon again with that hand as a free action; this means the wizard is still able to make attacks of opportunity with the weapon (which requires using two hands).

Natural weapons have different rules than manufactured weapons, and Two-Weapon Fighting has different rules than the monstrous feat Multi-Weapon Fighting.

Why would someone 'not let it fly' if it were legal?

First, as I pointed out, no one is arguing that releasing and re-gripping a weapon is a free action. You didn't have to post the FAQ to show that because it was already agreed to.

Now as to natural weapons and manufactured weapons having different rules, sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. For example, they have the same rules for how to roll for attack and damage, same rules about provoking attacks of opportunity, same rules about making attacks of opportunity and they have the same rules that say if a limb is dedicated to a specific series of attacks you can't turn and make additional attacks with it.

As to why it wouldn't fly if it were legal (and it isn't), that's simply because it is distasteful. TWF is obviously meant to be a weapon in each hand, and in exchange for getting a weapon in each hand, you give up a weapon in two hands and all the bonuses that entails. Now, however, there are other ways to go about TWF, the most common of which is a two handed weapon and spiked armor, which I pointed out that I personally find distasteful.

But seriously, you wanted to know if this is legal. It isn't. If you want to be legal, get armor spikes. If you want to put forth an argument to the DM that this isn't any stronger than using armor spikes and it is more...

I quoted that part of the FAQ because the other part had already been quoted. I plan to get my DM to read this thread, so he can weigh the comments for himself, and want to make it easy for him.

You keep saying it's illegal. Just saying it is no good to either of us. It would be helpful to quote the rules which show any illegality. You seem so confident that you must know what these rules are, so share! If you can't find any, why are you so confident?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Andrew R wrote:
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?

Because that's how we got into space :p

And yeah, ditto to the cheese.


Well from a fluff thing that sounds cool..
Down swing with both hands releasing one hand to backhand. bit harder to fluff a second two handed grip strike, but easy to say a 3rd one handed grip attack although one could say you sweep the sword up like an uppercut and catch with the gauntlet hand to baseball bat them with it). Fun spinning damage kinda thing.

Silver Crusade

wraithstrike wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
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?"
For all the feats it uses, and the ability score requirements I don't know why it would come off as cheese. It probably still does less damage than using a two-handed weapon alone due to the penalties to hit

I can certainly optimise melee characters in these rules! A TWFing paladin isn't it!

I'll have to spend my feats at 1st, 5th, 7th and 11th levels, just to be worse than if I'd gone the 2-hander route with Power Attack.

Armour spikes are a better off-hand weapon than spiked gauntlets, and cheaper (since I started with a pair of mwk cold iron spiked gauntlets, for flavour purposes).

So, if 'cheesy' means I'm trying to get the most powerful PC I can, it doesn't apply here! If 'cheesy' means 'everybody does it' then I don't think it applies either; I've never heard of anyone doing it before.

I don't think for a moment that my DM is out to get me, or thinks my paladin is too optimised. The barbarian in our party does about twice as much damage as I do; he nearly always fights enlarged while I won't for flavour reasons, so I don't think that the extra 2 points of damage I do by 2-handing my main weapon is what bothers him. I'm sure he just genuinely believes it's not a legal combination!

When this came up in the game, apart from my initial 'WTF' moment, I decided not to halt the game with a rules debate; that wouldn't be cool. I didn't get a chance to talk to him after the game. I'm going to e-mail him to read this thread, and this should allow him to put his own points across.

(Wraithstrike; I'm replying to your post purely from convenience, not because of anything you've said)


Or you could not take your hand off at all and be slicing and then hammering them with your fists.

I still feel like you'd be giving up some of your power with your off hand attacks after going fullon with your two handed. Like you can only do 1 Str damage with your main hand and .5 with your off hand without extra feats,


the Queen's Raven wrote:
0.o I guess you're thinking that you slice with the sword then go in for a punch with your fist still clenching the handle? Meh if your GM allows it. Does not seem all that different from people allowing the greatsword for magus spellstrike.

Not the same, as the greatsword is explicitly not allowed for a Magus without a house rule:

Quote:
To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic components), while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand.

Which is lame, because I'd love to have a Glaive Magus.

That said, spiked armor or a blade boot would work with a Greatsword and two-weapon fighting. Heck, the bladeboot explicitly allows it. Some races can use weapons on their tails as well.

Silver Crusade

mplindustries wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
It's not optimal for a paladin to TWF, but I'm going with it anyway.

Actually, it's one of the most optimal routes--Smite Evil adds tons of damage per hit, so more attacks means more smite damage.

I would suggest its easily on par with a Two-Handed Paladin just because the Two Hander only needs to spend 1 feat on fighting (Power Attack), though both are definitely behind the Archer Paladin.

Of course, the combination of weapons is a strange one. Most TWF Paladins use a shield.

I think the spiked gauntlet pushes the rules to their limit and armor spikes deal more damage anyway, so I'd suggest that route instead. And really, there's no reason not to use a true two-hander, unless you're sacrificing 2.5 damage per hit to the flavor gods.

Yeah, there's plenty of sacrificing to the flavour gods. : )

But I don't want to lose legitimate damage for no reason in pursuit of it; I'm already so far off optimum, I don't want to be punished for having flavour!

It's a great campaign and he's a great DM, but he's fairly new to Pathfinder. There's plenty of proper role-playing going on, and I'm enjoying it immensely. This was a nasty shock, though. I want to resolve it in a civilised way.

TWF is good with Smite Evil, sure, but I only have two per day, not all enemies are evil and my Smite target may fall in two-rounds, so that's not a whole lot of advantage in a campaign. I'll try to use it wisely, but it's nowhere near as universally useful as the barbarian's rage.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
TWF is good with Smite Evil, sure, but I only have two per day, not all enemies are evil and my Smite target may fall in two-rounds, so that's not a whole lot of advantage in a campaign. I'll try to use it wisely, but it's nowhere near as universally useful as the barbarian's rage.

Ok, so what is the reason you didn't take the Oath of Vengeance then? Unless you're already an archetype that is not compatible, I think all Paladins should take it.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
PRD wrote:
Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM.

That's why I wouldn't allow it.

Free Action abuse to get 1.5 STR bonus on a two-handed attack, then to get to attack with that same hand again?

If you use a double weapon, but don't TWF, you get 1.5 STR bonus.

If you use a double weapon, but TWF, you get STR bonus on one and .5 STR bonus on the other.

This scenario is essentially the exact same thing as TWF with a double weapon, but you get an extra STR bonue. So, no. I wouldn't allow it.

I'll actually refine my earlier answer (in large part because of the natural weapon response above). I wouldn't allow it at all.

A 16th level fighter with Quick Draw and Rapid Shot can draw and throw 5 daggers per round. This is not in any doubt, rules wise.

He has to put his hand on the hilt (free action) 5 times, draw it (free action with Quick Draw) 5 times, and let go of it (to throw it) 5 times.

The idea that any more than one grip and one re-grip should be disallowed by the DM as 'unreasonable' borders on absurdity.

What's more, when I get iteratives I can take all my longsword attacks, let go with one hand, take all my off-hand attacks, re-grip. One of each, no problem.

Iteratives and TWF have to go in a specific order. You can't take all your attacks with one weapon, then the other.

And drawing and throwing a dagger is specifically allowed for in the rules. Conceptually, it's also different, since drawing and throwing is essentially done in a fluid motion.

It doesn't border on absurdity. I wouldn't let a player TWF with a two-handed weapon and another attack made with a hand. Doing so just seems silly.


Ironically enough, first time I saw this was in Dragon written by Paizo. Grant falls under 3.5, but majority of PF comes from it so as a DM I would be OK with it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

RAW, I think this is only possible if your secondary weapon is one that doesn't use your hands, since they're both busy holding your sword. So a gauntlet wouldn't work, but Unarmed Strikes or Armor Spikes would.

The fun thing is that when we consider the attribute and feat prerequisites for this, the OP's character will have lower DPR than if he was simply fighting 2-handed. So saying it is "cheesy" makes no sense.

It's no more powerful than a simple 2-handed warrior or archer and their DPR is just very slightly above that of a TWFer. And TWFers can easily compete with the 1.5x Str advantage of this character thanks to the fact that they can apply all weapon specific feats to all their attacks instead of only half.

This is a very flavorful and creative combat style, and it not even close to being OP.

I honestly don't see why this idea shouldn't be possible.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I wouldn't be able to point to a particular page number and say "this is legal" but I think there's enough similar almost-precedents that I'd allow it as a GM, but with one caveat.

The almost-precedents are the thing with spiked armour (which allows TWF with a 2 handed weapon) and the releasing grip on a 2 handed weapon and re-gripping as free actions. Taking these together, as a GM, I'd say allowing a character to punch and use their sword 2 handed was ok. it does less damage than armour spikes, and they definitely are legal.

Of course, the PC in question would take the -2 for TWF on all attacks, so they'll hit less often than a pure 2 handed fighter. They'll be doing less damage than a 2handed armour-spiker and hitting less often than a straight 2 hander. So really, I can't see this as an optimization thing. I see it more as a "I have such a cool image in my head for the way this guy fights!" thing, and the player is ok losing a bit of damage for it. I love it when players go less than optimal for flavour and/or roleplaying something. Credit to Malachi.

EDIT: kinda ninja'd by Lemmy. :-)

Also, although the character is gaining the x1.5 damage, they are losing damage for having such a cruddy off-hand weapon.


It's legal in my opinion and no more cheese than using unarmed strikes or armor spikes. Or using spiked gauntlets while using a bow, a classic advice on these boards to threaten. The only real difference is when attacks of opportunity come up: you have to have made the choice to fight one or two handed on your turn, so it's worse than other options.
It's OK from my point of view :-)


fretgod99 wrote:
PRD wrote:
Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM.

That's why I wouldn't allow it.

Free Action abuse to get 1.5 STR bonus on a two-handed attack, then to get to attack with that same hand again?

If you use a double weapon, but don't TWF, you get 1.5 STR bonus.

If you use a double weapon, but TWF, you get STR bonus on one and .5 STR bonus on the other.

This scenario is essentially the exact same thing as TWF with a double weapon, but you get an extra STR bonue. So, no. I wouldn't allow it.

Disagree, please prove Double weapons don't get 1.5 Str at all times.


Starbuck_II wrote:
Disagree, please prove Double weapons don't get 1.5 Str at all times.

Seems pretty clear.

Quote:
Double: You can use a double weapon to fight as if fighting with two weapons, but if you do, you incur all the normal attack penalties associated with fighting with two weapons, just as if you were using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. You can choose to wield one end of a double weapon two-handed, but it cannot be used as a double weapon when wielded in this way—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.

That said, there are lots of ways of using a two-handed weapon and another. Armor spikes is the most obvious.

Double weapons are decidedly lame.


I'd allow it. Precedent of armor spikes plus TWF and the FAQ on releasing\regripping a two-handed weapon, IMO, outweighs the only other real cited precedent*, that of natural attacks.

If he really has a problem with it based on the whole release\regrip thing, then just wear metal-strapped boots with spikes on them; that should be the rough equivalent to wearing a spiked gauntlet and it makes your second attack with a different limb.

*Other than "it's cheesy", which it's not really; it's sub-optimal damage, and it requires additional feat expenditures to even be really viable.


Quote:
Armor Spikes: You can have spikes added to your armor, which allow you to 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.

I think an attack with a two handed weapon attack counts as an main and offhand attack at the same time. So it is not allowed to use the armor spikes.


DEXRAY wrote:
Quote:
Armor Spikes: You can have spikes added to your armor, which allow you to 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.
I think an attack with a two handed weapon attack counts as an main and offhand attack at the same time. So it is not allowed to use the armor spikes.

Wrong, offhand refers to the attack you gain through TWF. SKR clarified that once :-)


DEXRAY wrote:


I think an attack with a two handed weapon attack counts as an main and offhand attack at the same time. So it is not allowed to use the armor spikes.

The rules don't really go over two-weapon fighting when you essentially have more than two hands OR equip weapons that are not in your hands.

Quote:
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in two ways. First, if your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light. Second, the Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6.

What's the difference between "Regular Attack" and "attacks with your primary hand"? There's some weird stuff there with how they talk about hands and attacks, especially with stuff that doesn't use hands. This does imply you can have a weapon as a primary attack that isn't just in one hand.

Really the game would be simpler if it was more like natural attacks.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Drachasor wrote:
the Queen's Raven wrote:
0.o I guess you're thinking that you slice with the sword then go in for a punch with your fist still clenching the handle? Meh if your GM allows it. Does not seem all that different from people allowing the greatsword for magus spellstrike.

Not the same, as the greatsword is explicitly not allowed for a Magus without a house rule:

Quote:
To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic components), while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand.

Which is lame, because I'd love to have a Glaive Magus.

That said, spiked armor or a blade boot would work with a Greatsword and two-weapon fighting. Heck, the bladeboot explicitly allows it. Some races can use weapons on their tails as well.

The only problem is that your citation is about Spell Combat (Ex) while he is speaking of Spellstrike (Su).

By strict reading of the rules using spellstrike (but not spell combat) a magus can cast a touch range spell and then deliver it using a weapon gripped in two hands.

1 to 50 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