|
A situation came up yesterday in our private campaign when a player made a TWF attack for which he declared the primary and offhand attacks against the same target. He claimed that because he had already declared he'd be making a full attack with both weapons, he didn't need to declare the order of the d20 rolls. That didn't sound right to me, as I recalled something in the full attack section of the combat chapter that stated you had to declare it. So I looked it up, and to my surprise the rule does seem to only demand the declaration/order when making an multi attack when a PC's BAB allows it; i.e. BAB +6/+1. Here's what the rules state and I highlighted the only section I could find about roll order.
Full Attack
If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step. You may take the step before, after, or between your attacks.
If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first.
Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack: After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round. If you've already taken a 5-foot step, you can't use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.
I looked up the rules under the TWF'ing section and the TWF Feat and nothing in those states the roll order must be declared. This really constitutes a "take the highest of the 2" for the primary attack IMO. I've always declared which weapon my rolls apply to in PFS play for my TWF Ranger, before actually making the roll. Surely there's some other section of the CRB that states the need for declaring a roll order - is there?
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He doesn't have to declare the order, but each d20 roll still goes with one attack...he can't just roll both dice at once, then use the highest for his primary and the lowest for his offhand.
He can choose to make his offhand first, however.
Attacks are always rolled one at a time conceptually even if you roll them all at once for time savings. I'd use different color d20s and assign one to each weapon.
|
|
You don't have to declare roll order for TWF attacks although generally people do them in order. However you do have to specify the weapon being used to make an attack before rolling either way. You can't pull shenanigans and just roll then pick what attack is what.
What if the player has declared they will absolutely be making their M-H and O-H against the same target and then rolls 2xd20?. Do they need to declare which 1 is for what hand before making the rolls?
Iv'e never seen rules that explicitly cover that, but I've also never seen a game where you can just roll the number of dice equal to the number of attacks the player is making, then allocate the dice based on where they want them to fall.
usually it's a "first d20 is main hand; 2nd d20 is off-hand" or "Blue die is main-hand, red die is off-hand"... something like that.
You don't have to declare roll order for TWF attacks although generally people do them in order. However you do have to specify the weapon being used to make an attack before rolling either way. You can't pull shenanigans and just roll then pick what attack is what.What if the player has declared they will absolutely be making their M-H and O-H against the same target and then rolls 2xd20?. Do they need to declare which 1 is for what hand before making the rolls?
Yes, they should. If their off hand and main hand deal different damage, I would most certainly enforce this. If, however, he is dual wielding a pair of wapons (two short swords or two kukri's etc.) and has the double slice feat so that he gets his full strength bonus to each of them and is not using power attack, and both weapons are the same quality (+1, +2, etc.) then I don't see a reason he would have to declare which is which. This is, however, likely not the case - so yes, he should declare which is which...
"I rolled for my long sword and my dagger... This roll was higher, so i want it to be for my long sword". If that's going on, clearly something is wrong.
|
|
He doesn't have to declare the order, but each d20 roll still goes with one attack...he can't just roll both dice at once, then use the highest for his primary and the lowest for his offhand.
Which is really what he was doing.
Attacks are always rolled one at a time conceptually even if you roll them all at once for time savings...
OK, well that's what I thought, but when I tried to find something in the rules that clearly stated that I couldn't find it?
Not entirely sure I understand the problem, but it looks to me like he's taken this combat option:
+6/+1 (primary)/+6 (off-hand)
and cherry-picked which dice applies to which bonus after the rolls, so if he got (say) 8, 18, 12, then he'd say that the 18 applied to the +1, the 12 to the +6 (primary) and the 8 to the +6 (off-hand), to maximise his rolls and likely damage output.
You're right that the rules are little shaky in how to allocate rolls to TWFing, and the only hard and fast rule is that iterative attacks with each weapon must take place in iterative order (there is some discussion regarding the off-hand weapon with ITWF and GTWF, but since both of those feats refer to extra attacks with the off-hand weapon, it is reasonable to require them to occur in order), and that you can squeeze off-hand attacks in between main-hand attacks however you wish (so a hypothetical +16/11/6/1 (primary), +16/11/6 (off-hand) could be done as +16 (off), +11 (off), +16 (pri), +6 (off), +11 (pri), +6 (pri), +1 (pri).
The trick is that unless you have stated in advance which weapon is linked to which dice, and which iterative, you can do what your player has done and cherry-pick. Which is definitely not the intended outcome. It's the equivalent of someone with +16/11/6/1 rolling 4 dice at the same time, getting 20, 6, 14, 2 and assigning them as 20+1, 6+11, 14+6 and 2+16, even though if he'd rolled them in order, the 2 would almost certainly have missed.
He is gaming the system.
Either require that he declare which dice is getting which bonus (and which weapon) in advance, or require him to roll the attacks one at a time, stating whether it's primary or off-hand.
|
|
If, however, he is dual wielding a pair of wapons (two short swords or two kukri's etc.) and has the double slice feat so that he gets his full strength bonus to each of them and is not using power attack, and both weapons are the same quality (+1, +2, etc.) then I don't see a reason he would have to declare which is which. This is, however, likely not the case - so yes, he should declare which is which...
He did have double-slice, but he also had different weapons; PC was an Elf with small Elven curve blade in M-H and short sword in O-H.
[Edit] Actually Chemlak, the player's PC had TWF and they were only making a M-H and O-H attack. The player agreed that what they were doing isn't allowed when your'e making a multi-attack due to having a secondary BAB. They felt it could only be performed when making a full-round TWF attack against the same target after having declared that both the M-H and O-H would be used - hence they were rolling 2xd20's.
|
|
The easiest way to go about rolling multiple times for TWF is using 2 different colored dice. Declare which dice is your main-hand and which is your off-hand before you ever roll so there is no confusion. Have the player roll the 2 dice together; this represents his/her first attack with both weapons. If he/she has Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, have them roll again for the second swing with each weapon, and so on and so forth.
|
He is gaming the system.
Either require that he declare which dice is getting which bonus (and which weapon) in advance, or require him to roll the attacks one at a time, stating whether it's primary or off-hand.
That's one solution. Another is this:
Next time he tries to roll them all without declaring which die is for which attack, simply stop him after he rolls but before he gives you totals and tell him, "Since I don't know which if these dice was intended for which attack, I'll allocate them as I see fit. If, in the future, you'd like to avoid having me determine which die you've rolled for an attack, I suggest you tell me before you roll which die belongs to which attack."
It's a little d-bagish, but so is rolling a fistful of dice and then arbitrarily deciding how they apply so they best suit your needs.
Another option, make him fight a marilith, roll all the attacks at one time, then decide how to allocate the rolls trying to make every one of them hit. That might get the idea across.
If, however, he is dual wielding a pair of wapons (two short swords or two kukri's etc.) and has the double slice feat so that he gets his full strength bonus to each of them and is not using power attack, and both weapons are the same quality (+1, +2, etc.) then I don't see a reason he would have to declare which is which. This is, however, likely not the case - so yes, he should declare which is which...He did have double-slice, but he also had different weapons; PC was an Elf with small Elven curve blade in M-H and short sword in O-H.
[Edit] Actually Chemlak, the player's PC had TWF and they were only making a M-H and O-H attack. The player agreed that what they were doing isn't allowed when your'e making a multi-attack due to having a secondary BAB. They felt it could only be performed when making a full-round TWF attack against the same target after having declared that both the M-H and O-H would be used - hence they were rolling 2xd20's.
The only time that works is if the two attacks are identical (same weapon, same bonuses, Double Slice, etc.). In that case, yes you can roll both attacks at the same time, because it doesn't matter which attack is which.
If there is any difference between the attacks (because you're using different weapons or don't have Double Slice), you have to separate each attack roll somehow. (I have 4 sets of color-coded d20s with matching d8s plus 4 d6s for sneak attacks.)
I rink the game assumes all rolls ate done sequencally and that multiple dice rolls at the same time are either a player connexion ROI speed up game play or specific to a fear like precise strike.
It also appears that telling the dm your to its for fell under the duo common sense the does not need to be a rulefor it.
He's basically cheating.
|
You don't have to declare roll order for TWF attacks although generally people do them in order. However you do have to specify the weapon being used to make an attack before rolling either way. You can't pull shenanigans and just roll then pick what attack is what.What if the player has declared they will absolutely be making their M-H and O-H against the same target and then rolls 2xd20?. Do they need to declare which 1 is for what hand before making the rolls?
There is a technical term for this: 'cheating'.
The book does not have, nor does it need, a written rule that says 'No cheating!' Nor do you have an obligation to point to such a rule in order to say you won't accept cheating at your table.